Counter Is Correct

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I am a Jew, somewhat active in Hillel, though I often find myself in Political disagreement with people there.

I am writing to respond to the recent outcry against S. Allen Counter, particularly Daniel Libenson's demand for his resignation as director of the Harvard Foundation, because I think this demand is unnecessary, based partly on inaccuracies, and damaging to Harvard's racial climate.

To give a framework, consider Counter's statement that "out most intractable racial conflict has been between Jewish and Black students." Have there been any recent incidents involving direct conflict between ethnic/racial student organizations other than those involving Hillel and the Black Students Association? No.

But more than once the major Jewish organization, Hillel, has criticized actions of the major Black organization, BSA (criticism which was certainly often justified). Counter's statement is correct. Other recent racial incidents on campus involved action of individuals, not entire ethnic/racial student groups.

Within this framework, does Counter "insinuate a Jewish conspiracy on campus between Hillel and The Crimson," as Libenson says he might? Counter observes that many Crimson writers are active in Hillel.

He does not impugn their objectivity because they are Jewish; only a small proportion of Jews are active in Hillel. Admittedly, Counter is uncharitable in accusing Crimson writers of skewing coverage to serve their own "special interest" but it's common sense that students active in an organization will be more likely to cover the organization favorably, and thus cover and organization favorably, and thus cover and organization in conflict with it unfavorably.

The observation that The Crimson's many staff active in Hillel and lack of Black staff may well bias its coverage of racial conflicts is nothing like a Jewish-media conspiracy theory; it is an observation of a potential conflict of interest on the part of Crimson staff members that may affect their coverage.

(We need not look far to find unfair coverage: on April 17 Ira Stoll wrote that 'many saw [Counter's letter] as inaccurate and insensitive to Jews," which implies to anyone who reads between the lines that every objective person say Counter's letter as inaccurate and insensitive. In fact, the harshest criticism given by any of the three non-Jewish minority student leaders interviewed elsewhere on the page is "It seems that a number of things could be taken offensively by the Jewish community.")

Counter has at least as much evidence for criticizing The Crimson as Libenson has for ascribing the conspiracy theory to Counter.

Libenson also attacks Counter for having had the temerity to quote him. Libenson says, "It's completely unprofessional to take the words of a student and say anything about them in a public forum" (April 16).

Can he possibly mean this? Examine the use Counter made of Libenson's quote, "Harvard's celebration of Christian holidays such as Christmas is as offensive to Jews as is racism to Blacks."

Counter did not, as Libenson says, use it to demonstrate some sort of plot, or to "assert that Harvard Jews have an agenda of publicly criticizing the Foundation's work," or to "publicly put down" anyone (he didn't use Libenson's name), or even to say that Libenson speaks for the Jewish community.

He used it as an example of a "concern raised by the Hillel students that go [es] far beyond the scope and the mandate of the Harvard Foundation" and said that it "did not promote further discussion of race relations." That Christmas is a basic part of American culture is certainly beyond the scope of the Foundation.

And it seems that Libenson does speak for Hillel students: Richard Primus, for instance, wrote a column in the Independent in October using the rhetoric of affirmative action to raise this concern, and I have heard this concern raised numerous times around Hill with no dissent but mine.

These comments have the theme that Jews are a "disadvantaged minority" (Primus's words), discriminated against as Blacks are. As such, they are offensive because they belittle discrimination against Blacks.

How could anyone, in any context, really think that "Harvard's celebrations of Christian holidays...is as offensive to Jews as is racism to Black"? Racism includes violence against Blacks by mobs and the police, harassment in housing, discrimination in promotion and hiring and a million other things beside which "Harvard's celebration of Christian holiday" is less than trivial.

If Libenson was trying to show how both Blacks and Jews face marginalization, his statement betrays a lack of understanding of the enormity of the marginalization of Blacks compared to that of Jews (as do similar statements Libenson has made, and some of Primus's writings; within Hillel I have no protest against these statements, although several Jews outside Hillel have criticized them to me.)

Such unrealistic statements by students in Hillel hurt constructive discussion of race relations by showing that those making the statement do not understand the enormity of racism. Reading The Crimson, or attending Hill Coordinating Council meetings, one would get the impression that the only source of racial tension is the offensive speakers SBA invites.

Both Blacks and Jews must work to alleviate racial tension. The SBA's invitation of Leonard Jeffries was hugely offensive to Jews (and others), and Counter should condemn Jeffries much more strongly than he has.

But students in Hillel should be realistic about the discrimination they face and the discrimination Blacks face. They should not trivialize discrimination against Blacks, as some seem to do; and they should not find anti-Semitism where it is not present, as Libenson has done in his call for Counter's resignation.

Libenson's charges are not supported by Counter's letter, and in persisting with them Libenson delivers a blow to Harvard's racial climate.