An Act of Racism

EARLY LAST SATURDAY morning, a racist crime took place at Harvard, and so far, neither the students nor the administration have taken any public action or made any public statement condemning the crime. This absence of anger is almost as disturbing as the crime itself.

I refer to the vandalism of the Hillel sukkah (a temporary structure built and used by Jews in observance of the holiday Sukkot) on the corner of Holyoke and Winthrop Sts. Of course, not every act damaging a Jewish structure can or should be viewed as anti-Semitism. In the past, for example, Hillel's sukkah was damaged when students who did not know the structure's significance allegedly did chin-ups on the supporting bars, causing it to partially collapse. Appropriately, their ignorance was not misconstrued as enmity.

This incident is different. Several aspects of the vandalism, which caused portions of the roof to cave in and left half the sukkah unusable, strongly suggest that this incident was motivated by anti-Semitism. University officials and police are taking the issue seriously; they have been in touch with Hillel Director Sally Finestone, and are pursuing an investigation to find the perpetrators.

But these silent actions are not enough. In a community where even the ostensibly fair-minded are urged to attend workshops to purge their hidden racism, where personal incidents of racism become major campus issues and public incidents become semester-long odysseys, the administration's reluctance to identify this act as anti-semitic is surprising and disappointing.

Perhaps the administration is taking its cue from the Harvard Jewish community, which has also hesitated to label the vandalism anti-Semitic. If this is the case, Jewish students, too, should recognize the act for what it is.

ALTHOUGH SOME contend that the perpetrators did not know the implications of their actions, I disagree. The degree of effort, planning and malice that went into the vandalism make its explanation as a drunken prank or an act of random destruction seem empty and contrived.

The vandalism required the collective efforts of several people for at least an hour. More than 50 bolts adjoining the metal poles that formed the structure were removed. The joints that held the poles together were then flipped so as to make the structure even more unstable. The poles were left standing, so that the damage was not obvious. Since the bolts were about 15 feet above the ground, they could only have been reached by standing on the rickety folding chairs and tables in the sukkah. That would have required a degree of balance and dexterity rare enough when sober, and certainly absent when intoxicated.

In addition, the corner where the sukkah stands, tucked between the Owl and Spee Clubs and en route to Lowell and Winthrop, is frequently passed by students until late at night. Either the vandals were extremely careful to make no noise and attract no attention, or the crime took place after people had gone to bed, perhaps at 2:00 or 3:00 a.m., or even later. That people would go to such trouble on a cold weekend night to disturb and endanger Jews is extremely upsetting. It also implies a motive stronger than an ignorant impulse for destruction.

ALSO SUGGESTING a deeper motive is the degree of premeditation such an act required. Planning was needed to coordinate the members of the group and pick a time when they would not be noticed.

It was also needed for the job itself. According to those who built the sukkah, the bolts were securely fastened with a wrench, and would have been impossible to remove by hand. To do so much damage, the vandals would have needed tools--wrenches, and flashlights if it took place before dawn--that most people don't have lying around just in case they decide to play a joke. Because the sukkah is located away from the main thoroughfare, the act was so time consuming, and the damage was so extensive, it is ridiculous to think the decision to vandalize it was made on the spur of the moment. The act must have been intentional and planned.

The unusually malicious nature of the crime also points to an anti-Semitic motive. While the vandals left the sukkah structurally unsound, they gave no warning signals. There were no scrawled slogans, no spray-painted swastikas. There was not even any damage to the cloth walls or the bamboo roof. Such damage would have been easier to do, and would have sent a clear expression of hatred.

The destruction seems instead to have intentionally been done in such a way that the structure would stand--until someone leaned against the wrong pole, and had the roof crash down on her head. Jews who used the sukkah without noticing the damage, such as the children who were the first to enter the sukkah Saturday morning, could have been gravely injured or killed.

Perhaps this was the vandals' intention. Even if it was not--if they underestimated the lethal potential of their actions, or if they had other intentions than to leave the sukkah standing precariously--the injury they could have caused cannot be ignored. The fact that there was no visible, emotional message does not mitigate the incident; to the contrary, intentionally creating danger and leaving no signal is far more hateful and pernicious.

MOST UPSETTING of all, it is likely that the vandals are Harvard students or affiliates. The location is removed from the Square, off the normal path of visitors to the area. And, as shown above, the act had to be done by people who knew the location, knew the structure, and could plan a time to destroy it unnoticed. Realistically, only those commonly in the area would have been able to pull this off. While I hope it was not done by members of our community, I am not naive enough to think it impossible. Anti-Semitism is not limited to Nazis and Klansmen; it exists literally in our own backyard.

This is not the first time people have tampered with the sukkah. But never before has such a degree of effort, planning, and knowledge gone into the damage, and never before has it been so malicious. Not every act of damage to Jewish property can rightly be called anti-Semitism. But when an act is as deliberate and vicious as this one, we are fooling ourselves to think it can be called something else.