There’s a well-known adage goes something like, “If you’re not liberal at 20 you have no heart; if you’re still liberal at 40 you have no brain.”
Whether or not this is a good thing may be a matter of debate, but it is often observed that university students tend to be more liberal in their thinking, more focused on openness and dialogue. The recent kerfuffle over Jewish student life groups disaffiliating from Hillel is evidence enough.
We don’t know what to make of the move of groups like the Swarthmore Hillel leaving the international student organization and renaming themselves ‘Kehilah.’ On the one hand, we cannot deny the importance of dialogue, particularly in areas that tend to the divisive. On the other hand, the groups with which Swarthmore (et. al.) are proposing to dialogue with in some cases deny the right of Israel’s existence and support activities that look to isolate, punish and ultimately weaken the Jewish State. Are such groups worth conversation?
Moreover, by inviting such groups into a Jewish space, and providing them with a podium, are organizations like Swarthmore Kehilah in essence digging their own graves? They may be inviting people who deny the right of a Jewish state to exist. Is that akin to a civil rights activist inviting a Klansman for ‘dialogue’? Or is it even worse; could inviting groups that delegitimize the Jewish state lead the delegitimization of Jewish campus groups?
Post your opinion in a comment — this is one we’re not sure about: Is Hillel International right to impose certain limitations on dialogue partners? Or is Hillel acting dictatorial in controlling with whom its affiliates may speak?
