DEAR DR. BOOT:

Thank you for assuming all Jews are from New York City.

Thank you also for suggesting that Jews unhappy with UB's new holiday policy attend Binghamton instead.

Maybe we can build an electrified fence around both places.

Finally, solve those "educational hiccups."

I know, some of your best friends are Jewish.

Affectionately,

JASON EHRLICH

UB graduate '94

UB Med School '98

Jewish High Holy Days: What Kind of UB Community Do We Want?

TO THE EDITOR:

I found Professor John Boot's article about phasing out the university's long-standing policy of not holding classes on Jewish High Holy Days intellectually dishonest, mean-spirited and offensive.

Professor Boot begins his article by observing that the calendar committee has recommended phasing out the old policy so that, in his word "a few years from now classes will be held on religious holidays whatever that religion, and whatever that holiday (holy day) may be." [Emphasis supplied.] The proposed calendar reform, he asserts, will "treat all religious holidays the same" by recognizing only the following "national holidays": Martin Luther King Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas. I must confess that listing struck me as curious.

I had always considered Christmas a "religious" holiday-a magnificent and beautiful one. I suspect that members of all non-Christian faiths, as well as those who are non-believers or agnostics, feel much the same way. Indeed, I find it hard to believe that most Christians don't think of Christmas as a religious holiday. If my own impressions are insufficient to resolve that question, then perhaps the American Heritage Dictionary can. Under the heading of "Christmas," it contains the following entry: "a holiday celebrated by Christians as the anniversary of the birth of Jesus."

Professor Boot's assertion that under the proposed new calendar classes will be held "on religious holidays, whatever the religion" reflects either a gross dishonesty or an appalling callousness toward people of faiths other than his own. Although Professor Boot asserts that "political realities" (a Jewish cabal perhaps?) "forced" President Ketter to cancel classes on the Jewish Holy Days 20 years ago, Boot is silent about the political realities that preordained the current recommendations. What are those realities? That is not hard to determine if one is willing to be honest about it.

This country is, as so many on the extreme religious right like to remind us these days, a "Christian" nation. Because the vast majority of the American people are Christian, because they consider Christmas to be their most important religious holiday, and because they have the power to control both the larger society's and the university's calendar, they have made their religious day a "national" holiday. Those, Professor Boot, are the operating "political realities" that are driving the current reform proposal. Taking those realities as a given, in dealing with the holy days of non-Christian religious minorities, what principles should guide a diverse university committed to mutual tolerance and respect among heterogeneous groups? It seems to me that a few basic principles can be identified.

First, every effort should be made through formal university policies and otherwise, to welcome and accommodate people of all faiths. I found it particularly insulting that Professor Boot suggested that, since SUNY/Binghamton does not have classes on the Jewish High Holy days and even grants time for Jewish students to travel home, the "dilemma can be avoided altogether by students attending another center in the SUNY system." Is this really the message UB wants to send out to observant Jewish students, parents and taxpayers in New York State? Is that the sentiment UB wants to advance about its openness to religious and other minorities? One of our greatest strengths is the heterogeneous character of our community. We need to nurture that diversity by policies that show respect and tolerance for those who are different whether it is because of their race, nationality, religion or other personal characteristic.

It is a mistake to portray this controversy, as some have tried to, as involving favoritism toward one minority faith. The large question that the issue raises is how the university will accommodate religious minorities on campus generally. I concede that that question poses difficult problems. Yet we ought not to run from those problems and ignore the needs of religious minorities altogether, as the current proposal does.

In recent decades our society has grown dramatically more diverse racially and religiously. That trend is going to continue. On our campus, for instance, we have, among other minorities, a growing Muslim population. A fair, just and defensible university policy toward religious observance requires finding out more about the range of religious minorities on campus and about what can be done to accommodate their religious needs in a way that parallels what is done to accommodate the needs of the religious majority. At the very least, university policies should try to insure that members of minority religious groups are not penalized because they may choose to observe a holy day.

Is it likely to be complicated to review and address the needs of all religious groups on campus and to consider how the calendar affects them? Yes, it is. Is it likely to be inconvenient for the university to try to be evenhanded in how it accommodates the religious majority and minorities in our community? Yes, it is. Is it the right thing to do? If the university is serious about its commitment to nurturing a diverse community and if it wants to be in the vanguard nationally in doing that, it is unquestionably the right thing to do.

In the new calendar proposal, in response to our growing religious diversity and in response to the allegation that canceling classes on the Jewish holy days shows favoritism toward one minority, the majority has adopted a simple, unfair and unprincipled approach. As it now stands, in that proposal the religious majority is, in effect, saying: We have restructured the calendar so that we can continue to celebrate our holy days (both Christmas and Sundays) without having to worry about attending or teaching classes, but we will not extend that same opportunity to people of any minority religious faith because it would be inconvenient to do so.

Should we cancel classes on every imaginable religious holiday for every religious minority on campus? Of course not. However, in each instance we ought to examine the issues involved by at least considering the number of people in the campus community who will be affected and the documented religious importance of a specific holy day to those people. On the basis of these considerations, there are compelling reasons not to change the university's long-established policy on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Jewish students, faculty and staff constitute the largest non-Christian religious faith at UB. While there are no official statistics available, there are well in excess of 1,000 Jewish students, faculty and staff on campus. Moreover, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are the most sacred religious days for Jews, hence their very name-the "high holy" days.

If one were looking for a parallel, I would venture that in their religious significance and in their importance within Jewish family life, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are, if you will, the Jewish equivalents of Christmas. Families gather together to pray, socialize and celebrate their religious heritage and culture. College-age children often travel home to be with their families and, during those days even Jews who are not otherwise observant, very often attend synagogue.

In light of the size of the Jewish minority on campus and the religious importance of the days to that minority, it is inexcusable that the calendar committee did not even seek out the reactions of observant Jews at UB until after it made its recommendations. Much anguish, acrimony and misunderstanding could have been avoided had someone thought to extend that simple courtesy to the minority most deeply affected by the proposed change.

This controversy is more than a calendar issue. Its implications go well beyond what the university does for a particular minority on this specific matter. What is in issue is the kind of community the university will be-the kind of community we want to be. Universities are places where differences of all types are nurtured and allowed to flourish. Because of that commitment, universities are inclusive communities that are receptive and welcoming to people of varying faiths, views, values and practices. That is one of their hallmarks-their fierce commitment to and celebration of "difference." In a telling way, these fundamental aspects of our communal life here at UB-our commitment to tolerance, openness and respect for minorities-are at stake in the current debate.

There is no way for a small minority to compel this university to extend itself to accommodate that minority's religious needs. The majority has the power on this matter and others, if it wishes, to do as it wishes. Yet by failing to do the generous and gracious thing-by failing to bend, extend and yes, even inconvenience itself, out of a sense of respect and tolerance for those who are different, we lose something of intangible and profound importance. It is ironic that in an era in which we have presumably learned so much about the multicultural character of America and in a time in which the failure of nations in Europe, Africa and elsewhere to accommodate minorities has had such tragic consequences, UB is now poised to take this giant step backward. As a Jew, as a member of a minority community at this university, and as a longtime member of its faculty, that prospect disappoints and saddens me.

STEPHEN C. HALPERN

Professor of Political Science

A Letter to John Boot

DEAR JOHN:

(I've never written a "Dear John" letter before!)

You express views in your letter to the Reporter that I heard repeatedly during my decade as Chair of the Calendar Committee. Your proposals seem eminently sensible, and your principled rationale both high-minded and widely held by faculty, though your riff on the social psychology of the initial willingness to accede to giving holidays on the Jewish High Holy Days strikes me as a little far-fetched. However, you skate over some details that don't fit very well.

First, the 1990 survey gave us more information than you used. It showed very clearly that only one subset of the student body felt strongly about the calendar. When offered the choice of a calendar that began after Labor Day and had few breaks (one holiday in October and the Thanksgiving holidays in November), versus something like the current practice, the majority of students preferred the shorter, neater calendar, but not strongly. The 10 percent of students self-identified as Jews preferred the current practice very strongly. As far as I am aware, we have no early (1970s) data on the proportion of Jews in the student body. The question was not asked, so any numbers are guesses. I have myself no reason to suppose that the 10 percent figure is part of either a rising or falling trend.

Second, despite the fact that post-Labor Day starts appear to make eminently good sense, I think you can verify with Bob Palmer's office that a majority of four-year and graduate institutions in the country actually start before Labor Day in the fall. Why would they do that if they were not under the kind of political-religious pressure that faces UB? I suspect that post-Labor-Day starts are more a dream and desire of academics than of either staff (who are here all the time) or students (who would prefer to start the fall semester around October 1 and finish around November 15). You attribute great importance to the supposed need of students to work in the summer to pay for their education. In fact, the majority of UB students work all the time, including during the school year. A start after Labor Day doesn't necessarily represent a gain in total income earning capacity. It may simply represent a reallocation of work from full time to part time, and for an unknown fraction of the student population.

In other words, the cost-benefit calculation you implicitly propose may be incorrect. There may be relatively little income gain for the students in a post-Labor-Day start.

There will be a gain in the coherence of the fall semester, a gain that could be equally well realized by limiting the number of interruptions in the first four weeks, as we proposed in 1990. That gain may improve the quality of learning at UB, though it may be much less of a gain than could be achieved by seriously re-examining our teaching methods. The fact is that we have only anecdotal evidence about the educational cost of the "sputtering start to the semester." There is no question that one subgroup of students will feel a serious personal loss.

My personal objection to the calendar promulgated by the Palmer Committee is not that the calendar is bad, but that the outcome should have been attained by a dialogue that simply was not tried, as far as I am aware. If we are to be both principled and diverse, it is our obligation to learn what practices, other than the one we wish to change, would reduce the cost imposed on the penalized minority to a level that they can live with and still consider attending UB. What alternative does an observant Jewish student have, who wants to be an engineer and needs to go to a public university? What can this community offer such a person when it imposes upon him or her the cost of being away from home on very important Holy Days? I have no answers. The question should have been asked in a systematic and sympathetic way.

Sincerely,

MITCHELL HARWITZ

Department of Economics

DEAR EDITOR:

I am writing in response to the article written in the "Viewpoints" section of The Reporter this past week by Dr. John Boot. I am very disturbed by what he wrote. If he simply wrote that there were no longer enough Jewish students and faculty at this university to warrant giving everyone off for the holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, I would accept it. I am not so selfish to expect the world to stop their business just for me.

The excuses he made, however, are poor and inappropriate. He included the following:

1. They are not national holidays.

2. They cause a "very sputtering" start to the semester.

3. They create mass confusion by having one day being another to make up for the missing class time.

4. Laboratory classes are greatly interrupted.

5. Students cannot work through Labor Day.

Well, I would like to submit the following:

1. Demographically, there is not a large enough, homogenous distribution of Jewish people in the U.S. to warrant Jewish national holidays. So what? We are not talking about the nation, we are talking about UB-which is part of the SUNY system-which in turn exists primarily for the citizens of New York State, and not for the nation. I add that on a state level, there are enough Jewish people to consider Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur school holidays-which shouldn't be viewed as religious dictation over others. As I recall from previous years, additional Chemistry lab classes had to be scheduled on Saturday due to the large number of students enrolled. Couldn't they have been held on Sunday? Are any final exams held on Sunday? Not that I can think of. But Saturday is OK-even though on a "national" level both days make up the weekend, one group's Sabbath is more important than another's.

2. Of course any missed days of class can contribute to a sluggish start of the semester, but that is not the only factor. The first few weeks of the Spring semester are pretty slow moving as well. Did Dr. Boot forget about drop/add? Many professors do not get heavy into teaching because they know that there will inevitably be students who will miss up to four or five lectures. Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur typically fall out very early in the semester (it varies because of the differences between a lunar and a solar calendar) so they do not interfere with any exams.

3. How difficult is it really for people to switch a day around? Dr. Boot makes it seem as if it is such a hassle and so confusing. It should not catch anyone by surprise since it is planned well in advance and most professors remind the students of the switch a few days before.

4. When was the last time Dr. Boot took a look at a laboratory schedule anyway? Let's take general chemistry lab for example. What did I do the first week? Nothing. What did I do the second week? Check in (that's when students count their test tubes to make sure none are missing). Lab courses are usually off to a slow start-even in the Spring semester where there are no missing days of class. If there is such a shortage of time couldn't they get the ball rolling a little earlier. The fact of the matter is, there is no major shortage of time. After completing two semesters of general chemistry lab, two semesters of organic chemistry lab, two semesters of physics lab, one semester of cell biology lab, one semester of primate anatomy lab, one semester of human gross anatomy lab, and one semester of histology, all with missed days for the Jewish holidays, I can assure you that all of the material was covered and there was no additional cramming of material.

5. I can sympathize with people who miss out on summer work over Labor day weekend because they have to be in school-I was one of them-but let's not kid ourselves. Count the days. Undergraduate classes began on Monday, August 28, giving five days of classes before Labor day weekend. Five days. How many days are being missed because of the Jewish holidays? Two this year. So where do the other three days go? I'm sure that Dr. Boot can count. Are those students really missing work over Labor day because of some Jews? No, but thanks to Dr. Boot they now believe so. In fact, even if classes began on the Tuesday after Labor day, many students would still have to move up to Buffalo, or check into dorms over the weekend so they would not be able to work through Labor day anyway-Or was Dr. Boot thinking that freshman check-in to the dorms would be on Tuesday the 5th, regular check-in on the 6th, and classes would begin on the 7th? Well that is seven school days later than when it did start. Am I asking for seven days for the Jewish holidays? Is anyone?

So why don't I go to SUNY Binghamton, he asks me. Because I don't want to go to Binghamton. Because Binghamton does not have a medical school. Because I feel like being in Buffalo. How about simply and appropriately BECAUSE. Who is Dr. Boot to tell me where to go? He wrote about turning back the clock 20 years and he called it progress. Well how about we stop providing the disabled with costly access to buildings. There are plenty of wheelchair access ramps at SUNY Brockport or Buff State College. Why don't the disabled go there? Or maybe it would be easier on everyone if we send them all to one designated state. Let's make Florida or Arizona the troublesome-people-state and all of the Jews and the disabled can live there-and they can make any holiday they want.

Did Dr. Boot even realize the implications of his remark? I don't know. Is Dr. Boot anti-Semitic? I don't know and I don't care. But I refuse to make a sacrifice for the pathetic reasons which Dr. Boot gave in his "viewpoint". Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are holidays, but they are also solemn, holy days. They are not spent barbecuing or partying. School seems to have been getting along so far over the years, so why all of the change all of a sudden? Is it really a problem about scheduling and counting days of class, or is there an underlying change in attitude at the university?

This is my sixth year at UB and I have always felt welcome here-until I read that article by a faculty member in a newspaper published by the university. It put me back in my place-for a while I thought that I was an accepted member in this community, but I was reminded that I have only been tolerated.

Perhaps I should have written this letter last year, and addressed it to the calendar committee. Perhaps not enough Jewish people voiced their opinions at the appropriate time. I would guess that this is probably the case-and perhaps our perpetual flaw-that we wait until it is too late to open our mouths.

with respect,

NEIL LIPKE

UB Med '98

National Security Education Fellowships available

DEAR EDITOR,

The Study Abroad Office would like to inform students of the availability of National Security Education Program (NSEP) fellowships. The NSEP enables outstanding students to pursue specialization in area and language study or to add an important international dimension to their education. The program funds students pursuing study of languages, cultures and world regions outside Western Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. NSEP was designed to provide American students with the resources and encouragement needed to acquire skills and experience in less commonly studies languages and cultures.

NSEP offers funding to both undergraduate and graduate students through the Undergraduate Study Abroad Scholarship and the Graduate Enhancement Fellowship programs.

More information and application materials are available at the Study Abroad Office, 210 Talbert Hall (North Campus), 9 a.m.-4 p.m. Monday through Friday. Deadline for graduate applications: Nov. 24, 1996. Deadline for undergraduate applications: Jan. 5, 1996.

SANDRA J. REINAGEL

Interim Study Abroad Coordinator