The Benderly Boys and American Jewish Education

11 Unity in Diversity?

328 World Over cover with a photo of the student choir at the Children’s Solemn Assembly of Sorrow and Protest in February 1943. Courtesy of the Klau Library, Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion. c h a p t e r 1 1 Unity in Diversity? The Jewish Education Committee more so than any of its predecessors, the Jewish Education Committee of New York (jec) strove to be a pluralistic service agency. Prior to its inception in 1939, central Jewish education agencies in North America typically funded only a single type of Jewish education, the communal weekday afternoon school or Talmud Torah. In a few instances, for example the Board of Jewish Education in Chicago, bureaus opened their educational services to congregational schools. But the notion that communal monies would be used to directly subsidize supplementary education along denominational or group lines and even private all-day Jewish schools was unprecedented. The jec’s radical departure from the conventional bureau model was largely due to the vision of its first executive director, Alexander Dushkin, who pioneered the more limited service agency model in pre-Depression-era Chicago. Under Dushkin’s leadership, the jec developed as the embodiment of what he called ‘‘unity in diversity.’’ His thinking at the time is best gleaned from a fourteen-page memorandum that he wrote for the board of directors of the jec shortly after being hired. He argued that the agency’s commitment to community respon- Unity in Diversity? 329 sibility for Jewish education required it to support the educational activities of any group that asked for it, regardless of ideological orientation, so long it stood for ‘‘the teaching of positive Jewish values.’’ He hoped that ‘‘achieving unity without infringing on the right to maintain di√erences’’ would be elevated to a community desideratum. To a large extent, his dream was realized.∞ Yet even as the jec quickly developed into the prevailing model for bureau organization across North America, the e≈cacy of ‘‘unity in diversity’’ became a source of vigorous and persistent debate. Critics seemed to fall into two general categories: those who defended the service model in principle but complained that bureaus should be given the power to shore up standards and, whenever possible, discourage community fragmentation; and those who opposed the prevailing model outright, advocating for the central agency to create educational institutions that eschewed denominationalism in favor of a singular communal philosophy. Berkson and Dushkin: A Parting of the Ways Leading the charge among the more fundamental opponents was Dushkin’s childhood friend and longtime colleague Isaac Berkson, whose criticisms were given added weight because of his intimate involvement in the jec’s formation. It was Berkson’s 1936 report, prepared in consultation with a small group of communal leaders, that first conceived of the jec. But, unlike Dushkin, Berkson envisaged it primarily as a vehicle for social amelioration. His vision of the organization placed a heavy emphasis on educational research and experimentation, to be largely stimulated by its administration of a number of laboratory progressive communal Hebrew schools. The genesis of the Berkson-Dushkin feud was most obviously a debate over policy. The issues that were raised were meaty; indeed, they cut to the core of how the profession defined itself and its mission. The subtext was a dispute among Benderly’s protégés over their mentor’s legacy. The correspondence between the two men and their closest friends also reveals that the conflict was deeply personal. There was a strong element of pathos to the Berkson-Dushkin feud akin to the breakup of a marriage or the estrangement of extremely tight siblings. As we have seen, theirs was the closest of friendships, based on shared interests and a shared vision of the future. ‘‘I dream about you, what does that mean?’’ Berkson scribbled on a note to Dushkin. Dushkin was a year older than Berkson, and from the outset he adopted a big-brotherly concern for ‘‘Bill’’ that extended into their adult lives. For Berkson’s part, he made ‘‘Alex’’ his role model and his guide. In important respects, theirs was a relationship of complements, which facilitated their collaboration : Berkson was the philosopher, while Dushkin was the organizer; Berkson’s 330 Between K’lal Yisrael and Denominationalism spontaneity and passion were tempered by Dushkin’s coolheadedness and penchant for ‘‘tachlis,’’ practicality. Even after they left the nest, moving on from their...