Jews in the Civil Rights Movement

Last December I went with my wife to Alabama and Georgia to explore a part of the United States that I didn’t know about. I have this plan that before I die, I want to visit all 50 states in this wonderful country. So far I’ve visited fourteen states. In Birmingham I visited the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. While we were listening to one of the curators at the Institute, I learned about something that I had never known before. While we talked about the campaigns in the South in the 1960s, she mentioned the important role that Jews had in the Civil Rights movement. My close friend, Jan Lieberman, had told me that her rabbi had taken part in the marches, but I didn’t realize the extent to which Jews had taken part in the fight for civil rights. I decided to check out some books in the library to learn more.

The book Judaism and Justice: The Jewish Passion to Repair the World by Rabbi Sidney Schwarz details the importance the Jewish community places on social justice. It details the long history of collaboration between Jews and African Americans in their shared fight against discrimination.

From 1920 to 1940, Julius Rosenwald personally underwrote the building and development of more than 2,000 primary schools and secondary schools for African American children and 20 black colleges. Joel Spingarn was one of the founders of the NAACP, serving as chairman of its board from 1913 to 1919, its treasurer from 1919-30, its second president from 1930 until his death in 1939.

In the 1940s Arnold Aronson partnered with A. Philip Randolph and Roy Wilkins to found the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR). The LCCR fought for 3 decades for civil rights, spearheading the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Other Jews played prominent roles in the LCCR: Marvin Caplan was the LCCR Washington director, William Taylor headed up its civil rights enforcement division, and Joseph Rauh was general counsel.

In the 1950s the American Jewish Committee commissioned black psychologist Kenneth Clark to do a study on the impact of segregation on African American children. Clark’s study was cited in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown Versus Topeka Board of Education that led to the desegregation of America’s schools. The legal department of the American Jewish Congress fought for legislation to fight employment discrimination in twenty states. The Anti-Defamation League had many educational programs to fight racial and religious discrimination.

Jewish presence in the Civil Rights movement was especially important. Rabbi Schwarz wrote:

Jewish involvement in the civil rights struggle also went deep. It is estimated that thousands of Jewish students made their way to the Sough during the 1960s, joining efforts being coordinated by a variety of organizations to arrange sit-ins and marches to desegregate transportation and schools and to register voters. One-third to one-half of the Freedom Riders in the summer of 1961 were Jewish and a similar percentage of Jews took part in the Mississippi Freedom Summer in 1964 (during which Goodman, Scherner, and Chaney were murdered). Harder to measure, but clearly affecting thousands of more Jews growing up in this era, was the widespread sympathy Jews felt for the civil rights struggle. Rabbis preached about civil rights from their pulpits. Jewish periodicals carried articles about the justice of the cause. Many of the activists interviewed for this book trace their earliest feelings for social justice to hearing their parents talk about Martin Luther King Jr., and the movement for civil rights as a moral calling. In 1963, Rabbi Joachim Prinz, the president of the American Jewish Congress and a refugee from Nazi Germany, was one of the speakers who addressed 250,000 people at the March on Washington. It was the same stage from which, minutes later, Martin Luther King Jr. would deliver his historic “I Have A Dream” speech. To the extent that one of the great accomplishments of the civil rights movement was making de facto discrimination illegal, the organized Jewish community threw all of its political muscle behind the passage of the era’s two most important pieces of civil rights legislation- the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The book Lift Up Your Voice Like a Trumpet: White Clergy and the Civil Rights and Antiwar Movements, 1954-1973 by Michael B. Friedland, In 1961, rabbis joined Reverand William Sloane Coffin and a group of Protestant clergy on an integrated freedom ride from South Carolina to Tallahaseee, Florida. In 1963, SCLC minister Walter Fauntroy organized 19 Conservative rabbis to fly to Birmingham to support civil rights. These rabbis were applauded by the African American Baptist churches that they visited in Birmingham. In 1964, Rabbis Eugene Borowitz, Balfour Brickner, Israel Dresner, Michael Robinson and other rabbis from New York and New Jersey joined SCLC’s Fred Shuttlesworth in civil rights efforts in St. Augustine, Florida and spent time in jail for their efforts.

During the Mississippi Freedom Summer in 1964, many Jews risked their lives to register African Americans to vote in Mississippi. Among the 235 clergy who took part in this effort was Rabbi Arthur J. Lelyveld of Cleveland, Michael Robinson of New York, and Perry Nausbaum of Jackson, Mississippi. The risks that these people took became apparent with the murders of civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwermer on June 1964 and the attack on rabbi Arthur Lelyveld by two white men with iron pipes on July 10, 1964.

One of the most prominent Jews in the Civil Rights movement was Abraham Joshua Heschel. Abraham Joshua Heschel was a Warsaw-born American rabbi and one of the leading Jewish theologians and Jewish philosophers of the 20th century. Heschel had taught the Talmud in Germany but emigrated when the Nazis rose to power. Heschel’s sister Esther was killed in a German bombing. His mother was murdered by the Nazis, and two other sisters, Gittel and Devorah, died in Nazi concentration camps. The death’s of these family members had a profound effect on Heschel’s sense of social justice and it played a part on his joining the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s and 1970s.

The writings of the Old Testament prophets like Amos and Isaiah moved Heschel to join the civil rights movement. On January 14, 1963, Heschel delivered the keynote speech to the National Conference on Religion and Race, an assembly of 657 clergy that emphasized the responsibility of churches to work to end racial discrimination within their own houses of worship and in the larger society. In the Metropolitan Conference on Religion and Race in New York City on February 25, 1964, Heschel delivered another speech demanding sanitary housing, better schools, and employment opportunities for the African American community. In 1965 Heschel joined Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, James Forman and other civil rights workers in the march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama.

Until recently, I had not known of the extent of the Jewish contributions to the Civil Rights movement. The alliance between these two discriminated groups is an example for other groups today. As immigrants, Muslims, the LGBT community all face discrimination, it would be good for all these groups to look at the example of the alliance of African Americans and the Jewish community in their fight to be included as equal members of American society. Michael Friedland wrote of the importance of Abraham Joshua Heschel, and it could also apply to all the other Jews who have participated in the civil rights battles. Friedland wrote:

The rabbi’s influence in the civil rights movement, and especially the antiwar movement, was also significant. Heschel helped serve as the linchpin to the moderate religious wings of both, counting among his close friends Martin Luther King Jr., Coffin, Brown, and Daniel Berrigan, all of whom, like himself, had devoted much of their lives to the struggle for civil rights and an end to the war in Vietnam. Daniel Berrigan, despite their differences on Israel, had high praise for his rabbinical friend and paid tribute to his Jewish colleague in eloquent words that Heschel the writer would have appreciated. Speaking of the “unique affection” he had for Heschel, who was a father figure to him, Berrigan wrote, “(his) image endures, far deeper than a patriarchal beard, an Old World graciousness.” He was, in Berrigan’s words, “an ancestor of the spirit.”

A vimeo video of Rabbi Joachim Prinz, who spoke in the March in Washington in 1963

Prinz: The Courage to Speak from R Squared Productions on Vimeo.

Two youtube videos on the deaths of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwermer on June 1964

Two youtube videos of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

Possible Areas of Common Ground With Republicans

For the past few months, there has been a lot of talk about the lack of bipartisanship in the past few years. I have to admit feeling dread at the new Republicans that are coming to Congress this January. There are issues that Democrats will have to fight the Republican Party tooth and nail on, like the Republican promise to try to repeal last year’s health care bill and the attempt by some Republicans to reverse the repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. There are some issues, though, that Democrats could possibly collaborate with Republicans on. These collaborations will result in piecemeal, incremental reforms, but in my view, even incremental change is good. I read two articles, Brian Riedl’s November 29, 2010 article for the National Review titled What to Cut and Daniel Stone, Eleanor Clift and Andrew Romano’s article for the November 1, 2010 edition of Newsweek called Yes, They Can to try to find some possible areas of common ground that the Democrats and Republicans can work on. Admittedly, there isn’t much common ground between the liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans that dominate the Congress right now. I don’t yet know the tendencies of the few remaining moderate Republicans in Congress. Perhaps though if we find some areas of common interest to work at, maybe these next two years in Congress won’t wind up just being two years of gridlock.

CORPORATE WELFARE
One surprising area in which conservatives and liberals may agree upon may be on cutting corporate welfare. Progressives for years have been decrying the influence that corporations have in Washington D.C. and since the Supreme Court decision CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, progressives have been especially keen to reign in corporate power. Groups like the Public Campaign Finance Fund have sought to limit the reach of corporations in our elections. Another way to limit corporations would be to cut corporate welfare. I was surprised to find in the National Review that conservatives share a desire to limit corporate welfare. In Brien Reidl’s article, Reidl writes:

Even before bailing out Wall Street, Washington spent more on corporate welfare than on homeland security. The public will not trust conservatives to reform middle- and lower-income entitlement programs unless they are also willing to stop granting special favors to their friends in business. A free market means that businesses rise and fall on their own, without politicians’ picking winners and losers.

Most corporate-welfare spending is buried in obscure projects with harmless-sounding names like the “Technology Innovation Program.” Rather than terminate each program individually, Congress could ban subsidies for (but not contracts with) businesses that have gross revenues above a certain level.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

Though many Republicans are sceptical of climate change science, they have over the years been keen to wean our country out of its dependence on foreign oil. Last year, Senator Lindsey Graham partnered with Independent Senator Joe Lieberman and Democrat John Kerry in a failed attempt at a bipartisan energy bill. The November 1, 2010 edition of Newsweek stated:

Compromise isn’t off the table. While still skeptical of climate change, Republicans have been warming to the idea of energy independence in recent years. Several senior members, including Sen. Lamar Alexander, may continue to call for an expansion of nuclear power, and Democrats, lacking the votes to act alone on anything stronger, will be inclined to play along. Would-be House Speaker John Boehner may also put together a package that couples subsidies for solar and wind development and funding for electric cars with new drilling in Alaska and the gulf. Several energy analysts say they expect Democrats to push back with demands for new regulations on oil companies—then ultimately strike a deal.

After last year’s oil spill in the Gulf, I wish the Republicans well in trying to pass legislation to open up the region for more oil drilling. I’m wary about nuclear power, but read an article last year in the New York Times of smaller nuclear facilities that produce less energy than the nuclear plants of 30 years ago, but are also easier to contain in case of an accident. It’s an issue I don’t have enough knowledge of. I got into a conversation last year with a Republican friend who talked about natural gas being a cleaner form of energy that could be used to replace coal and oil and to maintain our energy needs until alternative sources of energy could take up more of the slack. Energy is an issue I have to do more research this year to be better informed.

IMMIGRATION

Immigration is one issue that conservatives and liberals once had some common ground, but the common ground has shrunk due to a recent wave of anti-immigrant feeling from the Tea Party and the far Right. Last December’s failed vote on the Dream Act is a case in point. Several conservatives who once supported the Dream Act voted against it last December. Orrin Hatch was an original supporter of the Dream Act. Senator John McCain cosponsored the DREAM Act in 2003, 2005, and 2007. Senator Chuck Grassley cosponsored the DREAM Act in 2003. As the pressures from grassroots conservative activists grew, these Senators switched their positions on the Dream Act.

I still hope that another attempt is made to pass the Dream Act. While a comprehensive immigration law is probably out of the question, more incremental measures like the Dream Act may have a better chance of passing. The November 1, 2010 edition of Newsweek states:

But while the sweeping, comprehensive legislation once backed by George W. Bush may be dead, some lawmakers are still holding out hope for a piecemeal approach: start with increased border security, then follow up with a pathway to citizenship. The business community supports such a strategy, and given that it’s underwriting many of this year’s likely Republican winners, it should have some sway with the next Congress.

AFGANISTAN

I wasn’t expecting much common ground between liberals and conservatives on the war in Afganistan, but the November 1 Newsweek article speculates of a potential partnership of convenience between anti-war Democrats and libertarian Tea Partiers. It states:

As the so-called Age of Austerity begins, some observers have speculated that Tea Partiers and antiwar Democrats could make common cause by calling for withdrawal as a way to cut the deficit. But only the most libertarian of the Tea Partiers put fiscal responsibility before national defense.

I remember during the 2008 Republican primaries how Representative Ron Paul stood out for his strong condemnations on the war in Iraq. This is admittedly slim, but perhaps the anti-war sentiments among progressives and libertarians could perhaps have some grassroots influence when the debate on whether to withdraw from Afganistan takes place.

With all the talk about bipartisanship, I’ve actually been pessimistic these past few months about the likelihood of an sort of bipartisan actions in Congress. I hope I’m wrong though. If liberal Ted Kennedy and conservative Orrin Hatch were able to pass many pieces of legislation in the 1980s and 1990s, perhaps there is some hope.

I think the key to bipartisan legislation is when there is a sizable number of moderates who can bridge the gap between the liberals and conservatives. Many years ago there used to be liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, which I think was good. Most people that I know are not uniformly liberal or uniformly conservative; they’re liberal on some issues and conservative on other issues. I think it’s healthy for both parties to show some of the diversity of political thought that is found in most Americans. It really bothered me to see the Tea Party have some sort of conservative litmus test to weed out the moderate Republicans from the GOP. If there were more moderate Republicans, I’d have more confidence that more bipartisan legislation could be passed on more important issues.

I think the best way for liberals and progressives to influence our country is to stay active in the grassroots and move the political center of the country leftward. If the political center moves leftwards, the moderates will follow suit. We just need to keep arguing our points, being involved in rallies and vigils, write letters to the editors, be involved in progressive groups. Progressives do not have the option of giving in to disillusionment over the frustrating political process. If progressives stop participating in the political process, there is no one to fight for the poor, the working class, and the marginalized in our society.

Ever since Ted Kennedy died in 2009, I’ve been reading about how he was able to pass legislation. He was a stalwart liberal, but he was also a legislator who was able to get bipartisan legislation passed. From looking at his record in the Senate, I think it is possible to be both a strong Progressive and be bipartisan. In these next few years, we should stand strong against bills that harm the poor and working class and fight the rising prejudices against beleaguered groups. But on those issues where we can work with this new Republican group, let’s work on those issues and get some things done for our country.