Israel is one of few countries on earth with two independence days: sure, you could celebrate the Jewish state's independence on May 14th (or on the 5th of Iyar, if you prefer), in recognition of David Ben Gurion's declaration of the state of Israel after the termination of the British mandate. But if one independence day just isn't enough, you could also celebrate on November 29th, the anniversary of the UN's 1947 approval of the Partition Plan--effectively, the international community's official recognition of a Jewish state in Palestine.

And celebrate they did at JTS, where a lunchtime reenactment of the pivotal vote helped distract cafeteria patrons from their usual stale tofu and last-minute Talmud translations. Instead, the seminarians put on their best accents as the vote was called from a podium in the center of the cafeteria: "Australia votes in favor of partition. Crikey!," one shouted. "Costa Rica votes si!" "Luxembourg votes yes for particion."

Boos went up when His Majesty's government offered a demure abstention, but the cafeteria erupted in cheers moments later when the Soviets registered a historic vote of support. Excitement built as South American and former British commonwealth nations carried the Zionists to a 33-13 victory--with Cuba being, as the moderator noted, "the only nation the Arabs were able to convince by force of argument."

Of course the partition vote is one of the most controversial and commented upon events in modern history. No matter--that, (as well as the fact that this was, afer all, a reenactment) didn't take away from the post-vote singing of Hatikva, in recognition of "the hope that was realized 60 years ago." Agonizing over socio-historical complexities is what the other 364 days of the years are for: in that vein, it was announced that this weekend marks the beginning of Conservative Judaism's year-long effort to explore and discuss the implications of Jewish statehood in, recognition of the country's 60th anniversary. Cake now, grueling self-examination later!

Speaking of which, Bwog suspects there wasn't an Israeli flag cake at the real U.N. vote, but we'll let it slide.

-ARR

Turns out the mysterious Tao Tan is now in Australia. Stranger still, he's been paying attention to the latest news coming out of Morningside Heights. The armchair Columbia historian's thoughts (which matter, we think) on today's front-page shocker:

1) I had drinks and lunch with Peter Awn some years ago. I have a very good friend who's my age and who's in GS, because he's also JTS and the joint program is only GS-JTS and BC-JTS. I asked Awn have they ever thought offering a CC-JTS programme, so my friend could go into something more his age group and still be able to pursue his JTS studies. Awn waffled, saying something like how the GS-JTS program is longstanding and how it would be impossible to satisfy the CC Core requirements whilst still taking JTS studies.

To me, this smelled like BS because 1) GS has the same core requirements as CC, and 2) BC has a similar core load in terms of credits. It is far more likely that the GS-JTS joint programme was conceived because when it was conceived (in the 1950s), CC was a bit, shall we say, anti-Semitic...but, GS is composed of 40% people of "traditional" age (most of whom are JTS enrollees) and 60% older people. I think that the prime beneficiaries in this are the traditional-aged GS-JTS students.

[jump]

2) I think if they ever considered a merger, GS admission rates and class sizes would drop precipitously. In the 1960s and 1970s, GS was 3-5x larger than CC, because back then, GS was a cash cow that took open enrollments. After Awn took over in 1995, started offering up competitive merit-based financial aid, and tried to make GS a more selective school, enrollments dropped and admission rates dropped as well (to just below 50%). The key takeaways from this is that IF GS is recast in the mold of a more traditional school, they will have to do something about the merit-based financial aid -- because, as you know, the Ivy League does not grant merit-based aid. If GS goes all-need-based, then it will become unbelievably more competitive to get into.

3) I have $100 Aussie dollars that absolutely nothing of any significance will come of this...a professor once told me that every few years, Columbia announces some sort of revamping operation (this being no different) that comes out with sweeping, grandiose plans to fundamentally change blah blah blah. And when they do come out with their much-ballyhooed report, the alumni revolt makes sure the whole thing is quietly shuffled and buried and nobody thinks much of it until when a few years down the line, the next hare-brained committee is formed.

The most recent task force that professor served on was the one right after the 1996 hunger strike on ethnic studies when a task force was formed to talk about the future of undergraduate education and curricula at Columbia. After that he got tenure and refused to deal with any more faculty committee crap. I think a possible compromise they might dream up is that GS will have to fundraise until it has sufficient monies to run a sustainable need-based-aid regime, and then talk about closer integration -- knowing full well that it is beyond unlikely for GS to fundraise like that. That way, they can throw a concessionary bone to GS , while making sure that -- in the grand tradition of faculty committees past -- nothing. Ever. Happens.

Armin Rosen spent the past couple nights seeing what The Tribe is up to.

Jewish philosophical smack dooooooown!

It's about time the philosophical salon made a comeback: on Tuesday night, a couple dozen List College students gathered in the Mathilde Shechter music room for some laid back Judaically-focused philosophical disputation. The night's topic was the so-called "New Atheism"--the aggressive attack on religion led by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others.

JTS philosophy professor Leonard Levin began by arguing that the "new atheists" do not realize how little science and religion actually disprove one another. While science explains the particulars of the physical universe in ways that religion can't, religion provides the underlying meaning and guidance that science lacks. "Until recently," Levin said, "religious experience is all of human experience." Religion is personally and communally centering, and strives to, and occasionally succeeds in, addressing important, fundamental truths.

Dr. Austin Darcy from the atheist Center for Inquiry spoke partly in defense of the "new atheists"--while he disagreed with their assertion that "religion poisons everything," he said that Hitchens and his ilk are removing religion from its pedestal and giving it the unsparing intellectual analysis it deserves. He deployed a Kantian proof that the logical basis for theism runs similar to justifications for atheism: Kant argued that man believes in a God that will order an unordered world, but since the world is assumed to be unordered, Kant's postulate of practical reason proves that theism is little more than elaborate rationalizing.

The night's arguments were pretty standard, but never trite: Levin, for instance, rebutted the claim that Theists irrationally uphold a solipsistic view of the universe by quoting a 3^rd century Talmudic rabbi's shockingly accurate estimation of the number of stars. Of course we've heard this all before: that theism is scientifically and morally untenable, and that religion is more than just blind belief in something we can't hope to see or interact with. And the arguments had their usual weaknesses: Levin's concession that secular philosophy could provide the same kind of objective morals as religion means that religion is preferable for utilitarian, rather than qualitative reasons--if religion is superior simply because more people can understand Exodus than Locke's First Treatise on Government, how superior is it, really?

Yesterday, PrezBo dusted off the ol' blue and white robes and headed north for the inauguration of JTS's new chancellor. Bwogger Armin Rosen dressed less ridiculously for the occasion.

During his inaugural address as the newly-minted seventh chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, former Stanford professor Arnold Eisen recalled how, as a staffer for the Daily Pennsylvanian in the early 70s, he asked socially conscious Seminary professor Abraham Joshua Heschel why felt he could use Jewish tradition in order to deal with contemporary crises, and how he had the chutzpah to believe that it mattered to do so. "Because words count," the venerable Heschel responded--implying, in Eisen view, that Judaism had given him a responsibility to participate in the political and cultural conflicts of his time, and had, inevitably, enabled his words and ideas to matter.

Let the spin-doctoring begin: "It's a victory for free speech and anti-racism."

Kind farewell to Lisa Anderson: "Being in SIPA next to the law school is like living in Mexico on the border of the U.S."

JTS decides to admit gays and lesbians. In other news, sky does not fall.

SGB "combats social injustice" by...recognizing groups that will do it for them

Inside the university's rules procedure: where's Kafka when you need him?

In a debate that could serve as a case study for a 2007 edition of James Davison Hunter's Culture Wars, followers of conservative Judaism have fought long and hard over whether to ordain homosexual rabbis. At the center of the argument lies the Columbia-affiliated Jewish Theological Seminary, the generally-accepted center of Conservative Jewish thought. Although a decision for the broader congregation was made in early December (pro-gay rights), individual institutions (like JTS) have been left to resolve the issue for themselves.

Some mensches at JTS took the matter on and have lobbied for the implementation of the progressive policy, but a verdict hasn't been made as of late. The newest development is JTS' cumulation of opinions of Conservative Jews across the US, picked up by the national news. Armin Rosen sent in JTS Chancellor-elect Arnold Eisen's e-mail with the results of the survey on homosexual ordination ("and other hot-button religious issues"). Rosen writes that the e-mail reflects "remarkably consistent support for gay ordination across the board... whether clergy or other Jewish professionals or lay leaders or students", and the respondents' "no-less-striking... commitment to a number of key principles of Conservative Judaism, notably the centrality of halakhah and egalitarianism; the need for a centralized Rabbinical Assembly Law Committee; and opposition to both patrilineal descent and rabbis officiating at mixed marriages."

In sum, it ain't over 'till it's over. Which it's not. Text of the e-mail and more commentary after the jump.

- JDC

Guest Bwog reporter Bari Weiss analyzes what the Jews are talking about now.

The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS), the rabbinical committee of the Conservative movement, made international news today when it decided to allow gays and lesbians to be ordained as rabbis and rabbis to perform commitment ceremonies. The Conservative Movement is sandwiched in between Orthodox and Reform Judaism. 200+ students, professors, and rabbis (with rabbinical students in Israel piped in over speaker phone) packed the synagogue at the Jewish Theological Seminary, the flagship of the Conservative movement at 122^nd and Broadway this afternoon in order to discuss the three tshuvot, or rabbinic responses, passed today in regards to the status of gays and lesbians in the movement.

Operating on Jewish time, the community-wide meeting was called for 3:30, but was postponed for an hour until key members of the CJLS made it back from their East Side press conference. Sara Horowitz, Dean of Student Life, used the dead airtime to make this announcement: "As long as we're here, let me make an announcement about community: Shabbat dinner! Friday night!"

Once Rabbi Joel Meyers (Executive Vice President of the Rabbinical Assembly) and Rabbi Kass Abelson (the Chair of the CJLS) arrived, things got down to business. Here's the breakdown, crypto-Jewish style, of the big news: