Friday, January 2, 2026

A War for the Soul of America: Hartman, Andrew | Amazon.com.au


History

Kindle  $37.39
Available instantly

Paperback  $55.58






Follow the author

Andrew HartmanAndrew Hartman
Follow




A War for the Soul of America, Second Edition: A History of the Culture Wars Paperback – 9 April 2019
by Andrew Hartman (Author)
4.5 4.5 out of 5 stars (57)

When it was published in 2015, Andrew Hartman’s history of the culture wars was widely praised for its compelling and even-handed account of the way they developed and came to define American politics as the twentieth century drew to its close. Receiving nearly as much attention, however, was Hartman’s declaration that the culture wars were over―and the left had won. In the wake of Trump’s rise, which was driven in large part by aggressive fanning of those culture war flames, Hartman has brought A War for the Soul of America fully up to date, detailing the ways in which Trump’s success, while undeniable, represents the last gasp of culture war politics―and how the reaction he has elicited can show us early signs of the very different politics to come.
“As a guide to the late twentieth-century culture wars, Hartman is unrivalled. . . . Incisive portraits of individual players in the culture wars dramas. . . . Reading Hartman sometimes feels like debriefing with friends after a raucous night out, an experience punctuated by laughter, head-scratching, and moments of regret for the excesses involved.”―New Republic

Read less





A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars - Hartman, Andrew | 9780226254500 | Amazon.com.au | Books




$111.85
Paperback

from $78.31
Other Used and New from $54.80 
Buy new:
$111.85$111.85 
$4.95 delivery 9 - 13 February. Details

A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars Hardcover – 15 May 2015
by Andrew Hartman (Author)
4.3 4.3 out of 5 stars   (66)
Edition: 1st
See all formats and editions
Or $27.97 /payment at 0% (Pay in 4). View 3 plans 
When Patrick Buchanan took the stage at the Republican National Convention in 1992 and proclaimed, and ldquo;There is a religious war going on for the soul of our country, and rdquo; his audience knew what he was talking about: the culture wars, which had raged throughout the previous decade and would continue until the century and rsquo;s end, pitting conservative and religious Americans against their liberal, secular fellow citizens. It was an era marked by polarization and posturing fueled by deep-rooted anger and insecurity. Buchanan and rsquo;s fiery speech marked a high point in the culture wars, but as Andrew Hartman shows in this richly analytical history, their roots lay farther back, in the tumult of the 1960s and mdash;and their significance is much greater than generally assumed. Far more than a mere sideshow or shouting match, the culture wars, Hartman argues, were the very public face of America and rsquo;s struggle over the unprecedented social changes of the period, as the cluster of social norms that had long governed American life began to give way to a new openness to different ideas, identities, and articulations of what it meant to be an American. The hot-button issues like abortion, affirmative action, art, censorship, feminism, and homosexuality that dominated politics in the period were symptoms of the larger struggle, as conservative Americans slowly began to acknowledge and mdash;if initially through rejection and mdash;many fundamental transformations of American life. As an ever-more partisan but also an ever-more diverse and accepting America continues to find its way in a changing world, A War for the Soul of America reminds us of how we got here, and what all the shouting has really been about.
Read less


Product description
Review
"Whatever happened to the culture wars? Americans don't argue the way they used to, at least not over hot-button cultural issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. Hartman has produced both a history and a eulogy, providing a new and compelling explanation for the rise and fall of the culture wars. But don't celebrate too soon. On the ashes of the culture wars, we've built a bleak and acquisitive country dedicated to individual freedom over social democracy. Anyone who wants to take account of the culture wars-or to wrestle with their complicated legacy-will also have to grapple with this important book." (Jonathan Zimmerman, author of Whose America?: Culture Wars in the Public Schools)
About the Author
Andrew Hartman is associate professor of history at Illinois State University and the author of Education and the Cold War: The Battle for the American School.

Top
About this item
Similar
From the Author
Questions
Reviews
A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars
A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars
Product details
Publisher ‏ : ‎ University of Chicago Press
Publication date ‏ : ‎ 15 May 2015
Edition ‏ : ‎ 1st
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Print length ‏ : ‎ 384 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 022625450X
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0226254500
Item weight ‏ : ‎ 608 g
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 15.24 x 3.05 x 22.86 cm
Customer Reviews: 4.3 4.3 out of 5 stars   (66)
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Andrew Hartman
Follow


Andrew Hartman
Andrew Hartman is Professor of History at Illinois State University, where he teaches courses in U.S. intellectual, cultural, and political history, as well as courses in the philosophy of history, historiography, and pedagogy. His first book, Education and the Cold War: The Battle for the American School, was published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2008. Hartman’s second book, A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars, was published by the University of Chicago Press in 2015 and has been widely reviewed in popular and academic journals ranging from The Wall Street Journal and New Republic to the American Historical Review. Hartman is currently at work on his third book, Marx and America, which is being represented by the John Wright Literary Agency.

Hartman was the Fulbright Distinguished Chair in American Studies at the University of Southern Denmark for the 2013-14 academic year, and is an Organization of American Historians (OAH) Distinguished Lecturer for the 2015-2018 period. He was the founding President of the Society for U.S. Intellectual History (S-USIH), and he continues to write for the Society’s award-winning blog. Hartman has been published in a host of academic and popular venues, including The American Historian, The Journal of American Studies, Reviews in American History, Journal of Policy History, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Salon, Jacobin, Bookforum, and In These Times. Hartman received his BA in History from the University of New Mexico (1994) and his PhD in History from the George Washington University (2006). Prior to attending graduate school, he taught high school history in his hometown Denver.
====
Customer reviews
4.3 out of 5 stars


EB.
5.0 out of 5 stars You will feel, and will be, smarter and more well-informed after reading this book
Reviewed in the United States on 18 July 2015
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
A brilliantly written, and most importantly, informed read.

His review of race and the culture wars is excellent, and is his best chapter (better than his very good chapter on gender).

The book is, overall, his reading of the major arguments, and he does the job of synthesis. He provides an even handed reading of the American culture wars, but inevitably reveals the superiority and thoughtfulness of a liberal perspective of most situations compared to the right-wing approach which suffers more from unthinking dogma at times. Despite this, he remains an "objective" scholar.
Report

D Wilkinson
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 21 March 2017
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Extremely interesting and extremely relevant.
Report

Donald Earl Collins
4.0 out of 5 stars Please read, and read well!
Reviewed in the United States on 6 August 2015
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
My friend and colleague Andrew Hartman has done it again, with a wonderful book digging down past the weeds into the intellectual and political underpinnings of the so-called Culture Wars of the late-twentieth century. I would write more, but I want to take my time to give it the full-blown positive review that A War for the Soul of America deserves. I would say this, though. Anyone interested in how a simple change in a US history curriculum could lead to rabid responses from established conservative in 2014 and 2015 should read this book to trace the of such anti-education and intellectual origins back at least to the Cold War, and especially the 1950s and the Red Scare. Any history student interested in post-1945 US intellectual history that isn't just about the rise of liberalism should read this book. And anyone who wants to understand the contradictions within the thinking of the various intellectual components of the culture wars (from a conservative -- or rather, neoconservative -- perspective) should pick up Professor Hartman's book and read it.
Report

Roy E Olson
5.0 out of 5 stars An Important Book for Anyone and Everyone
Reviewed in the United States on 19 June 2015
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
In their commentary on the direction contemporary historiography, The Future of Class in America, Geoff Eley and Keith Nield write "finding ways to move between a more Foucauldian register and the more structuralist registers of analysis of politics, we believe, has become an urgent task of historiography." Dr. Hartman's book on the culture wars ascribes to this plea, providing readers with a cultural history that still manages to observe and unravel the structural complications that have contributed to America's current tumult.

As a trained historian and current high school instructor, I love "A War for the Soul of America" both for its scholarly contribution to the topic and its usability in a high school classroom. Regarding the scholarly achievements of the book, A War for the Soul of America brings a much needed historical framework to the topic of the culture wars. Not only does Dr. Hartman historicize the problem in a manner no authors have yet to do, but he manages to deal with such a wide range of complicated historiography in a manner that is digestible to readers that are not trained historians. Supplementing historical events with short summaries of their importance, and synthesizing incredibly complex historical arguments with the utmost grace and readability. For instance, Hartman's deep commitment to understanding the ideas that have contribute to the culture wars shines through with his discussion of historians and philosophers such as Michel Foucault and Judith Butler. Dr. Hartman has provided an excellent piece of work should be enjoyed by anyone wishing to understand the current state of affairs.

This book is so readable, that I assigned parts of it to an Advanced Placement High School classroom and they read it with enjoyment. It was the perfect way to preface a discussion of the 1950s and would work well with any and all lessons that are centered around cultural lessons pertaining to the latter half of the twentieth century. In addition to the students, history teachers of all walks of life should read this book as the last two chapters that deal explicitly with the culture wars and its wide reaching implications on the classroom.

Dr. Hartman's A War for the Soul of America provides a fair treatment of our contemporary social and political issues. While implicating neo-conservatives for trying anything to keep the grasp on their ever dwindling power, Dr. Hartman leaves no rock unturned and by no means implicates only those on the right. Dr. Hartman's book is a testament to the worth of history and committed historians that seek to instill agency in the public.
Read more
Report

S Hayes
5.0 out of 5 stars A very meaty book that challenges mainstream ideas about the forces that shaped the American experience in the 20th century
Reviewed in the United States on 12 May 2015
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
I'm not an academic, and I'm not a liberal, but I enjoyed this work a great deal. Professor Hartman tackles the timely subject of the culture wars with a fair and balanced approach that is sadly missing from most discourse on polarizing issues like feminism, affirmative action, and gender norms. My favorite aspect of the book was how, by using quotes from guys like Buckley and Krauthammer as examples of conservative thought, he gave the impression that, although he disagrees with conservatism, he at least spent the time to find the most compelling arguments to contrast with the words of his liberal champions. And the quotes of intellectuals like Henry Louis Gates Jr. then helped correct more than a few negative opinions I had held about topics such as Ebonics and Afrocentrism
It doesn't matter where you fall on the political spectrum. As opposed to the current climate of gotcha journalism on tv and partisan essays in print that only divide Americans, this book equips the reader with the tools to engage in the intelligent discussions that our country needs to progress. This should be the goal of every American (and world citizen).
Report
See more reviews
==
Dr. L.
3.0 out of 5 stars All in all I enjoyed Andrew Hartman's book A War for the Soul of ...
Reviewed in the United States on 29 May 2016
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
All in all I enjoyed Andrew Hartman's book A War for the Soul of America. It refreshed my memory about many of the issues we all lived through in the 60s through the 90s. Hartman discusses many areas of controversy from these times: religion, race, gender, education, politics and more. The writing is good and the factual detail he presents is prolific.

The main flaw of the book--and it is a big one--is that the leftist bias of the author comes through in too many places. This of course makes one wonder if one is getting a fair look at all of the topics he covers in the book. For instance, in the one area I know something about--whether or not the bombing of Hiroshima was necessary--Hartman only presents revisionist historical arguments. He does not quote any of the many experts who present evidence showing that the bombing was absolutely necessary to save hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions of Japanese lives. So given this one area of distortion that I can verify, I have to wonder how distorted his presentation of other topics is.

Almost any reader whose politics are to the left of center will enjoy this book. More conservative-minded individuals will have to read the book with many grains of salt--and still will come away feeling that the presentation was biased and thus not convincing.

Henry Lerner,
Newton, MA
14 people found this helpful
Report

Amazon Customer
5.0 out of 5 stars Great book! Explores many different perspectives and events taken during the culture wars. Unbiased!
Reviewed in the United States on 18 May 2016
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
Great book, informative, it brought up many different aspects, perspectives and sentiments people had during the culture wars.
Report

Frail
4.0 out of 5 stars This is a very good book, for what it covers
Reviewed in the United States on 16 June 2018
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
This is a very good book, for what it covers. I thought Hartman did an especially good job of articulating the origins and positions of the rise of the neoconservatives in the early 70s. But the biggest shortcoming of the book is that it largely stops in the mid-90s. Why, given that the book was published in 2015, is that 20 year span when these clashes become most intense not covered? Furthermore, the Trump election and the deep polarization of the country strikes most observers as the ugly culmination of these wars. A post-Trump edition would be a most welcome addition..
6 people found this helpful
Report

Samuel Edward Oviatt
5.0 out of 5 stars "A War for the Soul of America: A History ...
Reviewed in the United States on 10 May 2015
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
"A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars" offers a detailed, nuanced view of the leftist movements of 1960's and the conservative backlash that followed. Hartman elucidates the Zeitgiest of the late twentieth with century clarity, and wit. Even if you do not agree with his conclusion or views, the book successfully narrates a critical time in American history.
10 people found this helpful
Report

J. Michael Lowry
4.0 out of 5 stars Thought Provoking
Reviewed in the United States on 29 December 2015
Verified Purchase
The War for the Soul of America is a deep and well researched rendering of America's cultural wars of the latter part of the 20th century. The story is told from the edges (or perhaps more accurately labeled, the extremes). The author chronicles the rise of historical relativism from the sympathetic angel of liberation for those suffering under oppression (ethnic minorities, women, the LGBT). While he tries hard to be fair to a conservative counter point seeking to retain a battered sense of normative truth, his bias shows in distracting ways. In the end he captures the ironic sense that the left's ultimate victory may endanger the very society it wishes to promulgate.
One person found this helpful
==
From other countries

Ed Deisley
4.0 out of 5 stars it is too detailed for my taste but i am glad i worked through it because it helps me with ...
Reviewed in the United States on 21 August 2015
Verified Purchase
i had a tough time getting through parts of this book but the subject matter covering the wars for america soul in the 2nd half of the 20th century still goes on today in the areas of race relations, women's rights, education etc so it has real relavance; i would not recomend to everyone, only those who are interested enough in this subject matter to wade through the details in the book; it is too detailed for my taste but i am glad i worked through it because it helps me with backgound to issues that plague us as a nation today;
Report

owensull1974
5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent book.
Reviewed in the United States on 4 August 2015
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
Excellent book... answered all the questions I had about the provenance of our 'Culture Wars'. This book should be required reading for anyone who hopes to have a grasp of the whys and hows of our contentiously divided political landscape.
5 people found this helpful
Report

Richard E. Norton
2.0 out of 5 stars Obviously more liberal than I and I am pretty much a centrist
Reviewed in the United States on 13 September 2015
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
Obviously more liberal than I and I am pretty much a centrist. Many of his examples seem anecdotal at best, especially in Chapter 2. I tried to like it but found it wanting in substance.
2 people found this helpful
Report

Carol Spencer
5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent read!
Reviewed in the United States on 30 April 2016
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
Excellent book! Highly recommend everyone to add it to their summer reading list.
One person found this helpful
Report

Mad
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in the United States on 9 August 2015
Verified Purchase
Fantastic work. Slightly biased to the left but very honest and insightful.
4 people found this helpful
Report

Leeba
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in the United States on 7 July 2015
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
Looking for the origins of today's political/cultural controversies? Read this book!
2 people found this helpful
Report

Laurence M. Yorgason
5.0 out of 5 stars Antecedents of America in 2015
Reviewed in the United States on 17 May 2015
Verified Purchase
So important to understand why America is as it is today.
4 people found this helpful
Report

gemini_6934
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in the United States on 28 July 2016
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
Thank you!
Report

Gary R. Coulter
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in the United States on 27 August 2015
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
Fast delivery and "as advertised."
===

==

==

<한국어: 약 1,000단어 요약+평론>

<무엇을 다룬 책인가>
Andrew Hartman의 <A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars>는 미국의 “문화전쟁(culture wars)”을 1980–90년대의 소란스러운 말싸움이나 부수적 현상이 아니라, <미국이 ‘어떤 나라’인지에 대한 본격적인 정치투쟁의 전면(前面)>으로 서술하는 역사서입니다. 제목은 1992년 공화당 전당대회에서 패트릭 뷰캐넌이 “미국의 영혼을 위한 전쟁”을 선언한 유명한 연설에서 가져오는데, Hartman은 그 선언이 단발적 수사가 아니라 이미 1960년대 이후 누적된 사회운동·반동·제도정치의 긴장 위에서 폭발한 결과였다고 봅니다. University of Chicago Press+1

이 책의 큰 기획은 두 가지입니다.
(1) 문화전쟁을 ‘현재진행형’ 논평이 아니라 <역사화>해서, 누가 무엇을 걸고 싸웠는지(성, 인종, 종교, 교육, 가족, 국가정체성)를 시기별로 정리한다. (2) 흔히 ‘문화’로 뭉뚱그려지는 영역이 실제로는 법, 선거, 정당, 정책, 법원, 학교, 미디어, 종교기관을 관통하는 <정치 그 자체>였음을 보여준다. Society for US Intellectual History+1

<핵심 주장(논지)>
Hartman은 문화전쟁의 기원을 1960년대의 해방(시민권, 여성해방, 반전, 성해방, 대학과 교육의 변동 등)에서 찾습니다. 이후 1970년대의 보수적 재조직화, 1980–90년대의 전국적 쟁점화(특히 재생산권, 동성애/성정체성, 인종과 다문화주의, 공교육·교과내용, 종교의 공적 역할 등)를 거쳐, 문화전쟁이 미국 정치의 상시 언어가 되는 과정을 따라갑니다. 한 서평은 Hartman이 “20세기 후반 미국을 갈라놓은 쟁점들을 폭넓게 훑는다”고 요약합니다. PublishersWeekly.com+1

초판(2015)이 특히 주목받은 지점은 Hartman이 <“문화전쟁은 끝났고, 좌파가 이겼다”>는 도발적 결론을 제시했다는 점입니다. 여기서 ‘좌파’는 선거에서의 완승이라기보다, 1960년대가 촉발한 문화적 변화(개인의 자기결정, 성·가족 규범의 다변화, 인종·정체성 정치의 확장 등)가 장기적으로 미국의 ‘상식’ 일부가 되어버린 흐름을 뜻합니다. 실제로 당시 리뷰들 중 일부는 Hartman이 변화 쪽이 ‘대체로 승리’했다고 결론 내린다고 전합니다. washingtonindependentreviewofbooks.com+1

하지만 그 선언은 곧바로 반론을 불렀습니다. 2016년 전후의 정치환경(트럼프의 부상)은 “끝났다”는 말이 너무 이르다는 인상을 줬기 때문입니다. Hartman은 그래서 2판(Second Edition, 2019)에 <새로운 애프터워드>를 붙여 트럼프 시대를 반영합니다. 출판사 소개에 따르면, 그는 트럼프의 성공이 문화전쟁 불씨를 공격적으로 부채질한 결과이면서도 동시에 <문화전쟁 정치의 ‘마지막 발악’(last gasp)>에 가깝고, 그 반작용 속에서 다른 정치의 초기 징후가 보인다고 주장합니다. University of Chicago Press+1

<책의 전개 방식(읽는 포인트)>
이 책은 “한 가지 쟁점의 연대기”라기보다, <쟁점 다발의 얽힘>을 보여주는 방식입니다. 예컨대 낙태/재생산권 논쟁은 종교-정당-사법정치와 엮이고, 공교육/교과내용 논쟁은 인종·민족서사·애국주의·지역정치와 맞물리며, 성과 가족을 둘러싼 규범 논쟁은 미디어·대중문화·학계의 언어투쟁으로 번집니다. 이때 ‘문화전쟁’이라는 이름은 갈등의 영역을 좁히는 것이 아니라, 오히려 “일상 거의 전부가 이념적 재료가 되는” 미국 정치의 특징을 드러내는 표지로 기능합니다. (실제로 어떤 리뷰는 “이걸 왜 문화라고 부르지, 정치라고 불러야 하는 것 아닌가?”라는 질문을 던집니다.) Society for US Intellectual History

<평론: 장점>

  1. <문화전쟁의 ‘역사화’>
    사회학·정치학적 논쟁은 많았지만, 이를 역사연구의 방식으로 길게 정리한 작업이 드물었다는 점에서 의미가 큽니다. Hartman의 책이 “문화전쟁을 역사연구의 렌즈로 다룬 첫 대규모 시도”였다는 평가도 있습니다. Society for US Intellectual History

  2. <자료와 인물·진영을 넓게 다룸>
    좌·우 어느 한쪽을 단순 희화화하기보다, 각 진영이 무엇을 ‘가치’로 보고 무엇을 ‘위협’으로 느꼈는지의 내적 논리를 보여주려 합니다. 그래서 입문서로도, 참고서로도 쓸 만하다는 평이 나옵니다. washingtonindependentreviewofbooks.com

  3. <트럼프 이후의 업데이트>
    2판은 “끝났다”는 선언이 어떤 조건에서 가능한지, 또 왜 반례(트럼프)가 강력해 보였는지까지 포함해 논쟁을 이어갑니다. 즉, 책 자체가 문화전쟁의 한가운데에서 자기 논지를 수정·보강하는 사례가 됩니다. University of Chicago Press

<평론: 한계와 쟁점>

  1. <“좌파가 이겼다”는 말의 정의가 논쟁적>
    문화적 수용의 확대를 ‘승리’로 부르는 순간, 그 변화가 경제·계급·불평등, 제도권력, 지역·인종 분절과 어떤 방식으로 공존했는지가 더 중요해집니다. 실제로 어떤 학술 리뷰는 “문화전쟁은 끝났고 소비자 자본주의가 이겼다”는 식의 독해를 제시하기도 합니다. 이 관점에 따르면, ‘가치’의 전쟁은 격렬했지만, 시장 질서가 갈등을 흡수·상품화하며 다른 차원의 승리를 거뒀을 수 있습니다. OUP Academic

  2. <‘문화’라는 이름의 문제>
    책이 보여주는 사건들은 법원, 선거, 로비, 국가정책을 관통합니다. 그러면 “문화전쟁”이라는 말은 설명이면서 동시에 은폐가 될 수 있습니다(정치·권력의 물질성을 약화시키는 효과). 이 비판은 책의 약점이라기보다, 독자에게 남는 중요한 후속 질문입니다. Society for US Intellectual History

<한 줄 결론>
이 책은 “문화전쟁 = 사소한 논쟁”이라는 시선을 끝내고, <미국 정치가 정체성과 도덕, 역사서사, 교육, 종교를 통해 어떻게 재구성되어 왔는지>를 한 권으로 정리해줍니다. 다만 “끝났다/이겼다”는 결론은 정의(무엇이 승리인가?)에 따라 독자와 치열하게 논쟁하게 만들 겁니다. University of Chicago Press+1

<English: summary + review>

Andrew Hartman’s <A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars> treats America’s culture wars not as a noisy sideshow but as a public battleground over national identity—“what America is” and “who gets to define it.” The title echoes Patrick Buchanan’s 1992 declaration of “a war for the soul of America,” which Hartman uses as a hinge moment to narrate longer conflicts rooted in the social movements of the 1960s. University of Chicago Press+1

Hartman traces how disputes over reproductive rights, sexuality, race, religion, and education moved from movement politics into party competition, courts, schools, and mass media—becoming a durable language of American politics rather than a temporary frenzy. Reviewers note the book’s broad survey of late-twentieth-century flashpoints and its attempt to historicize what had often been analyzed mainly by sociologists and political scientists. PublishersWeekly.com+1

The most controversial feature of the 2015 edition was Hartman’s claim that the culture wars were “over” and that the left had “won,” in the sense that many cultural transformations launched in the 1960s became normalized. washingtonindependentreviewofbooks.com+1
After Trump’s rise, Hartman released a second edition (with a new afterword) arguing that Trump’s success fanned culture-war flames, yet may represent a “last gasp” of that style of politics, with signs of a different political order emerging in reaction. University of Chicago Press

<Assessment> The book’s strengths are synthesis, accessibility, and the insistence that “culture” is inseparable from power: many episodes look like conventional politics (courts, lobbying, elections) wearing cultural clothing. :contentReference[oaicite:16]{index=16} Its main vulnerability is definitional: calling a sprawling set of institutional battles “culture” can blur material and economic dynamics, and the “left won / it’s over” thesis depends heavily on what one counts as victory. Some reviewers push an alternative reading—culture wars may fade, but consumer capitalism (or other structural forces) may be the real winner. :contentReference[oaicite:17]{index=17} ::contentReference[oaicite:18]{index=18}
==

==

앤드루 하트먼(Andrew Hartman)의 또 다른 역작인 <A War for the Soul of America: The Culture Wars that Transformed American Life>에 대한 요약과 평론을 작성해 드립니다. 이 책은 현대 미국 정치를 이해하는 데 필수적인 <문화 전쟁>의 기원과 전개를 다루고 있습니다.


<A War for the Soul of America> 요약 및 평론

1. 요약: 1960년대의 유산과 분열된 미국

앤드루 하트먼은 이 책에서 1980년대와 90년대를 풍미했던 미국의 <문화 전쟁(Culture Wars)>이 단순한 에피소드가 아니라, 1960년대라는 거대한 균열에서 비롯된 필연적인 결과물임을 논증한다. 저자는 미국이 공유해온 도덕적, 종교적, 사회적 합의가 어떻게 무너졌는지, 그리고 그 자리를 어떤 갈등이 채웠는지를 세밀하게 추적한다.

1) 기원: 1960년대라는 혁명

하트먼은 1960년대를 <미국적인 것>에 대한 정의가 근본적으로 뒤바뀐 시기로 규정한다. 민권 운동, 페미니즘, 반전 운동, 성 혁명은 기존의 백인 중심, 가부장적, 기독교적 가치관에 정면으로 도전했다. 하트먼은 이를 <미국적 삶의 방식(American Way of Life)>에 대한 해체 작업으로 본다. 60년대의 급진주의는 권위주의를 타파하려 했고, 이는 보수 진영에게는 국가의 영혼을 잃어버리는 위협으로 다가왔다.

2) 전개: 보수주의의 역습과 가치관의 충돌

1970년대 후반부터 90년대까지, 보수주의 세력은 60년대의 성취를 <도덕적 타락>으로 규정하며 결집했다. 하트먼은 낙태, 동성애, 학교 내 기도 금지, 검인정 교과서 논쟁, 예술 지원금(NEA) 논란 등 구체적인 전선을 살핀다. 특히 종교적 우파(Religious Right)의 등장은 사적인 도덕 문제를 공적인 정치 영역으로 끌어들였으며, 이는 <가족 가치(Family Values)>라는 슬로건 아래 보수 정치의 핵심 동력이 되었다.

3) 교육과 예술: 역사를 둘러싼 전쟁

책의 상당 부분은 교육과 예술 현장에서 벌어진 전투에 할애된다. <서구의 위대한 저서들(Great Books)> 중심의 교육과정을 다문화주의적으로 개편하려는 시도와 이에 저항하는 보수 지식인들의 갈등은 미국이 스스로를 어떻게 정의할 것인가에 대한 투쟁이었다. 스미소니언 박물관의 에노라 게이(Enola Gay) 전시 논란이나 로버트 메이플소프의 사진전 논란은 과거를 기억하는 방식과 공적 지원의 경계를 둘러싼 문화 전쟁의 정점이었다.


2. 평론: 전쟁은 끝났는가, 혹은 변모했는가?

하트먼의 <A War for the Soul of America>는 미국 현대사를 보는 가장 명징한 프레임을 제공한다.

지적 탁월함: 60년대와 80년대의 필연적 연결

이 책의 가장 큰 미덕은 파편화된 문화적 사건들을 하나의 일관된 역사적 흐름으로 엮어낸 데 있다. 하트먼은 문화 전쟁을 단순한 <정체성 정치>의 발로로 치부하지 않고, 미국이라는 국가적 정체성이 재구성되는 진통으로 해석한다. 특히 보수주의자들이 60년대의 자유주의적 가치를 방어하기 위해 역설적으로 더 조직적이고 정치적으로 변모했다는 분석은 매우 날카롭다.

논쟁적 시각: <문화 전쟁은 끝났다>는 선언

하트먼은 결론부에서 1990년대 식의 문화 전쟁은 사실상 진보 진영의 승리로 끝났다고 주장한다. 60년대의 급진적 가치들(다문화주의, 여성의 사회 진출, 성적 소수자 권리 등)이 이미 미국의 주류 문화와 자본주의 체제 내로 흡수되었기 때문이다. 그러나 이러한 분석은 2016년 도널드 트럼프의 당선 이후 새로운 도전에 직면했다. 하트먼이 본 <전쟁의 종료>는 사실상 전쟁의 양상이 <경제적 소외와 결합한 정체성 정치>로 진화한 휴전 상태였을지도 모른다.

서술의 객관성과 몰입감

하트먼은 스스로 좌파적 시각을 가진 역사학자임을 숨기지 않으면서도, 보수주의 진영의 공포와 그들이 지키고자 했던 가치들을 지적으로 정직하게 서술한다. 그는 양쪽 진영의 논리를 박제된 화석이 아니라 살아있는 담론으로 생동감 있게 묘사하여, 독자로 하여금 미국적 갈등의 본질에 깊숙이 이입하게 만든다.

결론: 오늘날의 시사점

지금의 미국은 하트먼이 묘사한 90년대보다 더 심각한 분열을 겪고 있다. 이 책은 현재의 <PC주의(Political Correctness)> 논쟁이나 <Woke 문화>에 대한 반발이 결코 새로운 것이 아님을 알려준다. 그것은 60년대에 시작된 <미국의 영혼을 위한 전쟁>의 제2막 혹은 제3막인 셈이다. 하트먼의 분석은 우리가 뉴스를 통해 접하는 미국의 극단적 대립이 우연한 광기가 아니라, 역사적 축적의 결과임을 깨닫게 해준다.


이 요약이 <A War for the Soul of America>를 이해하는 데 도움이 되었기를 바랍니다. 저자가 책의 개정판이나 후속 강연에서 언급한 <트럼프 시대의 문화 전쟁>에 대해서도 더 알고 싶으신가요?

==

==

Wednesday, December 31, 2025

Reviewing 'Yes! I am Jewish,' Angela Buchdahl's life story | The Jerusalem Post

Reviewing 'Yes! I am Jewish,' Angela Buchdahl's life story | The Jerusalem Post


Jerusalem Post/Diaspora
'Yes! I am Jewish’: How a Jewish Korean princess was ordained as a rabbi - review
In her book Heart of a Stranger, Buchdahl tells the story of her life. She ends each chapter with a homily applying a sacred text to contemporary faith, values, and behavior.ANGELA BUCHDAHL in 2013. She was ordained as a cantor in 1999 at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion before going on to become a rabbi.(photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)ByGLENN C. ALTSCHULEROCTOBER 11, 2025 20:41

A few years ago, Angela Buchdahl was walking on the Upper West Side of Manhattan when a young boy in a black hat and suit, standing near a Chabad Lubavitcher “mitzvah tank,” approached her and asked, “Are you Jewish?”

“Yes!” Angela exclaimed. “I am Jewish.” Surprised perhaps by her exultant response, the boy shrugged, offered her a box of Shabbat candles, and walked off.

The daughter of Fred Warnick, a Jewish American, and Yi Sulija, a Korean Buddhist, Angela Buchdahl, the first Asian American ordained as a rabbi in North America, is the senior rabbi at Central Synagogue in New York City, a Reform congregation and one of the largest Jewish houses of worship in the world.

In her book Heart of a Stranger, Buchdahl tells the story of her life. She ends each chapter with a homily applying a sacred text to contemporary faith, values, and behavior. Her memoir is insightful, passionate, learned, and luminous.

PROF. LEE SEUNG-JAE (center) at Seoul National University of Science and Technology, South Korea, last year. Buchdahl sang in Hebrew and Korean at the inauguration of the university’s and the nation’s first Israel Education Center. (credit: Kim Soo-hyeon/Reuters)Born in Korea, Buchdahl arrived in Tacoma, Washington, with her parents and her sister in 1977 at the age of five. Related Articles


The family chose Judaism for the girls because Sulija believed that membership in Temple Beth El would connect them to their father’s extended family and the larger community. Nonetheless, “as if to convince himself,” Warnick constantly told his daughters they were 100% Jewish, 100% Korean, and 100% American.
Advertisement


Sulija took Hebrew classes, sang in the synagogue choir, and prepared wontons for Shabbat. She didn’t convert to Judaism because members of the congregation, though friendly, “never quite treated her as one of them.”

Buchdahl viewed herself as a “spiritual mutt.” At her bat mitzvah, she vowed to protect and pass on her religious inheritance. She subsequently learned, from the story of a hassidic rabbi named Zusya, that the root of the Hebrew word for “identity” is zehut (“this”). And as the only version of “this,” each one of us should embrace our identity and not ask why we aren’t “that.”

Painfully aware that, apart from inside “a Reform bubble,” most Jews use matrilineal descent to establish Jewish identity, Buchdahl initially rejected conversion as an insult to someone who had been a Jew for her entire life. While an undergraduate at Yale University, however, she embraced giyur (conversion) as an acknowledgment of the Judaism that had always been inside her.

To become a Jew in the eyes of most Orthodox Jews, she agreed as well to seek the approval of a beit din (a Jewish court of law) and immerse herself in a mikveh (ritual bath).

In 1999, Buchdahl was ordained as a cantor by the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, and as a rabbi in 2001.

She took a position as assistant rabbi and cantor in the Westchester Reform Temple in 2003, married Jacob Buchdahl in 2005, and moved to Central Synagogue in 2006. In the ensuing years, she felt guilty about not connecting her children to their Korean heritage or to the large Korean community in New York City.
Rediscovering her rootsThat changed in 2012, after Buchdahl appeared on the PBS television program Finding Your Roots, hosted by Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.

Gates provided information about Buchdahl’s ancestors in Romania, the ship that took them to Ellis Island in 1902, and the antisemitism that had prompted them to leave their homeland. But the “big reveal” came when Gates traced her maternal line back to King Sejong the Great. “The rumor is true,” Buchdahl joked to her mother. “I’m a Jewish Korean princess.”

The connection was reinforced with a family trip to Korea later that year.

Heart of a Stranger supplements Buchdahl ’s personal story with more general observations about identity politics. After noting that seven million American Jews are not white, Buchdahl recommends rethinking “tribal racial notions of Jewish peoplehood.”

She also relates her own experiences with sexism. Congregants, and even the rabbi in Westchester, she reveals, wondered aloud whether she could handle the job at Central Synagogue while raising three children.

Humility, she writes, is especially challenging for female leaders, who are perceived as arrogant, bossy, or excessively ambitious when claiming a place at the table, attempting to change policies, or expecting to be heard.

Citing two Hebrew midwives and Queen Esther as examples, Buchdahl asserts that “false modesty can be irresponsible – or even a betrayal.”

Buchdahl’s homilies contain kernels of wisdom on a wide array of subjects. Often translated as “faith,” the Hebrew word emunah she suggests, is better understood as “trust.” More than faith, a noun, something you can have, trust, a verb, is put into practice by Abraham when he leaves his home, counts the stars (to learn how many offspring he will have), and brings his son Isaac to the mountain.

The Kabbala, she reveals, offers an alternative to the standard creation narrative. Because God is everywhere, He contracts, creates darkness, and pours light into 10 vessels, which shatter in response to the primordial energy.

She points out that God created human beings to “gather the sparks.” Our task, then, is to realize that brokenness, not perfection, is our inheritance. That’s why the shofar call shvarim means “breaks.” And perhaps why the Yiddish word krechtz, “a sigh, groan, or plaintive plea,” is a quintessential Jewish expression of sorrow and the capacity to survive it.

Heart of a Stranger concludes with a dramatically different expression: anguish at the Oct. 7 mega-attack by Hamas terrorists and its aftermath.

Buchdahl cried “over lost lives, children held captive, young soldiers risking their lives to defend their country.” The conflict, she writes, “reduced all nuance to rubble” amid an alarming absence of listening and compassion.

“I don’t have God’s power to see. Or to know,” she told members of her congregation. But when asked what God would want her to do, she knew the answer: Work toward peace, even if doing so seems “unwise, unschooled, naive.” But this is when faith comes in.

“Not a blind faith but trusting in an outcome for which there is no alternative, taking even the smallest steps to bring it about and not losing hope that it is still within reach.”

In a small step to that end, Buchdahl flew to Korea in the summer of 2024 to mark the opening at the Seoul National University of the nation’s first Israel Education Center. She ended her remarks by singing “Yerushalayim Shel Zahav” and “Arirang,” a Korean folk tune: songs of “resilience against all probability, each the requiem of a buffeted people, ringing out into the hall – and, just maybe, into a gentler new day.” 

The reviewer is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin 
Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.

HEART OF A STRANGERAN UNLIKELY RABBI’S STORYOF FAITH, IDENTITY, AND BELONGING By Angela Buchdahl Viking 352 pages; $32

'Why Choose This Fight?' How the Daughter of a Korean-Buddhist Became One of America's Most Distinguished Rabbis - Jewish World

'Why Choose This Fight?' How the Daughter of a Korean-Buddhist Became One of America's Most Distinguished Rabbis - Jewish World

Ivy League Exodus - Arts & Letters - Tablet Magazine

Ivy League Exodus - Arts & Letters - Tablet Magazine

Ivy League Exodus
The number of Jews on major Ivy League campuses has been cut in half or more over the past decade by new elite doctrines that downplay merit in favor of amorphous definitions of ‘diversity’ and ‘privilege.’ But one Ivy may be bucking the trend.byArmin Rosen
April 19, 2023
Brown University, Providence, Rhode IslandLane Turner/The Boston Globe via Getty Images


Kemp Mill Synagogue is a spiritual home to lobbyists, policy scholars, and White House staffers. It looks out over the opening of a lushly wooded forest valley in suburban Maryland, just down the street from a horse farm. One of its common nicknames used to be Congregation Bnei Ivy—the people of the Ivy League.


The name alludes to an enduring way of life for an influential segment of American Jews. The eight Ivy League schools are a collective stand-in for the meritocratic system that turned the children and grandchildren of penniless Yiddish-speakers into some of the richest and most important people in America. In Kemp Mill Synagogue’s case, it really did seem as if everyone there had gone to an Ivy League school, or had sent several of their children to one. But that was almost a generation ago. “I’m not sure the nickname fits anymore,” said Tevi Troy, a congregant, historian, Cornell alumnus, and former Bush administration official.

For Jews, an Ivy League degree was both a status symbol and a crucial element in a functioning and merit-based system of social mobility. An Ivy education was proof of a durable theory that Jews—like other immigrant communities—could become normalized in American society through sheer ability, which could be recognized, nurtured, and rewarded through institutions that everyone still trusted and even admired. Like other elite realms, the Ivies became places where Jews were numerous and comfortable. Some 25% of the Harvard student body was Jewish from the 1960s onward. Yale was perhaps as much as one-third Jewish in the ’70s and ’80s. The University of Pennsylvania was always mythologized as being 40% or even a half Jewish, though the best numbers indicate the high-water mark was more in the 35% range. In a 1979 address at the dedication of Harvard’s new Hillel, Henry Rosovsky, dean of the faculty of arts and sciences and one of the architects of the college’s core curriculum, noted that “Harvard has made us feel entirely at home,” but also wondered: “Will our community remain strong or will it disappear? This is not a fanciful question.”


Today, it has become a perceivable reality that Jews are no longer being admitted to Ivy League schools in their former numbers. In 2017, Brandeis demographer Leonard Saxe found that Harvard was at most 14% Jewish, determining that the undergraduate student body was 10% “Jewish by religion,” while another 4% were people of Jewish ethnicity who did not identify as belonging to any religion. At Harvard the drop has been noted since at least the late 2000s, when the university’s Jewish studies department began cutting its offerings. Princeton, believed to be 15% Jewish in the ’80s and ’90s, now only infrequently has classes on modern Jewish philosophy and usually has only one class per semester on modern Jewish history. Students interested in Hebrew language instruction must often take more advanced classes at the nearby Princeton Theological Seminary, which runs on a different academic calendar. “I think there are a number of reasons why JDS is not flourishing at Princeton,” emeritus professor Froma Zeitlin wrote by email, referring to the school’s Judaic studies program, “one of which is the lack of a coherent vision as to what JDS ought to be promoting.”

The University of Pennsylvania was believed to be over one-third Jewish for much of the ’80s and ’90s. In 2016, Saxe put the number at closer to 16%. The drop at Penn was “dramatic and rapid” in the 2010s, as one person active in the university’s Jewish life recalled—there was an apparent 40% plunge in the school’s Jewish population between 2010 and the study’s completion in 2016, with a 50% drop from the beginning of the 21st century until now. The Yale Chaplain’s Office surveys incoming freshmen on their religious identity. The office’s methods are notably unsystematic, but it nevertheless recorded a drop in Jewish-identifying respondents, from 19.8% in the 2000s to 16.4% in the 2010s. Yale is now “probably less than 10% Jewish,” one leader of the university’s Jewish community estimated. At Princeton, members of the Orthodox community—the group most responsible for making Jewish practice and communal life both visible and tangible, often to the benefit of less religious Jews—aren’t sure how much longer their daily minyan can hang on. “Jews are being squeezed out of the admission priorities,” Princeton senior Adam Hoffman claimed.

Of course, there is little about American Jewish life that depends on there being high percentages of Jews at the eight Ivy League schools. Jews being rejected from Penn and Yale are now flocking to Washington University in St Louis or Tulane instead. Perhaps steering clear of the establishment conformity factories that most Ivy League universities seem bent on becoming might actually turn into an advantage for American Jews within a burnt-over educational landscape where “excellence” is thought of as a retrograde or even racist concept. The faster Jews can run away from the declining strongholds of rigidly enforced right-think, one might argue, the better off they and their children will be.


At every point in their history the Ivies have revealed what the existing elite values and whom it is willing to welcome into its ranks.

Whether or not it’s ultimately positive for the community, the drop in Jewish Ivy League enrollment reflects consequential shifts within institutions that continue to sit atop American society, retaining the privileges and broader infrastructure of the prior meritocracy. These universities, which continue to subsist on large contributions from mainly Jewish donors, still behave as if they control a narrow pathway into the upper rungs of American life.

At every point in their history the Ivies have revealed what the existing elite values and whom it is willing to welcome into its ranks. Jews benefited from the meritocratic system of elite production that the Ivies administered in the postwar years and are at an apparent disadvantage now that the old system is considered exclusionary, unrepresentative, and otherwise ill-suited to the current needs and values of the people oveerseeing it. The Ivy League now presents conflicting answers as to whether Jews have a place within whatever post-meritocratic national elite the schools understand themselves to be building.

American Jews—at least the wealthy and relatively liberal ones who cluster in the Northeast—achieved their present status through a mid-to-late-20th-century credentialing system that tried and failed to exclude them. From the 1920s until the early 1960s, Yale’s administration implemented a series of secret admissions rules that had the effect of keeping the Jewish percentage of the student body at a consistent 10%. “They publicly said, and said it to themselves: We are not discriminating against Jews per se. We’re just trying to set up criteria so that the Jews we bring in will be the right kind of Jews,” said Daniel Oren, a psychologist and author of a book about the history of Jews at Yale. Harvard officially admitted to having a quota system in the early 1920s. In research for a 2017 senior thesis on the history of Jews at Dartmouth, Sandor Farkas found evidence that the school’s quotas on Jewish admissions lasted through the 1960s.






Aspects of the quotas have lingered on—it is harder for just about any student from the Northeast not classified as a racial minority, including Jews, to get into Harvard than it is for one applying from Iowa or Nebraska. But beginning in the mid ’60s, Jews were the primary beneficiaries of a half-century window in which the path to the Ivy League became reasonably straightforward: Excellent grades and a high SAT score could get you into a place like Penn, which had a 41% acceptance rate in 1990. That window is now just about closed. Unlike in the ’90s, the Ivies now solicit a high volume of applicants, and it has become harder to establish variance across the applicant pool than it was in past decades. Deliberate, systematic grade and SAT-score inflation have obliterated any obvious quantitative differences between students who are truly great and those who are merely very good. Earlier this year, Columbia became the first Ivy League school to drop its SAT requirement entirely. With the end of the last comparatively objective means of evaluating applicants, admissions criteria have become “holistic” and hard to even identify.






There is compelling though occasional anecdotal proof that top students are clustering in those schools that do continue to select on merit: 21 of the 25 top finishers in last year’s William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition were MIT students. Such proof isn’t needed though, because the Ivies openly and proudly admit that they are no longer taking the top applicants: “If we wanted to, we could take students who had only perfect GPAs and only perfect board scores and fill a class with them,” Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber told CBS in 2017, before confirming that “we do take race and ethnicity into account in building a diverse campus.” Harvard is currently the defendant in a Supreme Court case in which the university is arguing for its right to continue assessing applicants based on their ethnic background, anticipated personality traits, and other factors that have little to with the usual notions of academic merit. “Yale will not waver in its commitment to educating a student body whose diversity is a mark of its excellence,” Yale President Peter Solovay wrote in 2020, arguing that Yale retains its status as a top school as a result of its admissions office’s skill at demographic engineering.






In practice, the commitment to diversity, which the Ivies view as part of their larger mission to improve society, is reflected in drop-offs in the white percentage of student bodies. “Jews are de facto discriminated against, even if it’s not based on animus” a nationally renowned mathematician employed at an Ivy League school said of Jewish applicants to top colleges. “The counterargument is that they’re discriminated against the same way any other white person in the Northeast whose parents went to top schools are discriminated against.”










This “discrimination” against Jewish applicants isn’t narrowly the result of affirmative action, at least not in the sense of the redistribution of benefits, like elite university admissions, as a way of rectifying historical wrongdoing. Instead, the muddling of admission standards under the sign of social justice is an expression of a deeper and much older mentality among the Ivy administrations, one that predates affirmative action by decades or even centuries. The Ivy League schools are jealously protective of their self-image as the vanguard of the national elite—a self-appointed purpose that was always the sole determinant of whether Jews or any other demographic group would be admitted in large numbers. The Ivies operate like rentier states whose legitimacy depends on the wise dispersal of a lucrative and diminishing resource. In Ivy League administrations, that resource is prestige.






Toward the middle of the 20th century, after decades of trying and failing to maintain their status as exclusionary clubs for monied Northeastern men, the times called for the prestige-supply of the Ivies to be distributed among the best and most qualified students—male and female, gentile and Jewish—in order for the Ivies to credibly retain their gatekeeping role. Conversely, in the 2020s, another period of social upheaval, excellence has gone out of fashion among an elite whose new watchword is “equity.” Given that Jews are less than 2% of the U.S. population, harsher and even more significant reductions in already-declining Jewish undergraduate populations at the Ivies would be necessary in order for closely curated student bodies to “look like America.”






In their implementation, the Ivies’ attempts at demographic engineering have little to do with any clear idea of either merit or justice. Indeed, if historical wrongdoing was the core issue, it would be hard to find a group in America that was explicitly targeted for exclusion for longer and to greater effect than Jews, including by the Ivies themselves. Instead, the Ivy student bodies reveal the absurdity of present efforts to equitably distribute prestige in an increasingly unequal society. At Penn, the percentage of Black students barely changed between 2010 and 2016, a time when the Jewish population sharply declined. The percentage of Asians and international students markedly rose—along with the average income of families sending their kids to Penn. “The admissions data allowed Penn to virtue-signal that it was doing something for diversity,” said one source familiar with Jewish life at the school. “But what it really was doing was swapping out wealthy Jews for wealthy Asians.” This was partly enabled through an initiative to prioritize “first generation” college students in admissions. But the university employs a tortured definition of “first generation,” one that allows it to create the illusion of greater equity without risking its academic reputation or its bottom line: At Penn, a “first generation” applicant includes people whose parents earned college degrees outside the United States—the children of nearly anyone who immigrated to the U.S. with a degree, no matter how rich or poor—or who did not “attend a research university with the resources and opportunities a Penn education provides.”


The gap between the ideal of representation and its practical, real-world outcomes frequently manifests itself at elite universities. In 2004, Henry Louis Gates Jr. estimated that between two-thirds and one-half of Black students at Harvard were immigrants or the children of immigrants, rather than the descendants of American slaves. Apparently, little has changed since then: “To be a descendant of slavery is to be an ‘other’ within the Black community at Harvard,” one student wrote in a February Crimson column. The writer noted that in 2015, the median income of U.S.-born Black households was about 30% lower than that of Black immigrant households. Harvard figured out that it could appear to be helping the primary victims of American racism by accepting the high-achieving children of relatively wealthy African professionals.



With a similar eye toward establishing diversity without threatening the finances or reputation of the institution, international students now account for over 10% of Ivy League student bodies. These students are often the private school educated children of foreign elites whose parents or national governments are happy to pay the entire tuition bill, eschewing the financial aid that would be necessary for the children of poor, native-born minority groups to attend. “You get extremely wealthy people from abroad who pay full freight—that’s the only demographic at Penn that’s gotten bigger in this time period,” one alumnus active in Jewish life at the university explained.





The Ivies’ efforts to protect their constantly endangered position as America’s defining pathway to power and success has resulted in the schools’ obscuring any clear criteria for admissions, with the effect of winnowing its Jewish students without seeming to have achieved any higher social objective. The picture will become even more confused if and when the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Asian American plaintiffs suing Harvard for discrimination, a decision that would prohibit the use of race in college admissions, thus forcing the schools into ever more absurdist, arbitrary, and very likely secretive means of maintaining “diverse” student bodies.







In the post-meritocratic environment, Jewish applicants and alumni have been forced to prove that they are beneficial to the Ivy League prestige cartel for reasons that go beyond their brainpower or potential as future donors. There are now various examples of what this advocacy looks like in practice. On Feb. 23, the University of Pennsylvania’s Hillel held a Zoom call for parents and alumni from the school’s Orthodox community addressing the “serious decline in Jewish population and concomitant decline in the Orthodox and traditionally observant community” over “the past 15 years.” The notice for the meeting, signed by Hillel Director Gabe Greenberg, added that Penn Hillel had “begun a process of educating the University on this critical issue.” The call would be part of this ongoing “process,” a chance to lay out the terms of the problem in a way that might receive a sympathetic hearing from Penn’s administration.



“People were very upset,” recalls one participant in the call. The roughly 100 people on the line proposed ideas about how to approach university administrators: Perhaps they could argue that a smaller Jewish community would put additional mental health pressures on the existing Jews on campus. Maybe by getting more specific admissions data from Jewish day schools college counselors could help bolster the argument that Orthodox Jews no longer saw Penn as the place to use their single early admissions application.



“There used to be a playbook of what you were supposed to do to lobby the university,” said one source familiar with Jewish communal affairs at Penn. “The reason you should want a sizable Jewish community is that it’s good for the university. There used to be this line of, show me a university with less than 15% Jews and I’ll show you a mediocre university.” That line no longer works, but as the Zoom call shows, no one seems sure how universities with an obscure commitment to academic excellence and which define Jews as an overrepresented subgroup of “white” people can be convinced to let in more Jews, rather than, say, wealthy Chinese or Nigerian applicants.





There’s a similar lack of clarity at Princeton, where there is rising concern over the near-term viability of the school’s religious community. The number of incoming Orthodox Jewish students has apparently declined even as the school expanded its available admissions spots. Yavne, the university’s Orthodox student organization, could identify fewer than 10 potential observant Jews in incoming classes that are at least 125 students larger than in past years, thanks to an ongoing enlargement of Princeton College. Major Jewish donors have met with Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber to discuss the perceived decline in Jewish enrollment. Student leadership from Yavne has met with admissions officials to raise their doubts over whether the school’s once-vibrant Orthodox community can last.





In some sense, unease over the disappearance of Jews from Ivy League campuses is disconnected from any actual numbers, which the universities themselves may or may not formally keep. Myles McKnight, a Princeton senior active in Yavne, explained to me that there are tensions within the Princeton Jewish community, with frequent Israel-related uproars and a growing perception that the university’s Center for Jewish Life isn’t supportive of the more traditionally minded side of the community. “There is a sense that the CJL is quickly becoming another social justice center on campus,” said McKnight. Yet it is possible Jews on campus are experiencing their own specific consequences of a general atmosphere of drift. I asked McKnight about the overall feeling on campus and received a discouraging reply. “Obviously there’s a huge mental health crisis,” he explained. “I think people are a lot more detached in general from the overall purpose and mission of the university as a place of study and learning, and more so regard this place as an empty steppingstone to a job in consulting or a job on Capitol Hill or something.”



Versions of this story crop up across the Ivy League, with the takeaway that life on campus is transactional and status-obsessed, and breeds a particularly sour kind of cynicism. “The hyperwoke environment there in general is not a friendly one for the Jews,” said a recent Yale graduate, “and certainly drives many of them to leftist politics as a matter of seeking out personal safety, even if only subconsciously.”



The eight Ivy League schools do not march in lockstep. Even if the universities are guided by a similar set of values and interests, they are still competitors within a uniquely American marketplace, jostling for a limited pool of resources, attention, and status. A decision made at Yale or Havard creates a chance for differentiation somewhere else. Even within the Ivy League there is already a compelling example of what an elite university eager to welcome Jews on campus might look like.



The percentage of Jews at Brown is reportedly going up: from 15% in 2015 to 24% in 2022, according to the nonscientific count in Hillel’s college guide, which is based on self-reported numbers supplied by the various campus Hillels. There are also other, perhaps even more reliable signs of an increase: A vastly expanded eruv opened in College Hill in 2017. The kosher dining hall will move to the main dining hall on campus next year. “It’s going to be amazingly positive for the student experience here at Brown,” George Barboza, vice president for dining programs, said when the news was announced. “This really allows for a robust community where students of many religious backgrounds and ethnicities can get good meals and share them in a dining hall, without the restriction of having to eat certain meals in particular places or at certain times.”



Where in the past couple of decades Penn has gone from having two daily Orthodox minyans to just one, Brown might soon have its first daily minyan in recent memory. There are students “experimenting with a Thursday morning minyan,” reports Brown Hillel Director Joshua Bolton, in addition to the Orthodox services held on Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh. “Once you get a minyan, that’s a major fact on the ground,” said Bolton, who adds that he’s observed a gradual increase in day school graduates attending Brown. “Over the past decade the infrastructure to support Orthodox observant Jewish life has dramatically improved,” he said.



It is possible Brown sees an opportunity in the decline of day school admissions at the other Ivies—by rapidly building up its infrastructure for religious Jews, Brown can enroll the talented Orthodox students that Penn and Harvard no longer seem to want.



There are signs that Brown’s approach may be less cynical than that. Christina Paxson, the university’s president since 2012, has repeatedly spoken about the importance of having religious Jews on campus. In 2017, Paxson, a noted academic economist and convert to Judaism, addressed the dedication of Brown’s eruv expansion, making her perhaps the only American college president in history to have appeared at such an esoteric Jewish event. Her remarks showed that she did not consider a physical marker determining what religious Jews can and can’t carry one-seventh of the week to be the least bit esoteric. “God’s presence is reflected across the public good, in many beautiful and meaningful ways, and I think what we’re doing here adds to that,” Paxson said, closing a speech in which she suggested that the new eruv was an expression of “community-based diversity and tolerance.” Paxson, Bolton explains, publicly lights Rosh Hashanah candles at Hillel every year, which is something much different and more deliberate than an annual photo-op with a Hanukkah menorah.



Like her counterparts at Princeton and Yale, Paxson is an outspoken advocate of demographic management of the student body. She wants students of atypical Ivy League backgrounds on campus; more students who grew up on army bases, or in tightknit Christian communities. Her vision of a balanced campus requires a Jewish presence, along with a kind of Jewish confidence and vibrancy that other universities now appear to discourage—Paxon also addressed Hillel International’s Israel summit earlier this year, for instance.



Paxson’s position as president of Brown was hardly inevitable. The head of the search committee that selected Paxson was Tom Tisch, an investor and veteran donor to Jewish causes. The Brown board now includes Mitchell Julis, namesake benefactor of the Israeli and Jewish law program at Harvard Law and a former member of the Princeton board.

The notion of Jews as one of many ethnic constituencies competing for the attention of the people who run the country’s prestige dispensaries is hardly an encouraging one. But a principled rejection of the post-meritocratic system may not be practical, and it is not too late for Jews to carve out a space within the new and bewildering vacuum that is consuming the American elite, the Ivy League included.



Armin Rosen is a staff writer for Tablet Magazine.


Read more on Jews and the Ivy League