Warren G. Harding, the 29th
president of the United States, came to the presidency on the heels of a
landslide victory over his Democratic opponent, James M. Cox. (He was also the first
of our three presidents to move director from the Senate to the White House,
the other two being JFK and Barack Obama.) And there truly was a new age
dawning as Harding took the oath of office on March 4, 1921. The Great War was
over, the Treaty of Versailles in effect for more than a year, our troops all
back home. It was the Jazz Age, the Roaring Twenties, les années folles
in our nation and across the Atlantic in Europe. The future felt bright, our
national potential for growth almost limitless.
And then, just a couple of
months after Harding came to office, America experienced a race-based pogrom on
a scale that had never been seen before. Called the Tulsa Race Massacre (or,
sometimes, the Black Wall Street Massacre), the event featured mobs of white
citizens rampaging through the Greenwood district of Tulsa, a Black
neighborhood, eventually destroying 35 square blocks of homes and businesses. The
precise number of people killed during those days, May 31 and June 1 of 1921,
is not known, but the estimates range from 75 to 300. About 10,000 people were
left homeless. It was, even by the standards of the day, a shocking event that
seized the attention of the nation. To learn more, I recommend Tim Madigan’s
book, The Burning: Massacre, Destruction, and the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921,
which I read a decade ago when it first came out.
The riot presented President
Harding with a remarkable challenge because he was scheduled just two days
later to deliver the commencement address at Lincoln University in Oxford,
Pennsylvania, the nation’s first degree-granting Historically Black College. He
could surely have given some sort of color-by-number speech about graduating
college and moving into the future and been forgiven for his blandness. But he saw
an opportunity, a great one, and he took it. He only spoke for ten minutes. But
in those ten minutes, he identified himself with his Black listeners (a
remarkable thing for a white man in his office to do, and especially for the
President who followed Woodrow Wilson, a known racist and segregationist). He
wondered aloud how government, lacking a magic wand that could somehow alter
attitude and stance, could lead Black Americans forward to a position of
equality by working to offer Black Americans a chance to go to school, to
become educated, and to enter society on an equal footing with their white
co-citizens. And he spoke about Tulsa, calling the riot “an unhappy and
distressing spectacle” of the kind that the nation should not and cannot
tolerate. And then, in a gesture that will seem ordinary to most today but
which at the time was considered astonishing, the white President of the United
States shook the hand of every single Black member of the graduating class,
which was all of them.
I reminded myself all about
these two speeches as a way of preparing to hear President Biden speak Tuesday
morning about the surge of anti-Semitism in America. I was especially curious
to see if he would offer concrete steps forward or merely condemn prejudice, if
he would address the haters in the manner of Warren Harding standing in front
of a segregated audience in the heart of the South and daring to insist on
equality for Black Americans. Would Biden merely announce that he is opposed to
anti-Semitism in the way that people are opposed to bad weather, i.e., without
anyone supposing that he could actually do something about it? Or would we hear
concrete proposals about how our nation should move forward? I was especially
interested in hearing what he would say about our nation’s college campuses.
Would he call for the expulsion of students who openly call for the murder of
their Jewish classmates? Would he announce that guest-students in our nation
who openly espouse genocide directed against Jews (or anyone) be deported?
Would he say clearly that college professors, including tenured ones, who
espouse hatred of Jews should, at the very least, be fired? That was what I was
waiting to hear.
In the end, the President didn’t
call for any of the measures mentioned just above in so many words, but, almost
despite myself, I was impressed, even moved, by his words. The man is not a
great orator, but his words were clearly heartfelt and personal. And what he
had to say was beyond resonant with me because he artfully made the single point
over and over that I personally find it the most exasperating when our elected
officials seem not to understand.
To my relief and slight
amazement, the President seemed fully aware that it is not possible for Jewish
Americans with any sense of their own history to consider the events of October
7 other than in the context of the Shoah. Yes, I understand that Hamas-governed
Gaza is not Nazi Germany. But I am incapable of hearing stories about children
being murdered, women being sexually abused and then killed, elderly people
dragged from their homes and shipped off to unknown destinations to meet
whatever fate awaited them there—I am just not able to hear any of that without
being transported back to the dark days of the 1940s. Nor, I think, should
anyone be able to be. And then the President tied the two together
unambiguously: “Now here we are, not 75 years later, but
just seven-and-a-half months later and people are already forgetting, are
already forgetting that Hamas unleashed this terror. That it was Hamas that
brutalized Israelis. It was Hamas who took and continues to hold hostages. I
have not forgotten, nor have you, and we will not forget.” That is the precise point for
Jewish Americans: that to talk about Hamas without reference to murder, rape,
and barbarism towards babies is exactly the same as discussing the Nazis
without reference to Auschwitz.
And
then the President made that point even more clear, stressing that he
understood fully that the Israeli response to the Simchat Torah pogrom was
rooted in the history of the Jewish people and that those memories are, for
better or worse, ineradicable: Too many people [are] denying,
downplaying, rationalizing, ignoring the horrors of the Holocaust and October
7th, including Hamas' appalling use of sexual violence to torture and terrorize
Jews. It's absolutely despicable and it must stop…Some injustices are so
heinous, so horrific, so grievous they cannot be…buried, no matter how hard
people try.
I recommend reading the whole speech, which you can do by
clicking here. And I recommend comparing it to a document published on the
White House’s own website, a fact sheet detailing the Biden-Harris
administration’s national strategy to combat anti-Semitism. It’s a remarkable
document in its own right, something very worth your time to consider. (To see
a copy, click here.) You will find there more than 100 specific steps the
administration is taking or wishes to take to fight anti-Jewish prejudice in
these United States. Some of them seem a bit odd (will things really change if
enough NBA players visit Yad Vashem?), but other initiatives seem solid and
potentially very effective. But what struck me, aside from the details, was the
larger image here of the President offering not one or two, but dozens upon
dozens of initiatives to make Jewish people in our nation feel and be safe and
secure.
But that document was from last year, published in May 2023. It
still reads well. But this is now, not then. In May of 2023, our nation’s
college campuses hadn’t turned into battlegrounds onto which Jewish students
barely dare to wander and our nation’s high schools hadn’t become breeding
grounds for anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hatred. We hadn’t yet had the surge in
anti-Semitic incidents that the President himself characterized as “ferocious.”
So the efforts outlined in last year’s policy paper, for all they were surely
well-meaning and even potentially game-changing, need to be revised and
revamped in light of the new normal. The President did address the situation on
campus. And what he said was spot on (“In America we respect and protect the
fundamental right to free speech, to debate and disagree, to protest peacefully
and make our voices heard. But there is no place on any campus in America … for
antisemitism or hate speech or threats of violence of any kind.”) But I was disappointed that the President didn’t call for the
three-pronged approach to the situation on our nation’s campuses I recommended
above. And I do believe that things will not change until it becomes clear that
calling for more October 7’s, the equivalent of calling for the murder of
Jewish children and the rape of Jewish women and the wholesale slaughter of
Jewish families, will result in expulsion for students, dismissal for faculty,
and deportation for visitors from foreign lands who received visas to come to these
shores to study and not to call for the murder of our citizens. That was what I
wanted to hear and didn’t.
President Harding’s Birmingham speech was a grand moment for the
man and for the nation. But that was in 1921 and it took more than forty years
for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to become the law of the land. We can’t wait
forty years for focused, effective action on anti-Semitism. Nor should we have
to.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.