We have lost sight of the role disputation plays in the Jewish community.
by Stephen G. Donshik
Last week’s firing of a federation staff member for her blog post on eJewishPhilanthropy.com – which questioned the Jewish community’s priority on serving young adults – shocked and dismayed me as much as it did so many others. It should be a wake-up call for all of us involved in Jewish communal service. We must begin to reconsider the meaning of disputation in the Jewish community and whether writing about a controversial issue is tantamount to disloyalty to the organizations with which we affiliate as volunteer or professional leaders.
Michal Kohane, who for three years had been director of the Israel Center at the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, wrote a blog for this website titled “40 Plus and Screwed: More on Less Young Adult Engagement.” She argued that the overwhelming focus on serving young Jews was misplaced and that more priority should be given to serving those middle-aged and older. She wrote generally about what she considered to be the Jewish community’s incorrect focus and never once mentioned the San Francisco federation.
Yet the very day of its publication, Jennifer Gorowitz, CEO of the San Francisco federation, fired Ms. Kohane. In Ms. Gorowitz’s statement, released a few days later, she writes, “Public communications from within the organization require review and approval prior to publication…. The post published recently in eJewish Philanthropy, however, does not represent the views of the Federation.”
Ms. Kohane’s firing raises the question of any professional’s freedom of speech to comment on issues that may or may not be germane to the organization to which he or she is affiliated. Also forgotten in the fray over her termination is her take on the issue of how Jewish communal organizations serve those under 40 years of age as compared to the way they deal with older individuals. After all, she wrote the blog post to share her opinion and thereby to initiate a dialogue, discussion, and thoughtful process in which the community would explore its policies and practices with different age groups.
We have lost sight of the role disputation plays in the Jewish community. Historically the Jewish people were committed to the statement of disparate opinions and the subsequent response by informed and knowledgeable colleagues. Tradition has taught us the importance of disputation, and our system of Judaic law, Halakha, is based on the discussion of varied perspectives on the same issue.
Ms. Kohane’s posting began an exchange of ideas. Initially it evoked a few responses on the website, but after her termination was announced, both the number and the content of responses changed. The number of responses increased dramatically, and their focus switched from the content of her blog – age-based programming – to the right of a federation employee to express an opinion. The responses raised these questions: Why was the dialogue ended prematurely with the firing of the professional who expressed her professional assessment of the way we develop community programs? What are the organizations afraid of? Are they concerned that their thoughtful and committed professional leadership will say or write something that will put the Jewish community in a vulnerable position? Are they afraid their dirty laundry will be viewed in public? Are they afraid donors will cease supporting the community and its institutions because professionals are articulating that the policies and programs are less than perfect?
A wonderful opportunity was lost by this change of focus. There was no more discussion on whether the Jewish community’s focus on young people is misplaced, a discussion that might have capitalized on the creativity of the professional and volunteer leaders in the Jewish community. We should not be afraid of articulating different perspectives and ideas that question accepted practices or seem to fly in the face of Jewish tradition. The richness of our Jewish laws and traditions has developed precisely because of the ability of our sages to question each other and to speak freely and openly as long as the process did not embarrass anyone. In this situation Ms. Kohane was not embarrassing the federation or placing it in a compromising situation.
Perhaps I identify strongly with her because I was placed in a similar position many years ago. I had drafted a paper for the Journal of Jewish Communal Service on the North American Jewish Federations’ relationship to Israel. The paper was critical of the nature of the connection between the federation system and Israel, suggesting ways it could be changed. I submitted it to the director of marketing and communication for the organization with whom I was then working and received a very disturbing response. Although the paper was written well, I was told that only the CEO of the organization spoke publicly about the federations and Israel.
Needless to say, I was frustrated and distraught. What message was being communicated to me about freedom of thought and expression, put forth for the purpose of initiating a discussion of ideas and points of view? Perhaps this is why I feel so uncomfortable and at odds with the San Francisco federation’s response to a thoughtful professional who is committed to the Jewish community and strengthening the connection that Jewish people of all ages have with the community.
I encourage professionals to continue to think creatively, to feel free to express themselves within their organizations, and to become more comfortable writing so they can share their ideas with others. At the same time I encourage our volunteer officers and board members and our CEOs to be more supportive of the process of open discourse and the exchange of thoughts and opinions. As we learn to encourage our professionals to think critically and to communicate with others, we will discover new ways to strengthen the Jewish community.
Stephen G. Donshik, D.S.W., is a lecturer at Hebrew University’s International Nonprofit Management and Leadership Program and has a consulting firm focused on strengthening nonprofit organizations and their leadership for tomorrow. Stephen is a regular contributor to eJewish Philanthropy.
For further reading:
Michal Kohane’s 40 Plus and Screwed: More on Less Young Adult Engagement;
Dan Brown’s The Cost of Criticism;
and Jennifer Gorowitz’s complete statement.
We also call your attention to the comment sections on both posts.
Top
Too much is being made of this as a “freedom of speech” or “exchange of ideas” or “openness to criticism” or “culture of dispute” issue. This is fundamentally about professionalism and what respect for one’s position, one’s colleagues, and ones employer requires.
Disagreement within an organization is healthy, and it should be encouraged. But disagreements should be handled respectfully, according to formal processes – which usually means IN HOUSE. And when a matter is resolved according to the accepted process, you respect it and move on too. If your perspective lost because someone outranks you, then do your best and move up in the organization. If you didn’t convince enough people, work on building alliances. If your argument wasn’t compelling, build a better case. But you don’t go and have a public fit about it, and you don’t pull an “end run” and say, go to a board member, or a donor, or the media. If everyone behaved that way, you wouldn’t have a culture of disputation, you’d have anarchy.
If you HAVE to blow off steam, talk to your friends. If you want to do a larger reality check, write an ANONYMOUS blog post and see what responses you get.
But don’t expect to publicly skewer (and mock) some of your co-workers and the organization you work for, and then say it’s all part of a “healthy debate and disagreement.”
Wow! Andy-I’m not sure who you are, and I don’t mean offense, but you totally don’t get the issues raised so eloquently by Stephen Donshik. Organizations that thrive in the 21st Century need to “allow” their employees to express their opinions publicly. I don’t know the details of this particular situation, and I’m sure that there are many “versions” to the truth behind it-or more likely, conflicting perspectives. But radical openness, as shown by enabling employees to speak their minds within the framework of their organizational missions, builds public trust. CEO’s and board chairs should work to educate staff members and volunteers about their mission and values. But within that framework, there should be room for a machlokhet l’shem shamayim-a constructive, principled disagreement that is meant to make the Jewish community stronger. You want organizations to be more relevant and engage with constituents? Empower them to Tweet, Blog, post on FaceBook, LinkedIn, post a video to YouTube, etc. And that means that the marketing department and CEO can’t “vet” content. Let employees use their judgment. They will make mistakes, but in the end, they will contribute fresh ideas and perspectives, reach more people and help their organizations be rightfully perceived by the public as worthy of trust.
I am a believer in machloket and healthy disagreement. But I think we make a mistake when we confuse real productive disagreement between people within an organization – within a relationship – and “going off” about something in a public contextless forum. Writing a screed in a blog is not the same as taking a strong position within your office, participating in the process, and then supporting the ultimate decision. Complaining publicy about things said to you in a meeting by a colleague is not collegial behavior. Productive disagreement requires trust and a feeling that you and others are pulling in the same direction. If I read a blog post from a colleague in which I or my position are ridiculed, how do you think that will affect how I work with them in the future? Will we have a better and freer exchange of ideas? When we feel that someone is wrong, the Torah commands us to give to tochachah, rebuke. But that is given directly, privately, and with love. It isn’t a public shaming and it isn’t lashon hara. There were a million different ways to write a piece about the overemphasis on youth outreach at the expense of other segments of the population, without making it about personal insults, and without the mocking. It demonstrated bad professional judgement. Filters aren’t a bad thing. The right balance of straight talk and filters enables you to have both something to say AND people who care to listen.
I am sorry but this is getting way out of control. We do not know any details about what, if any issues led up to this termination. We don’t know if there were previous violations of policy or poor performance. WE DO NOT KNOW and to go on and on making assumptions that this person was terminated simply for “free speech” is ridiculous. Personnel issues and decisions are private for a reason.
Allie, I’m sorry but that is not really correct. Michael had stated that is why she was terminated and the Federation pretty much concurred.
The issue is that the Federation is a communal institution which should be transparent and open to the community it represents. These policies should be responsive to communal discussion. It is not just an internal matter.
(Speaking as a veteran of the 1970 occupation of the NY Federation headquarters, when I was young, which called for more democracy in the decision making of the Federation)
I’d like to untangle two issues:
1. The particular case of what happened
2. The need for radical openness in organizations.
My earlier comment was less about the particular case #1), as disturbing as it is, and more about #2.
The emerging signature form of organization today is networks. Networks thrive on transparency. Networks innovate. They foster dialogue-not monologue. One of the primary structural issues facing mainstream organizations is to move from a hierarchy, which tries to control all moves within the organization, to a network, that embraces ongoing two way interaction. This is a major paradigm shift (you can see my book, Tomorrow’s Synagogue Today. Creating Vibrant Centers of Jewish Life, for a broad discussion about this shift). But-if established organizations do not succeed at making this shift, they risk undoing all of the good work that they perform for the Jewish community.
Mr. Donshik’s thoughts are well expressed. I agree with him. I am a former Federation employee of the Sacramento Federation. I worked with Michal Kohane in a number of capacities. I have tremendous respect for her and her thoughts. Some of the responders have decsribed the importance of following internal protocols as well as when it is appropriate to “air dirty laundry.” These are important issues.
1. Did Ms. Kohane’s actions truly merit termination? Is there more to the story?
2. There are proper times and places for communal discussion. I do not believe that Ms. Kohane’s column crossed the boundary.
I am a 33 year old physician. I am a husband, a father and a veteran. Since I settled into civilian life, I have been barraged by requests for donations from every quarter of the Jewish community. Synagogue dues are in the thousands. The federation always wants me to pledge my life away. My local federation has resorted to having a retired dentist make the “call” to me annually. During this call, he attempts to influence me as a “senior colleague” that I can give more than I feel I can comfortably give. Last year, I gave nearly $10,000 to the community when all was said and done. It isn’t easy. People see “M.D” and think “big bucks” or worse “endless bankroll.”
My synagogue cut almost all young family programs. It has a scholarship find which hasn’t been touched in years. Their reasoning for the former? The board, all of whom are over 45, felt that our focus on the “milennials” was too much. As part of their decision they said “if young people want a free meal, let them go to chabad.” Two days later, I got a call from the same retired dentist asking for a check; the shul needed to buy a new dishwasher.
I never objected to the Jewish community being for all ages and walks of life. I never expected the synagogue to be in the business of endlessly entertaining me and my family. But the reality is that there is this horrendous “what’s in it for me?” mentality. It isn’t just milennials. Ms. Kohane’s blog post proves that. She references a “milennial child” speaking at a meeting. How cute. Was this child accompanied by his parents? Doubtful, because Ms. Kohane chose to label a young adult with the label of being a “child.” This is a member of the community who is a colleague.
I can stomach the retired dentist and his minyan of volunteer fundraisers because they are volunteers. They are trying to bleed me dry without making a dime. I can respect their position, even if I am simply not as rich as they seem to think I am. But when a paid member of the Jewish community expresses this level of unprofessionalism, it is time she seek new employment opportunities, voluntarily or otherwise.
If a man got up and said “penicillin is a scam and women have no business being doctors” it would be an unfortunate and ignorant comment. If that man happened to be the chief of staff at a major medical center, it would be time for him to move on.
Ms. Kohane’s post hurt me. It hurt me a lot. It hurt me to think that my dollars paid for people like her who undoubtedly feel the ways he expressed. It makes me wonder how many agist bigots I am currently funding.
I am happy to pay money to send a college student to Israel. I am happy to give money to the rabbi’s discretionary fund to pay the bills of a poor 50 year old who cannot afford groceries. But I am not happy to subsidize the salaries of ANY Jewish professional who snubs their nose (publicly or otherwise) at any segment of Jews. I am not happy to give money to support a person who wants to write off an entire segment of the Jewish population as greedy, self entitled and immature, particularly when she seems to embody those same vices.
Every generation has a different need. The young folks need ways to connect to Judaism when they don’t have money. Starting out fresh from college isn’t an easy task and many of them are burdened with massive student loan debts. The elderly typically require more pastoral care from our Rabbis and Cantors and more nursing home visits by our caring community. Somewhere in the middle are people of mine and Ms. Kohane’s age. Our needs all vary by spirituality and financial means. But to write off any segment (particularly a large segment) of the population is not responsible.
Ms. Kohane will find another job. And I will make certain that not a penny of mine finds its way to wherever she lands. Freedom of expression is fine. Disagreement is fine. But her post stunk of personal prejudice and I refuse to be a part of it.