BSA-Hillel Relations Grow in Hard Times

When the Black Students Association invited controversial City University of New York (CUNY) Leonard Jeffries to speak at Harvard two years ago, tensions between Blacks and Jews on campus exploded.

Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel organized a protest of more than 450 students to picket outside the speech. Television coverage was intense, and even 30 uncalled-for representatives of the national Jewish Defense League showed up.

This year, when the BSA hosted a speech by Wellesley professor Anthony Martin, whose writings have been compared with Jeffries' statements on the relations between Jews and anti-Black racism, Hillel did not protest. Members passed out a letter at the event, and did little more.

There was no picketing. There was no media frenzy. A few days later, there was even a calm and conciliatory dialogue between BSA and Hillel, which leaders described as "frank and open."

What changed between 1992 and today?

Leaders of both groups give several answers. The leadership is different. Hillel chair Elie G. Kaunfer '95 and BSA President Kristen M. Clarks '97 maintained a dialogue throughout. The two groups built relations with shared events before Martin came.

But perhaps the most ironic answer given by members of both Hillel and BSA is that it was Jeffries himself who improved relations between the two groups. The shadow of the 1992 incident and its aftermath has hung over Blacks and Jews for two years, and no one wanted to see it repeated with a different controversial speaker.

"For myself personally and many of the seniors, [the Jeffries speech] was a defining moment of my freshman year," says Michael H. Pine '95, who helped organize the recent BSA Hillel dialogue. "I wasn't particularly active in Hillel then. The fallout front that event encouraged me to get involved in this issue [of Black-Jewish relations]."

The Jeffries Speech

Jeffries was the focus of national controversy the summer before his speech, when his theories on a racism conspiracy involving Jewish member of the media were made public.

The speech, in Sanders Theatre was a massive event: it drew 1200 students, who paid admission. Harvard stationed police officers and security guards around the building.

The protest organized by Hillel involved nine different students groups, including several other ethnic organizations.

In the wake of Jeffries' speech relations between Hillel and the BSA hit a low point.

Shal A. Held '94, then chair of Hillel, said at the time that he saw wound, but not a break." The protest was not against the BSA itself, he noted, but Hillel was "disappointed" with the choice of speaker.

A week after the Jeffries speech, the Freshman Black Table (FBT) hosted a discussion about Black-Jewish relations that turned into a heated debate. In an indication of the tensions spawned by the speech, students traded opinions but found little common ground.

"Tensions were very high," outgoing Hillel chair Elie G. Kaunfer '95 says. "There were 60 to 70 people there, and no one was really listening to each other."

Jeffries' speech had long-lasting repercussions. From that time on, Kaunfer says, there was a two-year full in communication between the groups.

"Our groups didn't have much contact at all," Kaunfer says. "There was extreme tension."

The Martin Speech

The Martin event had a different dynamic from the start, Black and Jewish students say. Martin, whose book The Jewish Onslaught draws links between Jewish history and anti-Black racism, is not as prominent as Jeffries.

"Jeffries is a big name, everyone in America knows him," says Jim B. Loeffler '96, co-chair of Hillel's interethnic committee. "Tony Martin is not as well-known, in some ways a much more marginal figure in academia."

There was also more preparation and consequently more time for tensions to build in the Jeffries case, students say.

"We only found out about [Martin] the day before he was speaking." Kaunfer says. "There wasn't time for people to sit around and get more and more angry."

The topics discussed during the two speeches were also different. Jeffries made assertions of African racial superiority during his speech, calling every other "so-called race...a genetic off-spring of the African race."

Martin came to talk about the controversial book The Bell Curve, though he veered into topics related to "the Jewish tradition" of racism.

"Martin was here to decry The Bell Curve, which was a good thing in Hillel's eyes," Kaunfer says. "It wasn't seen as a direct attack."

Closer Relations

But these differences between the 1992 event and today were not the deciding factors in preventing a blowup, leaders from Hillel and the BSA agree.

Instead, they say, closer relations between leaders of the two groups, and their members as well, kept heated differences at a low simmer.

The BSA and Hillel have worked together on various initiatives over the past year. Last spring, the two organizations co-sponsored three study breaks.

"It was the first time since I've been here that BSA and Hillel have met in a non-crisis situation," Kaunfer says. "It was some precedent."

Hillel also recently supported a BSA protest against The Bell Curve. In fact, the Wednesday meeting had been planned by the two groups far before the Martin incident sprang up.

"It just happened to come at a good time," says Loeffler.

In contrast, when the Jeffries' speech happened, the members of both groups were distant.

"When I was a freshman, we had never done anything with the BSA," Kaunfer says, "and then the first contact was with Jeffries."

The relationship between the present leadership of both groups is also more friendly than in the past, students say.

"I think our leadership knows a lot of their leadership well...as opposed to...[a] few years ago," says BSA historian David W. Brown '97, who is a Crimson editor.

The boards of both groups have communicated more frequently, even having dinner meetings once in a while to discuss topics relevant to both groups.

Part of the reason that difficulties over Martin speech were deflected so quickly, Kaunfer says, was that he and BSA President Kristen M. Clarke '97 were in constant contact.

"I called Kristen as soon as I found out about Tony Martin, and we were from that time on in constant dialogue about what to do after the speech," Kaunfer says.

"I think there was a commitment between both of us to mend any problems between our groups that may have been manifest by Tony Martin's speech," Kaunfer added.

The understanding among the leaders may be trickling down to groups' members.

"It's starting to get to the point where membership is being able to communicate as well," Pine says.

Two years ago, Pine says that there was no interaction between the two groups during the only event that brought them together, a BSA-sponsored speech.

Now there are closer relations and at least a few more friends across lines, leaders say.

Those stronger personal relationships between the members of the groups have been key in improving overall relations, Clarke says.

"Personal relationships amongst members within the two organizations have definitely helped make discussion easier for everyone," she says. "It helps to deal with political issues in a friendly medium."

"What I did take out most of [the Jeffries] experience is personal relationship is the only way to achieve proper communication. I felt part of the miscommunication was because communication was only occurring between very top leaders, very little between members," he says. "It was itself a root cause of that event."

Many students of both groups also laud the Minority Student Alliance (MSA)'s part in improving relations between BSA and Hillel.

"Through [the MSA], there's been more opportunities to communicate and work together on projects," Loeffler says. "The MSA is a third party [through which] the two groups can get together and work, and not feel that they're coming together head-to-head."

BSA and Hillel have remained in constant contact through the liaisons in the MSA, which has representatives from all the major student ethnic groups, leaders say.

The Jeffries Legacy

One reason for the heightened effort at dialogue between both members and leaders, students say, may be the memory of 1992 and its effects.

"Learning from the [Jeffries] experience, I wanted to emphasize need for dialogue as much as possible after the incident," Kaunfer says. "Kristen believed the same thing, we had the same goal."

Pine, who co-organized the discussion between BSA and Hillel that took place after the Martin speech, says he learned from the heated Freshman Black Table dialogue in 1992.

Instead of having a general meeting. Pine and co-organizer Kecia N. Boulware '97 broke the group into three smaller ones, each moderated by a representative from BSA and a representative from Hillel. Each group was given questions in advance to talk about.

Pine says the atmosphere of the discussion was more positive than what he saw during the FBT meeting.

"Each of the three pairs of moderators of BSA and Hillel were friends before the event. I don't think that would have existed beforehand," Pine says.

Despite the promising words of their leaders, misgivings still exist about the relationship between the BSA and Hillel.

"Honestly, there's not too much of a dialogue unless there's some sort of controversy," Brown says. "We don't do too much together unless there's some sort of crisis."

In spite of this, cooperation between the groups seems to be growing. Hillel and BSA are planning a joint social action project, next semester, Loeffler says.

Leaders of both groups hope relations will continue to improve.

"There are still many issues where we don't see eye-to-eye, but that's the point of discussion," Pine says.

"I feel confident that those that come, these people will understand the value of dialogue and communication," he added.

Says Brown, "there's not a lot of full-scale contact between BSA and Hillel. We're going to try to work, maybe stay in contact, possibly do something together more than just discussing possible disagreements.

A week after the Jeffries speech, the Freshman Black Table (FBT) hosted a discussion about Black-Jewish relations that turned into a heated debate. In an indication of the tensions spawned by the speech, students traded opinions but found little common ground.

"Tensions were very high," outgoing Hillel chair Elie G. Kaunfer '95 says. "There were 60 to 70 people there, and no one was really listening to each other."

Jeffries' speech had long-lasting repercussions. From that time on, Kaunfer says, there was a two-year full in communication between the groups.

"Our groups didn't have much contact at all," Kaunfer says. "There was extreme tension."

The Martin Speech

The Martin event had a different dynamic from the start, Black and Jewish students say. Martin, whose book The Jewish Onslaught draws links between Jewish history and anti-Black racism, is not as prominent as Jeffries.

"Jeffries is a big name, everyone in America knows him," says Jim B. Loeffler '96, co-chair of Hillel's interethnic committee. "Tony Martin is not as well-known, in some ways a much more marginal figure in academia."

There was also more preparation and consequently more time for tensions to build in the Jeffries case, students say.

"We only found out about [Martin] the day before he was speaking." Kaunfer says. "There wasn't time for people to sit around and get more and more angry."

The topics discussed during the two speeches were also different. Jeffries made assertions of African racial superiority during his speech, calling every other "so-called race...a genetic off-spring of the African race."

Martin came to talk about the controversial book The Bell Curve, though he veered into topics related to "the Jewish tradition" of racism.

"Martin was here to decry The Bell Curve, which was a good thing in Hillel's eyes," Kaunfer says. "It wasn't seen as a direct attack."

Closer Relations

But these differences between the 1992 event and today were not the deciding factors in preventing a blowup, leaders from Hillel and the BSA agree.

Instead, they say, closer relations between leaders of the two groups, and their members as well, kept heated differences at a low simmer.

The BSA and Hillel have worked together on various initiatives over the past year. Last spring, the two organizations co-sponsored three study breaks.

"It was the first time since I've been here that BSA and Hillel have met in a non-crisis situation," Kaunfer says. "It was some precedent."

Hillel also recently supported a BSA protest against The Bell Curve. In fact, the Wednesday meeting had been planned by the two groups far before the Martin incident sprang up.

"It just happened to come at a good time," says Loeffler.

In contrast, when the Jeffries' speech happened, the members of both groups were distant.

"When I was a freshman, we had never done anything with the BSA," Kaunfer says, "and then the first contact was with Jeffries."

The relationship between the present leadership of both groups is also more friendly than in the past, students say.

"I think our leadership knows a lot of their leadership well...as opposed to...[a] few years ago," says BSA historian David W. Brown '97, who is a Crimson editor.

The boards of both groups have communicated more frequently, even having dinner meetings once in a while to discuss topics relevant to both groups.

Part of the reason that difficulties over Martin speech were deflected so quickly, Kaunfer says, was that he and BSA President Kristen M. Clarke '97 were in constant contact.

"I called Kristen as soon as I found out about Tony Martin, and we were from that time on in constant dialogue about what to do after the speech," Kaunfer says.

"I think there was a commitment between both of us to mend any problems between our groups that may have been manifest by Tony Martin's speech," Kaunfer added.

The understanding among the leaders may be trickling down to groups' members.

"It's starting to get to the point where membership is being able to communicate as well," Pine says.

Two years ago, Pine says that there was no interaction between the two groups during the only event that brought them together, a BSA-sponsored speech.

Now there are closer relations and at least a few more friends across lines, leaders say.

Those stronger personal relationships between the members of the groups have been key in improving overall relations, Clarke says.

"Personal relationships amongst members within the two organizations have definitely helped make discussion easier for everyone," she says. "It helps to deal with political issues in a friendly medium."

"What I did take out most of [the Jeffries] experience is personal relationship is the only way to achieve proper communication. I felt part of the miscommunication was because communication was only occurring between very top leaders, very little between members," he says. "It was itself a root cause of that event."

Many students of both groups also laud the Minority Student Alliance (MSA)'s part in improving relations between BSA and Hillel.

"Through [the MSA], there's been more opportunities to communicate and work together on projects," Loeffler says. "The MSA is a third party [through which] the two groups can get together and work, and not feel that they're coming together head-to-head."

BSA and Hillel have remained in constant contact through the liaisons in the MSA, which has representatives from all the major student ethnic groups, leaders say.

The Jeffries Legacy

One reason for the heightened effort at dialogue between both members and leaders, students say, may be the memory of 1992 and its effects.

"Learning from the [Jeffries] experience, I wanted to emphasize need for dialogue as much as possible after the incident," Kaunfer says. "Kristen believed the same thing, we had the same goal."

Pine, who co-organized the discussion between BSA and Hillel that took place after the Martin speech, says he learned from the heated Freshman Black Table dialogue in 1992.

Instead of having a general meeting. Pine and co-organizer Kecia N. Boulware '97 broke the group into three smaller ones, each moderated by a representative from BSA and a representative from Hillel. Each group was given questions in advance to talk about.

Pine says the atmosphere of the discussion was more positive than what he saw during the FBT meeting.

"Each of the three pairs of moderators of BSA and Hillel were friends before the event. I don't think that would have existed beforehand," Pine says.

Despite the promising words of their leaders, misgivings still exist about the relationship between the BSA and Hillel.

"Honestly, there's not too much of a dialogue unless there's some sort of controversy," Brown says. "We don't do too much together unless there's some sort of crisis."

In spite of this, cooperation between the groups seems to be growing. Hillel and BSA are planning a joint social action project, next semester, Loeffler says.

Leaders of both groups hope relations will continue to improve.

"There are still many issues where we don't see eye-to-eye, but that's the point of discussion," Pine says.

"I feel confident that those that come, these people will understand the value of dialogue and communication," he added.

Says Brown, "there's not a lot of full-scale contact between BSA and Hillel. We're going to try to work, maybe stay in contact, possibly do something together more than just discussing possible disagreements.