Spring Break
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Hillel decision was, in fact, pluralistic
Letters to the Editor | 11/25/08
Posted online at 12:55 AM EST on 11/25/08
To the Editor:
In discussing his views about Brandeis Hillel's decision to uphold the custom of only allowing men to lead the grace after meals at weekly Shabbat dinners ("Hillel upholds inequality," Nov. 18 issue), Hillel Buechler wrote: "Brandeis Hillel follows one religious view and ignores another. That isn't pluralism. That's pandering to one faction by use of greatest common factor."
I disagree with this description of Hillel's actions. The decision was reached pluralistically through in-depth analysis of years of meeting minutes, professional staff input, focus groups and executive board conversations. Though some individuals were displeased, ultimately, a pluralistic community can never satisfy all of its members. I personally do not see this as a pitfall of pluralism but rather as a contributor to its value. While pluralism is about making people from different backgrounds feel welcome, it is simply untenable to accommodate everybody's preferences. It misses the point entirely.
Pluralism doesn't promise perpetual contentment nor assure that everybody will be pleased with choices made. Rather, it challenges those who embrace it to be comfortable at certain times but uncomfortable at others, to celebrate variety and to understand the complexity of the decision-making process in attempting to accommodate the community. Weaving all of this together allows us to transcend our individual, Jewish identities to become members of the greater collective.
While dissent is welcomed and even encouraged within the Hillel community, that dissent should be supplemented with the understanding that no norm is accepted by every community member. The decision to continue to allow only men to lead grace after meals may be infuriating to some, but is a significant part of the pluralistic process.
-Rachie Lewis '09
The writer is on the Brandeis Hillel executive board.
In discussing his views about Brandeis Hillel's decision to uphold the custom of only allowing men to lead the grace after meals at weekly Shabbat dinners ("Hillel upholds inequality," Nov. 18 issue), Hillel Buechler wrote: "Brandeis Hillel follows one religious view and ignores another. That isn't pluralism. That's pandering to one faction by use of greatest common factor."
I disagree with this description of Hillel's actions. The decision was reached pluralistically through in-depth analysis of years of meeting minutes, professional staff input, focus groups and executive board conversations. Though some individuals were displeased, ultimately, a pluralistic community can never satisfy all of its members. I personally do not see this as a pitfall of pluralism but rather as a contributor to its value. While pluralism is about making people from different backgrounds feel welcome, it is simply untenable to accommodate everybody's preferences. It misses the point entirely.
Pluralism doesn't promise perpetual contentment nor assure that everybody will be pleased with choices made. Rather, it challenges those who embrace it to be comfortable at certain times but uncomfortable at others, to celebrate variety and to understand the complexity of the decision-making process in attempting to accommodate the community. Weaving all of this together allows us to transcend our individual, Jewish identities to become members of the greater collective.
While dissent is welcomed and even encouraged within the Hillel community, that dissent should be supplemented with the understanding that no norm is accepted by every community member. The decision to continue to allow only men to lead grace after meals may be infuriating to some, but is a significant part of the pluralistic process.
-Rachie Lewis '09
The writer is on the Brandeis Hillel executive board.
Be the first to comment on this story