Hi all, It's difficult these days to have a difference of opinion than the majority of people in Jewish Studies and Judaica librarianship.
But the main reason it's difficult is not the hard conversations that happen - I've had many of those hard conversations with friends in Jewish Studies and Judaica librarianship who disagree with me, and I cherish those conversations because we approach them as discussions between human beings who respect each other and our right to analyze a situation and come to differing conclusions. And believe it or not, despite my ardent anti-Zionism, I have adjusted the way I think about certain components as a result of conversations with Zionist friends and colleagues, and vice-versa. No, the main reason it's so difficult is that there are unstated assumptions that form the foundations for majority opinions in these spaces which are usually left unquestioned, forcing those who disagree to be in the position of "picking a fight," when in fact the "fight" was started when an underlying idea was so baked into a statement or question that calling it out comes across as defensive or argumentative. If there was an understanding that not everyone agrees with that underlying assumption, disagreement would not be seen as combative. But the reality is, there's a sense that things agreed on by many Jewish people, leaders, scholars, and librarians can be talked about and taken as fact or consensus. And then when someone in those same groups objects to a statement made in that vein, that person is seen as "making it political" or making a "personal attack," and so most of us who disagree with the majority opinion on things like Israel/Palestine, the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism, and the weaponization of "antisemitism" by the Trump administration (and the ADL) - we stay silent for fear of gaining a reputation of being political, combative, etc., and for fear of being on the receiving end of accusatory and/or condescending responses. After my email to hasafran objecting to parts of the discussion about the librarians film last week, I got several off-list emails from people who thanked me for saying something, acknowledging that the fear of repercussions stops them from speaking up when they disagree. I don't blame them, and it's not like I don't fear those repercussions myself. But so much of my personal life has led me to the point where I know that no matter how diplomatically and respectfully I voice my dissenting views, there are always people who will act/react in bad faith; and to the point where it's so anathema to my core values to not speak up (not always, but when it's necessary), regardless of the possible repercussions. Remaining silent when a group assumes that everyone is on the same page, when I *know* that I am not the only one who is not on the same page - that's just not something I can do. This part of the AJL policy on harrassment is relevant here: "Harassment does not include respectful disagreement or reasonable and respectful critique made in good faith. AJL continues to welcome and appreciate presentation of controversial ideas, free speech, and creative artistic expression." But here's the thing - when statements are made or questions are asked based on a foundation of underlying assumptions that almost always go unquestioned, even though not everyone agrees about those assumptions, it causes reactions similar to emotional manipulation, primarily passive-aggressive behavior, which allows someone to "maintain a facade of niceness while still exerting control and power over others," including making statements designed to make anyone who disagrees look combative, or to bait and elicit an angry response. To be clear: I am not accusing anyone here of deliberate or intentional emotional manipulation. But intention doesn't matter as much as effect. Speaking as if everyone already agrees with the underlying assumptions in a statement or question, with all the "niceness" in the world, causes an effect of the speaker exerting control over those who disagree, forcing the dissenters into a choice between silence or behavior perceived as combative. So I'm asking AJL leadership to refine the policies and guidelines beyond a statement about respectful disagreement, so that the policies accurately reflect the way charged opinions are baked into many of the ideas taken for granted as consensus or fact when they are very much neither, putting those who disagree in a position where they have to make an impossible choice between being true to their values or maintaining the "peace" by staying silent. Even if the policy is not changed, I beg you all individually to think about what assumptions of consensus your statements or questions rely on, whether the way you word things shuts down the possibility of anyone voicing a different opinion or view of the matter, and whether you want to have that effect on your colleagues. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://jewishlibraries.org/anti-harassment/__;!!KGKeukY!0jrNLY0ElpZn3kGpbbgD7ZVXRfRDO9UuqtVsL7ozB7prVdsfRi1FwRIjPvlvqHqVN21YMevU7G84t7pSI0-z_5XK8R86$ Respectfully, Dainy Bernstein ey/they
__ Messages and opinions expressed on Hasafran are those of the individual author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association of Jewish Libraries (AJL) ================================== Submissions for Ha-Safran, send to: [email protected] To join Ha-Safran, update or change your subscription, etc. - click here: https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hasafran Questions, problems, complaints, compliments send to: [email protected] Ha-Safran Archives: Current: http://www.mail-archive.com/hasafran%40lists.osu.edu/maillist.html Earlier Listserver: http://www.mail-archive.com/hasafran%40lists.osu.edu/maillist.html AJL HomePage http://www.JewishLibraries.org -- Hasafran mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hasafran
