The Latest Jewish Ghettornby Jacob NeusnerrnHfc.rn• ^ J l l f c -rn,:t,Bf:— * TTKBrn*••”’• • ” • I ^ ^ M f f W ^rn•^^Orrn^^>P i^S^ __a.rn^^^tSpife– ‘^rn.•’*-iirti«i»sVt;lii«'” . Jrn•Jfe-:..rnLong before ethnicity became the focus of studying neglectedrngroups and cultures—the black, Judaic, Chicano, andrnfeminist counterpart to “We’re here, we’re queer, get used tornit”—leading intellectuals such as Simone de Beauvoir, in feministrnstudies; Harry A. Wolfson, in Judaism as part of the Westernrnphilosophical tradition; Eugene Genovese and John HopernFranklin, in Afro-American studies; and their equals in Hispanicrnliterature and philosophy, all commanded attention. Theyrndid not have to demand it. They earned a hearing by the powerrnof intellect, not politics.rnNo threats of race riots created Genovese’s chair atrnRochester, and no affirmative action program opened doors forrnJohn Hope Franklin, who rightly would not be patronized.rnSimone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex made its impact uponrnthe course of learning; so did the work of Rosaldo in anthropology,rnand that of Helen H. Vendler in poetry and literature. Thernacademy accorded the new humanities and the Catholics,rnblacks, women, and Jews who .showed up on the scene in thernearly 1950’s a serious, if not cordial, hearing. In other words,rnmatters played themselves out. Ideas registered, special claimsrndid not.rnIn the next generation, from the late 1960’s onward, quiterndifferent models defined the role of the new departments andrncourses. Feminism became male-bashing; black studies degeneratedrninto vile bigotry against everybody; and Jewish studiesrnbecame an arena for special pleading. As a result, an entire gen-rnJacob Neusner is Distinguished Research Professor of ReligiousrnStudies at the University of South Florida.rneration of ordinary Americans grew up with well-groundedrnsuspicion and contempt for once honorable academic fields,rnsuch as Afro-American history, the study of Judaism, women’srnstudies, and the various other corners of the academy thatrntoday subject themselves to contempt and derision because ofrnthe vacuous character of their courses. “Multiculturalism”rnought to have opened doors to everybody, but ended up closingrnthe minds of anybody reached by these fields. Mediocre women,rnblacks, and Jews practicing women’s, black, and Jewishrnstudies, who could never have made their way in the scholariyrnworld if held to the standards elsewhere governing academia,rncall themselves professors; others do so only with a snicker.rnThey’re here, they’re queer, we’re all used to it—and no onerncares. The rigorous parts of the curriculum—math, natural science,rnengineering, logic, for instance—go forward untouchedrnby charlatanism, and, as a matter of fact, only women studyrnwomen’s physics.rnTake the traditional study of Judaism, for example, whichrncame after the establishment of the study of religion in general.rnFirst came Christianity, with its ancillary subjects. BiblicalrnStudies and philosophy of religion and missiology. Then camerna specific religion other than Christianity, and in many collegesrnand universities in the eariy 1960’s, it was Judaism. Since fewrnendowments for the subject were available at that time, the departmentsrnmade a commitment of precious resources, whichrnrepresented a solemn judgment indeed. For until universitiesrnconcluded that their cultural horizons encompassed the religiousrnactivities of humanity, Judaism would hardly have been arncandidate for inclusion within the curriculum.rn20/CHRONICLESrnrnrn