So The Forward has been featuring a series of late called "Rabbis Roundtable," in which they present a question: "We Asked 22 Rabbis [Insert Controversial Question Here]..." Ostensibly to present a diverse set of viewpoints, the Forward's staff asks a preselected panel of rabbis a question and then presents their answers (presumably in some kind of edited form).
I'm sure the idea is intended only for good, but there are a few issues with this series that merit discussion (read on for specific thoughts). And these deficiencies further raise important questions about how we view "rabbis" and "Rabbis." Indeed, many people find their "lower case-r rabbi" in friends, colleagues, educators, or others. Those "little-r rabbis" often don't have ordination from any accredited institution. On the other hand, many people who have smicha (i.e., formal ordination) do not perform a primary rabbinic function even though they remain "capital-R Rabbis." This is an issue worth further exploration - we'll likely look into this in a future post.
In any event, back to the Forward's Rabbis Roundtable. Let's highlight a few of the inherent questions arising from the series and propose a couple of "fixes" (because we're like that).
1. How was the panel selected?
The panelists reflect a diverse set of backgrounds, current affiliations, and ordaining institutions (as well as geographic and gender diversity, etc.). But, as far as I've been able to decipher, the Forward has yet to explain its criteria for participating in this panel. Opinions are certainly not sought out on a "free market" basis or as part of a deep investigation of the issues.
Solution: In the first instance, the Forward should explain how it selected its panel of rabbis. It should also consider doing more extensive reporting, reaching out to various different rabbis for each question.
2. Where are the "normative" rabbis?
In the 20th century, many people would have associated rabbis with a particular congregation or community. Of course, the synagogue model is eroding, at least insofar as there are now many centers of Jewish life. And thankfully, many ordained Rabbis are venturing into new, exciting, and entrepreneurial roles and organizations. This is far from a bad thing. But these entrepreneurs and executives do not necessarily reflect the range of rabbinic views and experiences that are important to consider and highlight for readers.
To be sure, many congregational rabbis may be wary of speaking out "on the record," especially on controversial topics - so they may be more likely to decline an invitation to comment. But only six of the rabbis on the Roundtable are affiliated with specific congregations/communities (broadly speaking), and at least one of those is no longer the primary rabbi of his community. Surely the Forward could find "normative" rabbis (serving religious communities as such) to comment on the issues at hand...
Solution: Don't reach for the low-hanging fruit and/or "celebrity" rabbis du jour. Affirmatively reach out to pulpit rabbis, or do some diligence into leaders within the field (or rabbis who have already spoken or written on these critical issues).
Caveat: I have nothing against any of the entrepreneurs included on the panel. But they are not necessarily reflective of religious communities and do not necessarily speak from a position that is still the principle mode of connection and affiliation for Jews in America.
3. Why So Orthodox?
A full half of the Rabbis' Roundtable expressly identify as "Orthodox."* To be sure, there are many forms of Orthodox to be represented and accounted for (though the YCT-style "Modern Orthodox" seems to be over-represented, with at least three rabbis from that institution, which only just celebrated its "bar mitzvah year" of ordaining rabbis - and small classes at that). But only 1 in 10 American Jews identifies as Orthodox. Moreover -- and I'll acknowledge that this is rank speculation -- I suspect most Orthodox Jews don't get their halakhic and/or religious counsel via the Forward.
Why, then, the Orthodox bias? Nothing against any of these rabbis or Orthodoxy more broadly. But by leaning so heavily on rabbis affiliated with this particular category, the Forward is implicitly tagging those groups of rabbis and/or Jews as more worthy of our attention. And the answers to the "big questions" will almost certainly be less representative of the true composition of rabbis and Jewish communities.
Moreover, the Orthodox-heavy panel necessarily throws off the gender diversity of the panel (indeed, 6 out of the 10 non-Orthodox rabbis are women!)
[At the same time, the panel definitely leans more inclusive than many rabbis - especially on the mainstream Orthodox and Haredi end of the spectrum. The Forward does not include those viewpoints, so their "snapshot" is inherently limited in that regard as well...though there's room for debate as to the editorial discretion in that regard...]
For those keeping track at home, the surveyed rabbis and their affiliations are as follows:
11 Orthodox*
5 Conservative
2 Reform
1 Pluralist
1 Renewal
1 Humanistic
1 Post-denominational
*The panel is more than half Orthodox if you also include Aaron Potek, who identifies as "Pluralist," but was ordained at YCT.
Solution: Be more diverse.
4. Similarly, Where Are the Reform Rabbis?
I do not identify as Reform, so I have no specific bias in the movement's favor. But only two Reform rabbis are included in the Roundtable - just one more than the affiliations and denominations that receive "token" status within the group (i.e., Pluralist, Renewal, Humanistic, and Post-Denominational). Again to the numbers -- as of the last Pew study, "Reform" Jews made up the plurality of all identifiers, with a full 35% of surveyed Jews identifying as such.
Why, then, are only two Reform rabbis polled? Just as the Forward implicitly stamps Orthodox rabbis with more approval, it seems to be setting Reform rabbis aside. And in many arenas, Reform rabbis are in a position to offer something particularly important to the discussion. Such contributions are, unfortunately, lacking.
Solution: Find more Reform rabbis. Give them the platform and audience that they deserve.
5. The Numbers Are Inherently Going to Be Inaccurate
Even if you assume that a 22-rabbi sample set can prove anything, the pithy graphics offered by the Forward are inherently deficient and inaccurate, for the very reasons noted above. Indeed, a plurality of rabbis indicated that intermarriage is "a problem." Although responses definitely did not break out along denominational lines, they also do not fairly reflect the spectrum of views shared by American rabbis. (I honestly don't know what the results would be from a broader-based survey, but I'd be curious.)
Solution: See 1-4 above
I have great respect for the Forward and its editors and contributors, and for the rabbis on the Roundtable. But I do believe that the Forward can, and should, use its platform and pulpit (get it?) to expose readers to a true range of viewpoints and communal leaders. I hope that they consider doing so in the next go-round.
OK, enough for now. Thoughts?
I'm sure the idea is intended only for good, but there are a few issues with this series that merit discussion (read on for specific thoughts). And these deficiencies further raise important questions about how we view "rabbis" and "Rabbis." Indeed, many people find their "lower case-r rabbi" in friends, colleagues, educators, or others. Those "little-r rabbis" often don't have ordination from any accredited institution. On the other hand, many people who have smicha (i.e., formal ordination) do not perform a primary rabbinic function even though they remain "capital-R Rabbis." This is an issue worth further exploration - we'll likely look into this in a future post.
In any event, back to the Forward's Rabbis Roundtable. Let's highlight a few of the inherent questions arising from the series and propose a couple of "fixes" (because we're like that).
1. How was the panel selected?
The panelists reflect a diverse set of backgrounds, current affiliations, and ordaining institutions (as well as geographic and gender diversity, etc.). But, as far as I've been able to decipher, the Forward has yet to explain its criteria for participating in this panel. Opinions are certainly not sought out on a "free market" basis or as part of a deep investigation of the issues.
Solution: In the first instance, the Forward should explain how it selected its panel of rabbis. It should also consider doing more extensive reporting, reaching out to various different rabbis for each question.
2. Where are the "normative" rabbis?
In the 20th century, many people would have associated rabbis with a particular congregation or community. Of course, the synagogue model is eroding, at least insofar as there are now many centers of Jewish life. And thankfully, many ordained Rabbis are venturing into new, exciting, and entrepreneurial roles and organizations. This is far from a bad thing. But these entrepreneurs and executives do not necessarily reflect the range of rabbinic views and experiences that are important to consider and highlight for readers.
To be sure, many congregational rabbis may be wary of speaking out "on the record," especially on controversial topics - so they may be more likely to decline an invitation to comment. But only six of the rabbis on the Roundtable are affiliated with specific congregations/communities (broadly speaking), and at least one of those is no longer the primary rabbi of his community. Surely the Forward could find "normative" rabbis (serving religious communities as such) to comment on the issues at hand...
Solution: Don't reach for the low-hanging fruit and/or "celebrity" rabbis du jour. Affirmatively reach out to pulpit rabbis, or do some diligence into leaders within the field (or rabbis who have already spoken or written on these critical issues).
Caveat: I have nothing against any of the entrepreneurs included on the panel. But they are not necessarily reflective of religious communities and do not necessarily speak from a position that is still the principle mode of connection and affiliation for Jews in America.
3. Why So Orthodox?
A full half of the Rabbis' Roundtable expressly identify as "Orthodox."* To be sure, there are many forms of Orthodox to be represented and accounted for (though the YCT-style "Modern Orthodox" seems to be over-represented, with at least three rabbis from that institution, which only just celebrated its "bar mitzvah year" of ordaining rabbis - and small classes at that). But only 1 in 10 American Jews identifies as Orthodox. Moreover -- and I'll acknowledge that this is rank speculation -- I suspect most Orthodox Jews don't get their halakhic and/or religious counsel via the Forward.
Why, then, the Orthodox bias? Nothing against any of these rabbis or Orthodoxy more broadly. But by leaning so heavily on rabbis affiliated with this particular category, the Forward is implicitly tagging those groups of rabbis and/or Jews as more worthy of our attention. And the answers to the "big questions" will almost certainly be less representative of the true composition of rabbis and Jewish communities.
Moreover, the Orthodox-heavy panel necessarily throws off the gender diversity of the panel (indeed, 6 out of the 10 non-Orthodox rabbis are women!)
[At the same time, the panel definitely leans more inclusive than many rabbis - especially on the mainstream Orthodox and Haredi end of the spectrum. The Forward does not include those viewpoints, so their "snapshot" is inherently limited in that regard as well...though there's room for debate as to the editorial discretion in that regard...]
For those keeping track at home, the surveyed rabbis and their affiliations are as follows:
11 Orthodox*
5 Conservative
2 Reform
1 Pluralist
1 Renewal
1 Humanistic
1 Post-denominational
*The panel is more than half Orthodox if you also include Aaron Potek, who identifies as "Pluralist," but was ordained at YCT.
4. Similarly, Where Are the Reform Rabbis?
I do not identify as Reform, so I have no specific bias in the movement's favor. But only two Reform rabbis are included in the Roundtable - just one more than the affiliations and denominations that receive "token" status within the group (i.e., Pluralist, Renewal, Humanistic, and Post-Denominational). Again to the numbers -- as of the last Pew study, "Reform" Jews made up the plurality of all identifiers, with a full 35% of surveyed Jews identifying as such.
Why, then, are only two Reform rabbis polled? Just as the Forward implicitly stamps Orthodox rabbis with more approval, it seems to be setting Reform rabbis aside. And in many arenas, Reform rabbis are in a position to offer something particularly important to the discussion. Such contributions are, unfortunately, lacking.
Solution: Find more Reform rabbis. Give them the platform and audience that they deserve.
5. The Numbers Are Inherently Going to Be Inaccurate
Even if you assume that a 22-rabbi sample set can prove anything, the pithy graphics offered by the Forward are inherently deficient and inaccurate, for the very reasons noted above. Indeed, a plurality of rabbis indicated that intermarriage is "a problem." Although responses definitely did not break out along denominational lines, they also do not fairly reflect the spectrum of views shared by American rabbis. (I honestly don't know what the results would be from a broader-based survey, but I'd be curious.)
Solution: See 1-4 above
I have great respect for the Forward and its editors and contributors, and for the rabbis on the Roundtable. But I do believe that the Forward can, and should, use its platform and pulpit (get it?) to expose readers to a true range of viewpoints and communal leaders. I hope that they consider doing so in the next go-round.
OK, enough for now. Thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment