We Jews have a long experience of oppression and marginalization, some of which is shared with Christians who have lived under Muslim rule. Thus I experienced a certain shock of recognition at the comments of Habib C. Malik ( “Christians in the Land Called Holy,” January). Just as many Jews in Europe tried to “normalize” themselves, so too have many Arab Christian intellectuals in this century, particular in those areas most exposed to modernization. George Antonius, author of The Arab Awakening , a leading exponent of twentieth-century Arab secular nationalism and founder of the Ba’athist Party that ostensibly still rules in both Iraq and Syria, was a Palestinian Christian. Likewise, George Habash, the Marxist-nationalist leader, is of Christian origin. Just as Jewish revolutionaries from Leon Trotsky to Rosa Luxemburg tried to universalize their lives into larger political movements, so too many Arab Christians pursue normalcy by leading secularizing movements. Mr. Malik’s article is a wonderful prayer that even in Palestine our two communities can find some way to establish common ground. Dennis Gura
Santa Monica, CA
David Novak’s “Jews & Catholics: Beyond Apologies” (January) raised serious points for both religions to ponder. I was greatly heartened by his statement, “My own view is that the Jewish response [to the Vatican statement “We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah”] is largely mistaken, and that it reflects a misunderstanding not only of Catholic theology but of Jewish theology as well.” Precisely: a theological document needs to be read theologically.
Toward the end of his article, however, Professor Novak misunderstands the position of Pope Pius XII. The Holy See does not condemn governments, it condemns policies of governments, as it did with Mit brennender Sorge . If one looks at the denunciations of fascism, Nazism, and communism, one sees that nowhere is the government condemned; rather it is the policies of a government.
While it is instructive to see the similarities between what was said about Pope Benedict XV during World War I and Pope Pius XII in World War II, to expect the Holy See to back one side in a war is unrealistic. The Holy See, particularly in wartime, does not issue blank checks to any government.
Thus, the “silence” of Pope Pius XII is a false accusation against a Pontiff who as Secretary of State under Pius XI addressed thirty-four notes of protest to the German government. One can see how skillfully Pius XII, as a pope in the midst of a war, used the nuncios and the agencies of the Holy See to protect those who had no protector, a point underlined by the Chief Rabbi of Rome who took Pope Pius’ own baptismal name at his baptism. (The Rev.) Winthrop Brainerd
Epiphany Parish in Georgetown
Washington, D.C.
Gilbert Meilaender ( “So You Want to Go to College,” January) argues against centrally prescribed college core curricula on the grounds that they would be controlled and subverted by the radical faculty who reign in so much of the academy, and to whom traditional liberal education is inimical.
Professor Meilaender’s account of the designs and influence of campus radicals is certainly perceptive. It is clearly not enough to institute core curriculum policies alone. Rather, methods must be found to move at the same time in the direction of standards-based policies for ensuring institutional accountability.
Higher education trustees can lead the way in reviving core studies and in realizing other curricular reforms by establishing general academic principles, setting minimum core requirements and standards, encouraging the creation of competing core curricula on campuses, and providing incentives as well as penalties aimed at campus compliance with such guidelines. Trustees can insist on appointing campus presidents who are committed to the necessary academic reforms; they can also review these presidents more stringently, holding them to greater account for the quality of the academic programs for which they bear responsibility.
My fellow trustees and I who serve on the State University of New York Board are instituting precisely such structural reforms throughout SUNY. We have strengthened the procedures by which SUNY presidents are appointed and are likely to adopt strengthened presidential review guidelines in the near future. In addition, we have taken the first steps toward providing performance funding, funding that rewards the successful attainment of system-wide academic goals as opposed to adherence to the status quo.
More immediately germane to Prof. Meilaender’s concerns, we passed a resolution last December that mandates a system-wide core curriculum that is coherent, of high quality, and composed where appropriate of broad courses-courses of a type that will not be easily commandeered by faculty with narrow agendas. Moreover, we have directed SUNY’s presidents to provide the necessary funding for these core studies and called upon SUNY’s provost for his assistance in implementing this requirement.
In the long run such measures have, in my view, much potential for redirecting colleges and universities, and even entire public higher education systems, toward the realization of the academic goals that we share. These measures will better serve Prof. Meilaender’s worthy aim-that “good students . . . will find the good courses taught by . . . good faculty”-than his proposed solution, “the most minimal of distribution requirements,” so that “good students will at least be set free, and . . . with . . . a little luck . . . find the good courses . . . .” Candace de Russy
Trustee
State University of New York
The attack by Richard John Neuhaus on Jewish efforts to press claims against Swiss banks is intemperate and one-sided ( “Grasping for the Gold,” November 1998.) He accepts, with a figurative shrug of the shoulder, the idea that “there are no records,” and that therefore the claims ought not be enforced.
Did the banks, who after all undertook, in accepting the deposits, the responsibility of stewardship, have no obligation to maintain records? Were they justified in demanding death certificates from Holocaust victims’ heirs? Does the discovery that the banks were destroying records from the 1930s as recently as a few years ago, and that records of old accounts have in fact been discovered, give Father Neuhaus any pause?
While there may be some distasteful behavior surrounding the pressing of these claims, comparing that behavior to the actions of the Swiss banks for fifty-plus years is comparing jaywalking to murder. Bernard Yomtov
Cambridge, MA
I have just finished reading Richard John Neuhaus’ astounding review of Cold Mountain ( “Literature and the Market,” Public Square, January). The sundry paths individual readers can take even when journeying through the same book is strange indeed. I, a white male Arkansan, have spent a couple of hours a day for the last week fairly reveling in Charles Frazier’s novel. Had I been given a long list of epithets with which to describe it, and had “politically correct” been among them, I think it would have been the very last I would have chosen.
One could write a small thesis exploring the curious judgments Father Neuhaus reaches about this book.
For example, he writes of Cold Mountain ‘s conclusion:
And, of course, as is the way with such romances, hero and heroine are united at last and set to live happily ever after. One can almost hear the sighs of the women of Westchester upon turning the last page, languorously dreaming of their Inman who, through great trial and danger, is on his way to rescue them from a world unworthy of their elevated souls.
I gather that our reviewer read the book with considerably more celerity than I, perhaps even gobbling it down whole on a transatlantic flight. The sentences from his review that I have just cited, however, suggest he didn’t quite finish the book. Inman and Ada do not live happily ever after. Inman dies in the book’s penultimate chapter. Johnny Wink
Arkadelphia, AR
Well, I didn’t mean forever ever after.
You have a decision to make: double or nothing.
For this week only, a generous supporter has offered to fully match all new and increased donations to First Things up to $60,000.
In other words, your gift of $50 unlocks $100 for First Things, your gift of $100 unlocks $200, and so on, up to a total of $120,000. But if you don’t give, nothing.
So what will it be, dear reader: double, or nothing?
Make your year-end gift go twice as far for First Things by giving now.
