How do you teach Sefer Yeshayahu [Book of Isaiah]?

Fourteen yeshiva high school teachers came together on Yeshiva University’s Wilf Campus in late March to ask each other and themselves that question, under the auspices of YU’s Institute for University-School Partnership. Hailing from a range of schools across the tri-state area, the teachers were united by the subject they all taught (Navi, or The Prophets), their desire to enhance their own approach, and the opportunity to learn from others.

“The purpose is to expand teachers’ thinking about what’s possible in the classroom and to help them clarify their own particular focus,” said Dr. Scott Goldberg, director of the YU School Partnership. “Even though their individual schools are so different, it’s productive and important for them to talk about Navi together. They can relate to each other, but the diversity creates a great learning environment.”

The group started as an offshoot of YUHSChinuchCommunity.org – one of the YU School Partnership’s seven online Communities of Practice. These online communities allow educators to organize discussions around a plethora of topics, from incorporating technology into a lesson to creating more meaningful Judaic studies classes for younger children, and provide a forum for shared experiences, ideas and questions. The Navi teachers, now meeting in person for the second time, had already been in touch with each other and additional educators for over a year as part of an online sub-group specifically for Navi teachers, where they compared the specifics of their classrooms and curricula, posted lesson plans and suggested helpful links.

As the teachers sat together around a conference table, Rabbi Kenny Schiowitz, who serves as Rosh Beit Medrash at Ramaz and the Navi group’s facilitator, framed the conversation: “What are our long term goals for teaching Sefer Yeshayahu? What is the value of sharing this discussion with the broader community of teachers?”

Racheli Weiss of The Frisch School demonstrates the use of technology in the teaching of Yeshayahu.

According to Schiowitz, the opportunity for high school teachers to come together to discuss technique is rare but critical to continue their development as educators. “At every convening, including this one, teachers are very appreciative at the end and can’t believe how much they gained,” he said. “This is one of the things necessary to take our field to the next level of advancement and professional growth.”

Miriam Krupka, who also teaches at Ramaz, agreed. “In Jewish education, your demographic as a teacher is so much more limited,” she said. “This community expands that group, allows you to bounce ideas off each other and hear stories about others who are doing what you’re doing. In general, convening like this is an energizing experience and a good reminder of how much talent is out there in the field and how great some of these educators are.”

At this year’s gathering, teachers presented sample lessons, explaining how they contextualized the sefer and what priorities and ideas they hoped to transfer to students. Their colleagues listened, took notes and asked questions. How could Smart board technology be manipulated to offer a layered experience for students of varying capabilities? What chapter serves best as an introduction to the material? How could the harsh mussar [rebuke] segments of the sefer be made relatable to young students?

“Convening like this, both online and in person, provides teachers with emotional support and practical solutions to individual dilemmas, but it also enables them to create new knowledge together,” said Dr. Naava Frank, the YU School Partnership’s director of continuing education and professional development. “You have these experienced professionals in a room, talking about how they each approach the material and they’ll start coming up with a whole new way of teaching a particular chapter. We think that connectivity makes for better teachers who will reach more students more of the time.”

By the end of the day, the group was already planning to visit each other’s classrooms and post their presentations online for the benefit of other Navi teachers across the country.

“It was invigorating to interact with a good cross section of teachers, both veteran and less so, who have good command of the material and are excited about exploring interesting ways and ideas of conveying the richness of the Navi and its message to students,” said Rabbi Nati Helfgot, who teaches at SAR. “I particularly appreciated seeing how some of the younger teachers use the media frameworks at our disposal today to teach a lesson or have students engage in meaningful learning. A number of the motivations and techniques that were used were ones that I am thinking about integrating into my own teaching.”

For more information about how YU School Partnership convenes Jewish educators in Communities of Practice, please visit yuschoolpartnership.org/cops.

cross-posted at YUNews

by Jo-Ann Mort

The days are long past when organizations in Israel can simply come to America with their hands out asking for funds from donors. As one prominent grant maker recently remarked to me, “Israel is no longer a scarcity society. Problems are often a result of government decisions, not lack of funds.”

This means that American donors are demanding more and more of Israeli NGOs, even when the NGOs are not up to the challenge. It’s not that they aren’t doing great work. Many of them are doing extraordinary and necessary work in Israel. But the expectations – especially among US donors, have shifted, employing a more rigorous process to their grant making.

This calls for a massive change of thinking among Israeli non-profits. Furthermore, it means that Israeli philanthropists need to step up.

For the NGOs, one of the most immediate needs is to restructure their boards and to make different use of their voluntary leadership. Traditionally, Israeli non-profit boards have had little expectations attached to them. The members have been more window dressing to give credibility to the organization by lending their name as a bona fide.

When a prominent figure joins the board of an American non-profit, there is a serious expectation that the person will either give or get funds to support the non-profit, but no such expectation is traditional to Israel’s NGO sector. Increasingly, though, US donors want to know who is engaged with an Israeli NGO and what they are giving to the NGO in their country. This means that the nonprofits in Israel need to retool to put leadership in place to become donor partners for overseas philanthropists. This cultural shift could go a long way toward strengthening Israel’s civic culture while also fostering philanthropic partnerships between the Diaspora and Israel.

One of the reasons that this expectation exists on the US side, is that Israel today, with all of its inequities, lists more than 10,000 millionaires with over $52 billion USD in disposable wealth. Therefore, the combination of wealth in country and government decisions that, just like our own US government, impact on rich and poor alike, are taken into account by philanthropists in the US when they look at how and what to fund in Israel.

This is a healthy occurrence, offering the chance for funding partnerships between Israeli donors and US donors that can only deepen the strength of Israel’s third sector.

Fortunately, Israeli philanthropists are engaging more and more in public, strategic fundraising. At the recent Jewish Funders Network conference held in Tel Aviv this past March, Israeli philanthropists launched a new initiative to significantly increase private philanthropy among Israelis and “to change the culture of giving among the country’s affluent.”

The website for this group of twenty Israelis is called Committed to Give. They hope to “create a critical mass of donors and donations, to strengthen and complement the government’s responsibilities, and to create partnerships between philanthropists.”

Meanwhile, the Milken Global Conference, chaired by US philanthropist Michael Milken, and held two weeks ago in Beverly Hills, California, included several sessions devoted to philanthropic giving in Israel attended both by philanthropists from Israel and the Diaspora, including the US and the UK.

At the Innovation Lab that took place coincident with the Milken Conference, the Milken Institute’s Israel Center convened a group of experts among stakeholders from Israel, the UK and the US, specifically to discuss ways to improve Israel’s philanthropic environment, in order to make good use of the new expectations that international donors have. (The proceedings will be made available to the public in the future).

At that conference, there was significant attention paid to PRIs, Program Related Investments, something that is becoming increasingly popular in the US and should be promoted to Israelis as well. It is a perfect model for a “start up society,” with so many entrepreneurs anxious to make their mark.

Large donors such as George Soros have been using PRI to supplement their grant making for years, but now the Obama Administration has changed the U.S. Treasury regulations, so that PRI investing can become even more robust.

President Obama’s director of the Office of Social Engagement and Civic Participation Jonathan Greenblatt, discussed the Obama Administration’s new regulation at the Milken conference at a session devoted to public-private partnerships moderated by Glenn Yago, the Milken Israel Center’s senior director.

In short, this is an exciting time for philanthropy, precisely because a partnership is evolving between Israel and America that takes into account the talent and commitment on both sides of the ocean. It’s also a good time for philanthropists to work with their grantees and the non-profit sector to aid the sector in Israel especially to cultivate new models for board activism and much more.

The proposed rule issued by the Treasury Department and IRS would make it easier for philanthropies to deploy PRIs for private investment like equity investments, loans, loan guarantees or more, based on the charitable mission of the foundation. They are an incredibly effective way to supplement strategic grant making.

This type of investing could be of particular interest to partnerships between American and Israeli philanthropists, because so many of them come from the business sector and are engaged with issues related to workplace development and education.

Jo-Ann Mort is CEO of ChangeCommunications, a strategy firm based in New York City.

by Nathan Roi

More than 650 young Russian-speaking people (including 50 children,) living in the United States, came to Princeton University to participate in a Limmud FSU event centered on the life and work of Professor Albert Einstein. Another 240 could not be accommodated at the sold-out event which took place from 11-13 May. 2012.

The past president of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Prof. Hanoch Gutfreund, who has overall responsibility for the huge literary estate which Einstein bequeathed to the university attempted to answer questions from the audience in two packed sessions: how is it that Einstein is, to this day, held up as an a example to be emulated in the world in general and the Jewish world in particular. Gutfreund showed items from the Einstein Archive which attest to this image, including postage stamps, from all over the world. One image depicts him surmounted by a halo. His prodigious intellectual achievements gave him the status of a “high priest” of the 20th century, although he was neither priest, nor rabbi nor imam.

Gutfreund emphasized three spheres in which Einstein has become a model to be emulated: Einstein the scientist, Einstein the humanist and Einstein the Jew.

In 1905, when he was unemployed, Albert Einstein published four articles that changed the face of history and which today are the bedrock on which modern physics is based. “The ideas he formulated solved the intellectual crisis that had overtaken physics since the end of the 19th century and caused a revolution in thinking way beyond the walls of academia,” said Gutfreund.

In his first article, Einstein tackled the problem known as the Nature of Light, in which light was perceived as a ray. Einstein saw an endless series of contradictions and he posited the scientific theory known as the Photo-Electric Effect. His scientific formulation indisputably proved that the nature of light is different to what had been understood previously.

Gutfreund gave as an example a situation where a person stands astride the door of an elevator against a light source and prevents the door closing, which it would do when the circuit is completed.. This discovery is a basis of quantum mechanics.

The second article written in the same year, dealt with the universe of atoms and molecules and led to his general theory of relativity (E=MC2), and in due course, to theories of modern cosmology, the “Big Bang” and the “Black Holes.”

By 1919, twelve years after the publication of those articles, Einstein had become a universally recognized celebrity. This was also the year in which Einstein joined the Zionist movement and become a close collaborator of another noted scientist, Professor Chaim Weizmann, the first president of the State of Israel.

Einstein: the Jew and Zionist

As a Jew who thought it imprudent to return to his native Germany in 1933, because of the rise of Nazism, Einstein lived and worked at Princeton where he was head of the Institute for Advanced Studies during the last 20 years of his life. His stay there was financed by wealthy Jewish donors.

With reference to the Einstein Archive at the Hebrew University, Gutfreund says “For us at the University, guardianship of Einstein’s vast intellectual property is tantamount to a “holy of holies.” During the 25 years since his death, Princeton experts have managed to gather together some 80,000 documents which can now be displayed to the world at large in accordance with Einstein’s wishes.” Also present at the Limmud conference was Dahlia Mendelsohn who is charged with the digitalization of the vast archive of material at the Hebrew University.

Albert Einstein perceived his identity as Jewish and Zionist as a reality forced upon him by what he termed the “Goyim.” When he received the invitation from Prime Minister David Ben Gurion to serve as the State of Israel’s second president after the death of Chaim Weizmann, he turned down the offer but stated that his link to the Jewish people was unshakeable, especially in light of the dangerous situation of “our people in the world.”

Gutfreund explained that Einstein’s identity as a Jew was awakened after his parents had hired a talmudic scholar to teach young Albert. This scholar evidently sparked Einstein’s interest in Judaism, but specially when he gave him as a gift a book on science. At the age of 13, Einstein rejected the idea of having a Bar Mitzva and decided that his sole interest would be science. Later on, in Prague, he met other Jews including Shmuel Hugo Bergman, Franz Kafka, and Max Brod, and inscribed the word “Jew” in his identity documents.

When he returned to Germany in 1914, he encountered anti-Semitism. Based on his writings, his attitude to anti-Semitism, according to Gutfreund, was rational and not emotional. As opposed to Eastern Europe, anti-Semitism in Western Europe was led by intellectuals. Einstein did not associate himself with the organized Jewish establishment but with his own personal sense of Jewish identity. In his eyes, the only way to combat anti-Semitism was by creating a community spirit based on nationalism. Even though he was a pacifist, “a citizen of the world,” he had no hesitation in passing on his thoughts to his surprised friends.

Einstein joined the Zionist Movement in 1919, and in 1955, not long before his death,he penned an article to mark the seven anniversary of the State of Israel. He had differences of opinion with Zionist leaders and he was not prepared to comprise with his cosmopolitanism which permeated his social weltanschauung.

In an article he wrote, “Love of justice, bordering on fanaticism, and striving for personal independence are traditional strands in the Jewish character. Because of them I see my place within the Jewish people as a gift from heaven … all the time that we remain faithful to our beliefs in justice and human freedom, we will not only ensure our future existence as one of the most ancient of peoples, but will continue to uphold humanity’s highest values …”

In the American Jewish German language newspaper, “Judische Rundschau,” Einstein wrote “I am a nationalist Jew because I am in favor of the preservation of Jewish nationalism. That is why I joined the Zionist Movement.” In the eyes of Einstein, says Prof. Gutfreund, the establishment of the Hebrew University in 1925, was of greater importance than the creation of a “National Home.” Einstein saw study for its own sake, as an act of supreme Jewish nationalism.

by Nathan Roi

Princeton University is considered one of the leading universities not only in the United States but throughout the world. And, for the more than 600 young Russian-speakers who descended there this past Friday to participate in the Limmud FSU conference, it was a priceless opportunity to visit the campus where so many millions of young people aspire to attend but only a few succeed.

It was here that Albert Einstein, on a visit to the United States in 1933, made his home after he decided that as a Jew it would be unsafe to return to his native Germany after the rise of Nazism and the assumption of power by Adolf Hitler. Thanks to wealthy Jewish donors who funded the Institute for Advanced Studies, which Einstein headed, he worked and lived in Princeton until his death in 1955.

The visit to the campus was joined by Matthew Bronfman, Chair of the International Steering Committee of Limmud FSU. The next Limmud conference will take place in June in Kishinev, Moldova, not far from the small shtetl of Ataki from where Bronfman’s grandfather, Samuel, emigrated to Canada at the turn of the century. The Bronfman story is a microcosm of the story of Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe at the end of the nineteenth century, that time of pogroms, rampant anti-Semitism and unrest, accompanied by harsh living conditions, repression by the authorities, misery and poverty. Many of the Jews landed up in the United States or Canada, while a small minority arrived in Eretz Israel.

Samuel Bronfman’s son Edgar, Matthew’s father, was born in the United States and was president of the World Jewish Congress for many years. He was instrumental in unveiling the Nazi past of the UN secretary General Kurt Waldheim and forcing Swiss banks to disclose hidden assets of Jewish victims of the Holocaust. In a Sabbath afternoon interview with The Jerusalem Post editor Steve Linde before a packed audience, Matthew Bronfman said “I hope my children will hold me in the same regard as I hold my father. At the age of 50, my father Edgar decided to devote his time and energy to social and community affairs. Among his many other concerns was the fate of the Jews of the Soviet Union. I remember Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz telling me in a meeting that my father was one of the most impressive people he had ever met. Steinzaltz said, “I met him at the age of 50 when he had no idea at all about public involvement and yet, after 25 years, he proved that he could rightfully occupy a place as an internationally recognized leader of the Jewish people.”

In reply to a question as to what influenced the family to engage in philanthropy, Matthew says, “We have no alternative but to look after each other. Klal Israel is not a meaningless phrase, and when I wake up in the morning that is the first thing that concerns me. As an American Jew I am one of the biggest investors in the State of Israel, but that is because I am a firm believer in the strength of the Israeli economy. When I began investing in Israel in 2003 people told me I was crazy. But when Warren Buffet invested in the Iscar machine tools enterprise, people were no longer surprised at my investments in the country.”

What would be your advice to young people?

To study, to study, to study. And aim to succeed. Hard work and hard study will inevitably lead to success.

Does the growth of ant-Semitism disturb you?

I am not conscious of it in New York, but I am seriously concerned when I hear about it elsewhere in the world. That is one of the reasons why I am deeply involved with the American Jewish Committee. The delegitimization of the Jews and of the State of Israel worries me enormously and all means to combat it must be utilized to prevent Judaism from atrophying and ceasing to grow.”

On the Friday evening preceding the interview with Matthew Bronfman, a reception took place with the participation of the Chairman of the World Union of Russian-Speaking Jews, Alexander Levin and his aide Ronny Vinikov who is also responsible for the Russian speaking division of the World Zionist Organization. Speaking at the reception, Levin emphasized the responsibility that Russian-speaking Jews have for the continuation of the Jewish people. Also joining the conference was Greg Schneider, executive vice president of the Claims Conference.

In the background one could hear the sounds of the onset of Shabbat with the voice of the Reform cantor Maria Dubinsky welcoming the Shabbat with Sabbath songs. There was also an Orthodox Kabbalat Shabbat service led by Rabbi Menachem Hacohen and Rabbi David Goldstein.

After the Sabbath dinner, the lectures and presentations recommenced on a range of cultural topics. Yulia Petrakova from St. Petersburg spoke about the Russian-American poet Joseph Brodsky saying that he was an interesting literary phenomenon that is not uncommon among Russian-speaking American immigrants.

Following her address, an Albert Einstein exhibit was inaugurated that had been brought specially to Princeton at the initiative of the Hebrew University together with Ido Aharoni, the Israeli Consul General in New York.

The theater producer, Micah Levinson, the director of the Beit Zvi Academy of the noted Performing Arts in Ramat Gan, gave a talk about the influence of Russian speakers on the Bezalel School, the first arts academy in Eretz Israel. Levinson is himself one of the last descendants of Boris Schatz, the iconic founder of Bezalel in 1906, who is still considered the primary architect of the teaching of the arts and design in Israel. Levinson is well-known for his role in the film He’erat Shulayim – Footnote, which was shortlisted last year for an Academy award for best foreign film and which was screened for the Limmud audience in Princeton.

On his way to Princeton, Levinson, together with Chaim Chesler, founder of Limmud FSU, stopped off to visit the Jewish Heritage Museum in New York which has a special exhibit on the struggle of Soviet Jews to leave the Soviet Union – a struggle in which Chesler, then Director of the Public Council for Soviet Jewry, played a leading role. At Princeton another circle was closed when Jews who had been refused aliya and those working for their release met each other. One of them was Leonid Balutzrakovsky, editor of Novostiy Nedelyi who was an activist in St. Petersburg. His library of Judaica was considered on of the most important in the USSR. In Princeton he met many whom he had known before but also some new people such as the Jewish-Ukrainian singer Yulia Rosenfeld who participated in Limmud Yalta in 2008 and subsequently placed second in the Russian version of A Star is Born.

The writer and television celebrity, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, arrived at Limmud Princeton with his six children in tow. He gave two lectures – based on his best-selling books; one on Kosher Jesus and the other on, Kosher Sex. Just recently he announced that he is running for Congress in his home state of New Jersey. His fame and notoriety preceded him and he spoke before overflow audiences.

The close of Shabbat was marked by a Havdalah ceremony led by Rabbi Menachem Hacohen with the young crowd enthusiastically dancing. The Limmud Motzei Shabbat Gala produced a high with the appearance of the Red Elvis group and two wonderful singer-soloists, Mira Storiyika and Irena Rosenfeld.

Last week’s posting about the protocol for soliciting past and present clients elicited numerous responses – both on and off-line. In several coming postings, I will be addressing the issues of ethics and fundraising as they pertain to nonprofit organizations, fundraisers, and donors. More questions may be raised by opening this discussion and I welcome an exchange of ideas.

If we begin the discussion from the perspective of the nonprofit organization there are a number of ethical obligations that warrant serious consideration. When beginning a fundraising campaign, whether it be for a capital (physical) project or for new or ongoing programs, the nonprofit needs to ensure the funds will be utilized for the purposes they are solicited. Unfortunately, all too often we hear of organizations that have raised funds for one program yet used the funds for another purpose.

When the organization embarks upon a campaign to solicit funds it should adhere to the guidelines that it set for itself. The projects and programs are usually detailed in written material that is prepared in advance or submitted in response to a request for proposals. In either case, it is the nonprofit’s obligation to communicate with individual funders or foundations if the plans are changed. At the same time, the organization should be acting in good faith when it raises funds for programs and has confirmed the need for the services it intends to provide to the community.

Several years ago there was an Israeli nonprofit organization providing food to needy families and decided it would be appropriate to also offer vocational training for unemployed people. It decided to develop a course to train beauticians and solicited donors based on the government support of such programs. However, by the time the organization was raising funds from private donors to fund the training program, the government had decided that there were too many beauticians and there was no need to train additional people. It was unethical for the organization to misrepresent the need and to continue raising funds for a program that was cancelled by the government.

Donor recognition is another issue that presents a number of ethical issues to nonprofit organizations. An institution of higher Jewish education has been very successful in both engaging donors and soliciting wealthy people to participate in their building campaigns. Every few years they expand their physical facilities, which gives them many opportunities to recognize donor support.

Not too long ago I was on a site visit to this institution and I walked into a study hall and noticed a sign acknowledging the generous support they received from a number of donors who were memorializing the patriarch of the family. On the way out of the study hall I noticed a second sign in the same room thanking another family for their support of the yeshiva’s library. In response to my question about the signs, I was told that the first donors gave the funds for the building of the room and the second sign referred to the fact that the room was also used as a library and there were bookshelves lining the room.

I do not think it is splitting hairs to point out the fine line that was being drawn by the institution’s FRD professional, and I doubt the generous donors would have been satisfied by the answer that was provided to my question. Of course, I wondered to myself whether both signs remained on the walls when the respective donors were visiting the school. Such practices have a negative impact not only on the organization in question, but also in regards to prospective contributors who will soon learn to beware of the school’s fundraising ethics.

Another example is the large nonprofit organization Israel that provides services throughout the country, which received a very respectable contribution to name one of the buildings on the campus of its national headquarters. In appreciation of the donation there was an agreement to earmark one wall in the main entrance to recognize the support of the building. Several years later the organization submitted a request to place a door in the middle of the wall so that people could have easy access to the organization’s gift shop.

It was only by chance that the nonprofit asked permission to build the door in the wall. A representative of the foundation that provided the funding happened to be in the building at the time the renovations were being planned. It is quite possible that the change might have been carried out had the foundation not had an onsite presence at this particular time. Of course, the foundation’s representative responded and said that once the funds were returned, the organization could build the door.

The ethical obligations and responsibilities of the nonprofit organization’s fundraising activities have to be first and foremost on the agenda before a single contribution is solicited. Once the contribution is received the agency has to maintain its commitment to the agreement with the funder. When the organization maintains its ethical standards it will reinforce the initial trust the donor placed in the agency’s ability to utilize the funds as agreed. It will also encourage the donor to encourage others to participate in the organization’s efforts to raise funds for its annual or capital campaigns. In addition, the nonprofit becomes an example for other agencies in the voluntary sector and it enhances the standards that are essential for all those involved in philanthropic ventures.

Stephen G. Donshik, D.S.W., is a lecturer at Hebrew University’s International Nonprofit Management and Leadership Program and has a consulting firm focused on strengthening non-profit organizations and their leadership for tomorrow. Stephen is a regular contributor to eJewish Philanthropy.

Ukrainian superstar Iryna Rosenfeld performing at Limmud FSU Princeton on motzei Shabbat; photo courtesy Nathan Roi.

by Michele Alperin
JointMedia News Service

PRINCETON, NJ – A gap remains between young Russian Jews and the larger American Jewish community, even as organizations like Limmud FSU and others work to build bridges between them.

Sandy Cahn, co-founder of Limmud FSU, suggests that the only way to ultimately bring these two communities together is to continue, at least for now, having separate organizations and events for Russian Jews. “There is something very special about Russian culture where they have an affinity of wanting to be together,” she says. “Having their own Limmud empowers them to be stronger and encourages them to enter in a more impactful and empowered way on the American Jewish scene.”

Alexander Levin, the president of the World Forum of Russian Jewry, agrees, emphasizing the necessity of ultimately uniting American and Russian Jews. “Today the epidemic assimilation rates don’t leave us a choice but to find the ways to join forces and to share our common values of being Jewish and especially for us, Soviet-grown Jews, to keep a strong Israel!”

Limmud FSU – which held its first U.S. conference May 11-13 in Princeton, NJ – takes its name from the volunteer-driven Jewish learning experience that started over 30 years ago in Great Britain and shares the parent organization’s values of diversity, learning, community and volunteerism. It was founded in 2006 to restore the tradition of lifelong Jewish learning and to strengthen Jewish identity in Russian Jewish communities in and from the former Soviet Union. So far, it has reached 25,000 young Jews in six countries and its goal, says Cahn, is “to have them identify in any way they want to with being Jewish through informal Jewish education.”

The Princeton conference’s 650-plus participants – largely secular but also including a group of observant Jews – came to experience the solidarity and comfort of being with cultural compatriots and to learn a little about Judaism in an open, welcoming environment.

The sense of alienation that many young Russians continue to feel toward the American Jewish community has developed for a number of reasons, all growing from the decades their families spent under a Soviet rule that quashed observance of all religions.

Julia Kotlyar of New York, co-chair of the conference’s recruitment and public relations committee, moved with her parents to Ann Arbor, Mich., when she was 5 and a half. She says her own consciousness was shaped both by her parents’ difficulties trying to fit into American society and their experience of oppression in Kiev – for example, her straight-A’s mother Alina, now a biochemist at the University of Michigan, could not attend a first-class university because she was a Jew. “That immigrant experience seeped into my childhood,” says Ms. Kotlyar. “I saw my parents struggle with jobs and friends, and I sat in the back of their ESL classroom. That is an experience that I don’t share with American Jews.”

Genia Kovelman, a Jewish educator trained at the International Solomon University in Kiev, is now working with 18 to 35 year old Russian Jews in Chicago to help them learn about their Jewish roots, to feel a sense of belonging, and to feel part of the Jewish community. The young Russian Jews she sees in her work also carry with them a suspicion and mistrust of institutions, an inheritance from life under Stalinism and Communism. “For Russian Jews, even if they came when they were very little, if there’s something structured and organized and with requirements of membership and belonging, they stay away,” she explains, adding, “If I, with all my study and work for the Jewish community, can’t affiliate, what about those with none?”

Most Limmud FSU participants interviewed did emphasize their strong Jewish identities, but described them as “cultural” rather than “religious” – an almost the mirror image of strongly identified American Jews. Musing about the source of Russian Jews’ strong ethnic identity, Kovelman concludes that the connection is almost tribal. “The Jews bonded together in the face of anti-Semitism,” she says, noting how Jews helped each other traverse Soviet society.

Although many young Russian Jews do retain a shred of a connection to traditional Judaism, via grandparents who spoke Yiddish or shared stories with them, most have no real knowledge of the Jewish tradition. An almost apocryphal story shared during the conference was that after Rabbi Michael Paley taught a learning session about the Joseph story in the Bible, an audience member questioned him about who Joseph was, asking, “Was he a friend of yours?”

The obvious solution was to begin to create educational organizations wherein Russian Jews and their children, who are usually very successful professionals, can learn about Judaism and the Jewish community without feeling embarrassed, ashamed, or inadequate. Kovelman suggests a tailored approach, with lots of explanation. At her organization’s yearly Russian Shabbaton retreat, she explains everything – the meaning of Shabbat, why we light candles, why we sing songs – to the 100 participants that the event draws. “For many, they are celebrating Shabbat for the first time in their lives,” she says.

Educating Russian Jews, suggests Rabbi Aryeh Katzin, who teaches for the Russian American Jewish Experience (RAJE), is a mission to restore what the Communists took away. “Every time I enter a class, it is a battlefield with Stalin and Hitler,” he says. “Our job is to give this heritage back to this people.”

With the influence and support of the “Russians only” organizations, things may be starting to change. Cahn notes that more Russians in New York are joining the leadership in the Federation and in other organizations. And Kovelman feels that many Russian Jews are looking for spirituality. Additionally, as the younger Russians are having their own children, they are seeing them become more integrated in ways that they themselves couldn’t be. One woman says that her children, who are in day school, are learning at a young age how the Jewish community functions. “Their friends’ parents are on the boards of organizations,” she says. “My mother worked all the time.”

Leonard Petlakh, who teaches an undergraduate class in Russian and Soviet history at Hunter College and co-led a session on Russian Jews and the American Jewish community with Rabbi Robert Kaplan, remembers having to sleep without a mattress when his family first arrived in New York – despite the fact that his father had scoured the neighborhood and requested mattresses from both liberal Jews and Haredim. In the same line, Rabbi Kaplan added that even though thousands of students used to show up at Save Soviet Jewry conferences, only 20 came to a conference he ran whose purpose was to work with Soviet Jews in the U.S.

In response Russian Jews created their own organizations, which are likely to continue providing for their different needs at least into the next decade. But Petlakh and others view this separateness as part of a process toward unity. He says organizations like Limmud FSU and RAJE provide “a means to an ultimate goal – to be part of the American Jewish community. You cannot be a Jew in a vacuum, just with your Russian friends.”

The bitter controversy in Chicago involving University of Chicago Hillel may be off the front page, but isn’t going away. We’re told the Jewish Federation simply does not care – they continue to have the support of local donors and apparently this is where their interest lies. But what the good folks over at the Federation are missing is the concern expressed by many a national organization that partners with Federation on local programs – if it happened with Hillel it could happen with them. And, this is not such a good reputation to have.

Over at JDC, life is also interesting these days. Friday’s unexpected announcement that Steven Schwager, the organization’s Executive Vice President and CEO, retirement has raised more questions than answers. Schwager, who led many to believe he would stick around until 2014, is mum – even privately – other than to indicate his health is ok.

The board, which had concluded a regularly scheduled meeting just days before, was kept in the dark. In fact, Penny Blumenstein’s (JDC’s president) letter to the members went out just 16 minutes prior to the official press release – leaving more than one board member unaware when contacted by the media.

The rumors are flying fast and furious – and many point directly to the countries of the former Soviet Union where more bad news is expected to surface. Though one board member, aware of some of the ongoing problems, indicated this would not be enough to cause Schwager’s abrupt retirement. This individual is putting his/her money on conflict between Schwager and senior lay leaders.

At this point, two things are clear: JDC’s well-oiled and well-disciplined media messaging of control – which, as a result, says nothing – is somewhat responsible for the rumor mill flourishing. Madoff (and Komen) should be a lesson to all – especially in today’s 24/7 news cycle – that silence really is deadly. The ironic thing is, JDC actually understands this.

Second, based on what we (including their own board) know, JDC has famously failed governance 101. JDC – like many organizations of all sizes – apparently did not have a succession plan in place. If they did, at the least, we would have already seen an announcement of an interim CEO.

update 11:50 EDT: The JDC has this morning named Darrell Friedman interim CEO of the organization effective July 1, 2012. For the last nine years, Friedman has served as in-house senior consultant to JDC’s CEO. JDC has indicated they will shortly appoint a CEO Search Committee of JDC Board members with Friedman serving as its professional advisor.

Jerusalem, May 15, 2012 – Six groups of exhausted Birthright Israel participants walked out of Ben Gurion arrivals terminal to the sound of beating drums, singing IDF soldiers and the welcoming call of the Shofar being blown. The drummers then led the group of 250 young Jews as they made their way to an open area outside the airport terminal where a brief welcome ceremony took place.

Each group of participants will share their experience with four to six Israeli soldiers, who are part of the Mifgash (Encounter) program. These were the soldiers who sang songs of welcome on the groups’ arrival.

This season, Taglit-Birthright Israel will host about 26 special niche groups in addition to the regular trips, including a “Shakespeare in Israel” group for writers; a “Sound of Music” group for musicians and singers; a culinary group for food lovers and professional chefs; and various groups that have special needs.

There will be 23,000 participants from 25 different countries arriving throughout the summer 2012 season, which began at the end of April 2012.

photo credit: Erez Uzir

In a seemingly parallel world to the political messes of recent months, a new world is being born right before our eyes: a world born out of the visions of young Jewish social entrepreneurs around the world, over a hundred of which will be launching their ventures this June. So I hereby propose: let us declare June Jewish Innovation Month. If the upcoming events in the month of June go smoothly, the reports of a disconnected, past-tense Federation and JCC system will prove to be unfounded.

Starting on May 31st in Boston, six communities across North America – and five others worldwide – will host a total of eleven Launch Nights to showcase the 117 new Jewish social ventures that PresenTense partners have catalyzed over the past year. These 117 social ventures, in fields as diverse as education, social action, environmental programs and Israel education, will join the 153 community oriented start-ups PresenTense (which, full disclosure, I’m proud to be an employee and founder of) has helped launch over the past five years – 113 (or 74%) of which are still going in the present day. Many of these Jewish social entrepreneurs past and present, and the volunteers who helped them, will meet at the Schusterman Foundation’s ROI Summit in Israel – yet another reason that June is a natural for Jewish Innovation Month.

Among the 117 new ventures launched this year by the Federations in Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC, and Cleveland, from the Jewish Center in New York, the JCC of Chicago, the JDC in Moscow, and in Israel Threshold, the Tel Aviv Municipality the Jerusalem Foundation and with the World Confederation of JCCs, are ventures such as Lila Kagedan’s Sulam, a new model of K-5th Jewish education, which partners with community resources to provide a high quality experience at an affordable cost; HeartWork by Yael Mendelson, a toolkit for schools and youth groups that reinvigorates the spiritual connection to Judaism through the creation of collaborative virtual Siddurim (prayer books); Arkady Baranovsky‘s venture launched by the JDC’s Moscow Kaet Fellowship, which uses theater to rehabilitate former Jewish inmates, which has already got off the ground and is supplementing the important work the JDC is doing to serve this distressed population. All of these entrepreneurs and ventures can be browsed at this link, here.

But while the new start-ups will get the majority of the attention, the story behind the story is how a diverse set of community organizations around the world have taken advantage of PresenTense’s Community Entrepreneur Model to engage over 918 professionals, young and old, in hands-on work to reinvigorate their Jewish community. Through volunteer Steering Committee and Mentor opportunities, these communities are tapping their talents and the passions of their local residents to engage in the greatest challenges facing their communities. Using PresenTense’s program toolkit, these local institutions are developing meaningful volunteering opportunities that leverage the hour-a-week, hour-a-month, or hour-a-year they can give to improve their local community. This gift of time, more often than not, is followed by an increased financial commitment as well, which means that satisfaction has been high: despite the occasional bumps and challenges that occur, so far, 100% of the communities that have started the PresenTense program have renewed their commitment to PresenTense and run the program again the following year.

It is hard to believe that the Community Entrepreneur Partnership program, developed by the PresenTense Group in partnership with the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Boston in 2009, has come this far in such a short period of time. By the end of July, thanks to this unique way of pairing community institutions such as JCCs and Federations, 282 Jewish innovators will have gone through twenty-four program cycles of a training program that inspires them to develop new organizations and leadership frameworks for the Jewish People. That number is a order of magnitude larger than other start-up incubators and accelerators combined, and was a deliberate strategy recognizing that even if the ventures launched by these Jewish innovators do not continue, they represent human capital of the finest kind, exactly the leadership the Jewish People need to succeed in the 21st century.

But that is only the beginning. Over a thousand volunteers will have recognized that their Federation, their JCC, is not merely a historic institution of the past, but an engine for generating a better future. And according to last reports, over 277,000 people have volunteered through, participated in, watched or listened to the work done by these fellows, creating a network effect that is phenomenal in its growth. To see for yourself, check out our impact website with our fully transparent dataset, here.

Even more exciting – this next year, new communities will join PresenTense’s Community Entrepreneur Partnership Network. The Jewish Federation of Los Angeles announced its partnership with PresenTense earlier this year, and additional communities will do so in the month to come as we approach the June 15th deadline to sign up for the next cycle of the program. As network theory mavens will know, each additional community means an exponential increase in the connections, resources and opportunities available to the Jewish People as these start-ups get off the ground and start engaging their communities. That means that next June, close to 200 new ventures will join the 300 already launched by PresenTense and its community partners. If you are interested in what the Jewish future holds, keep your eyes open this, and every, June.

Ariel Beery is co-founder and co-director of the PresenTense Group.

by Jon Levisohn

Jewish service-learning is a hot topic, and rightly so. Funders, policy makers and academics have noticed a groundswell of activism and energy in the Jewish world, especially among young people, and have hopped on board. This has led to an expansion of service-learning opportunities for young Jews. This is a good thing.

But what are the goals of service-learning? Service-learning is, obviously, related to service, and dependent on it, but they are not the same thing. The goal of service is to benefit the person or community served. The goal of service-learning is, in addition to the service performed, some kind of learning from the experience. The person who is doing the service ought to undergo some growth or beneficial development. What can we say about that growth?

To begin, we want that growth to be more than the acquisition of knowledge or skills. It has to be thought about in terms of aspects of character, or “dispositions.” We may want people engaged in service-learning to know certain things, and to learn how to do certain things, but beyond that, we want them to become certain kinds of people.

What kinds of people? I tried to think about this question for the purpose of an article recently published* in a special issue of the Journal of Jewish Communal Service, using the biblical scholarship of James Kugel as a platform for my inquiry. (The entire issue was devoted to Jewish service-learning, and was created through a collaboration with Repair the World.) That may seem like an odd approach to the question, but Kugel has some interesting things to say about the idea of avodat Hashem, the service of God. Working through Kugel’s idea of avodat Hashem opened the door to thinking about service more generally.

Certain attributes emerge as particularly significant.

First, service-humility. These days, the world of non-profit management focuses not merely on doing good, but on solving problems. If we want to see significant and enduring change in the world, we have to develop strategies that take responsibility for that change and that have a reasonable shot at achieving it, in whole or in part. This makes sense. But on the other hand, this kind of gung-ho, problem-solving attitude can lead to a kind of arrogance about our roles. So, as a counter-balance, we might want to encourage a deep and abiding humility in the face of deep and abiding social problems, the kind of humility that we associate not with generating solutions but simply with doing God’s will in the world.

Second, service-discipline. We rightfully celebrate lives of moral heroism, extraordinary deeds of courage or sacrifice. Those examples give us language to articulate important values. But they may also distract us from other kinds of service, non-heroic, small-scale work in the world. This kind of service is not characterized by great feats of valor. It is characterized by fidelity, by showing up every day, by constancy and consistency.

A Hillel director recently told me, with pride, about the student who created a soup kitchen to meet a particular need, and the way that that student has been able to enlist other students in order to sustain the project. The Hillel director is not proud of him because of his heroism, or his social innovation. The student displayed initiative and leadership, but there is nothing particularly innovative about a soup kitchen, and no one imagines that this effort is going to solve the social problem of hunger! Instead, she is proud of him because of his commitment to service, to being at the soup kitchen every Wednesday night, to serving the homeless with respect and dignity. The virtue that he displays, and that we might want to cultivate in service-learning across the board, is what we might call “service-discipline.”

Finally, service-wisdom. The paradigmatic dilemma of service-learning is this: what is good for the learner is not necessarily good for the person or community served. In fact, the history of service is full of well-intentioned efforts to help that have gone awry. We have to acknowledge that the moral path is not always a clear one, that frequently our choices require not fortitude and heroism but careful calibration of the effects of our actions in order to choose the best way forward.

But this is not only a matter of the practical difficulties of doing good in the world. Engaging in service means, at one level, submission: we submit our will and our desires to the will of the Other or to the greater good. There is great nobility in this, and great satisfaction. But the submission of will must not entail a submission of intellect. Instead, paradoxically, we must simultaneously submit our will and retain our capacity for independent and critical judgment. For theists, we must simultaneously do what God wants us to do in the world, and always pursue our own understanding of what we believe God actually wants us to do in the world. We might call this capacity “service-wisdom,” the third dispositional goal of service-learning.

Are these three dispositions the only goals of service-learning? Surely not. But our service-learning projects and programs will benefit, I think, if we can think more clearly about our goals, and in particular, if we can think about those goals in dispositional terms. Then we can ask: In what ways are our service-learning programs designed to cultivate these dispositional goals, and how well are they achieving those goals, and how might they do that more effectively?

Jon A. Levisohn is Assistant Professor of Jewish Education at Brandeis University, and Assistant Academic Director of the Mandel Center for Studies in Jewish Education.

* The PDF of this article is available for download from the Mandel Center’s website. This article is disseminated with the permission of the Jewish Communal Service Association, publishers of the Journal of Jewish Communal Service.