The Academy and Judaism share similar values. At both their roots lies a passion for knowledge—the love of learning, the necessity for debate and discussion, an appreciation for the challenge of scholarship. This would suggest no mystery in the number of Jews in universities. However, it is women’s space in these intellectual settings—historically unwelcome by the academy and unsupported by Jewish scholarly institutions—that poses the wonder.

field_section_text_value

field_section_text_value

The percentage of Jewish women administrators at four-year colleges is greatest in the region where the largest number of Jews live. This is not the region where there are the most four-year colleges and universities, even though that region might suggest more opportunities in administration. Four-year colleges and universities across the country fall into a slightly different distribution, most heavily weighted to the southern part of the United States (Digest of Education Statistics, 2018). Burstyn and Bogad’s sample consisted of eighty-two Jewish women administrators, fifty-five percent of whom held positions in the northeastern part of the United States. (Eighty percent of these women self-identified as Jewish, while twenty percent were identified by other means.) Another seventeen percent held positions in the Midwest, fifteen percent in the South, and thirteen percent in the West. Bernstein’s sample included fourteen Jewish women administrators from a range of institution types: large four-year public institutions, large four-year private institutions, one small private religiously affiliated school, and a small private liberal arts college. Regionally, twenty-nine percent were in the Southeast, twenty-one percent in the West, twenty-nine percent in the Northeast, and twenty-one percent in the Midwest.

While some women were able to articulate why their attitudes towards work were rooted in Jewish values, others could not. For instance, one of the participants from Burstyn and Bogad’s research shared that “having a liberal approach to education, one that valued intellectual creativity over rote learning ‘felt Jewish.’” These women also attributed many of the attitudes about which they spoke to other sources: to family influence, to social and cultural norms, to intergenerational experiences, to university ethos, and/or to personal work ethic.

Several women said they drew upon metaphors from Judaism to explain situations to themselves and others. One described her job as “that of the Rashi of the rules and regulations,” and many other Jewish women educators also seemed to be inspired by Rashi Some considered the Jewish metaphors they used to be cultural. Bernstein found that some women described their experiences as “outsiders-within.” Others considered their Jewish metaphors as religious, bound to Jewish morality and Jewish observance. One woman described her concern for life at the university in the here-and-now, as opposed to primary concern for shaping its future, as the “Fiddler on the Roof syndrome,” inherited from the need for Jews to be ready to move at any time.

Jewish women administrators’ also mentor Jewish students, particularly Jewish women. On campuses with few Jewish staff members, these individuals are often asked to serve as authorities on Jewish issues, consulted by the President, the upper administration, and academic faculty on religious issues, particularly those affecting the academic calendar. A few interviewers described themselves as “the token Jew,” a role they are proud to hold. They explained that if they do not speak up on Jewish belief systems, no one else will. Others discussed hate speech on campuses, debating whether the issue arises in different ways on public versus private institutions, noting the importance of free speech, and condemning hate.

Many other interviewees described the importance of social justice, noting the difference between equity and equality on their campuses. They explained that they often use their own campus positions to support other underrepresented populations, while also being careful to not focus on “Oppression Olympics.”

Finally, some women struggled with naming their connection to Judaism in the workplace, due to their ability to “pass as white” and as a member of the majority culture and to their colleagues’ unfamiliarity and/or naivete towards Jews.

When questioned if their Jewish identities impacted their administrative styles, the women interviewed were unable to point to a specific element. Frances Degen Horowitz (1988) wrote that “Jewish women bring into their academic experience a double consciousness about difference being female and being Jewish” (p. 12). Most women we interviewed had difficulty disentangling the influence on their work of being Jews and being women. Several expressed their concern for the well-being of faculty and administrative colleagues, which might have grown out of either their socialization as women or their upbringing as Jews. However, some did distinguish between the influences of Jewishness and femaleness. One woman drew upon having “rakhmones” (compassion) for others as the source of her concern, while several others attributed their concern to their parents’ commitment to helping others. Still others felt they brought to their work a profound understanding of the role of diversity in society that grew out of their experience as Jews. Such double consciousness about difference is not shared by all Jewish women academics, however. A few of the women we interviewed, who live and work in cities with large, active Jewish populations, claimed never to have experienced, as Jews, being an outsider. By contrast, women living in areas with large churchgoing populations often felt like outsiders in a world of Christian hegemony, having to often remind their colleagues they were Jewish; they may have also been the first Jewish person someone ever met.

Some women felt a sense of purpose that came from being a Jew in a secular setting such as the Academy. One named her “passion” as arising from her Jewish past. For some this passion was visible in the value they placed on education, in their love of learning, in their intensity for rigorous scholarship and debate in the tradition of Talmud and A type of non-halakhic literary activitiy of the Rabbis for interpreting non-legal material according to special principles of interpretation (hermeneutical rules).midrash. Others connected this passion to a general sense of personal ambition and drive, handed down from grandmothers, in the “tradition of strong, Jewish women.” One woman noted that she found herself encouraging students to take a stand on issues, often posing to them the question, “Is this something you believe in?” Another noted that her “maternal instinct kicks in” with students.

Throughout all of the interviews, Bernstein, Bogad, and Burstyn found that the women had many shared experiences. Regardless of their synagogue affiliation, involvement with Jewish activities, or commitment to Judaism, the women shared a spirit of inquiry, a sense of community, perseverance, and a passion for equity. While such traits are not exclusive to Jewish tradition, interviewees believed that these ideals were integral to their lives as Jewish women administrators in higher education.