Graduation is the wrong time
I sat next to students who walked out of Stanford’s June 14 commencement. As Google CEO Sundar Pichai began his commencement address, roughly 100 students rose and left the stadium, shouting “Free Palestine.” For 10 minutes, a scattered chorus held Palestinian flags, whistled and screamed as he spoke.
Any anxiety I felt that the ceremony might be derailed was put to rest by the pride I felt looking at nearly 6,000 graduates who stayed seated. They knew this was not the time to raise hell. Two of the protest organizers told my friends and me beforehand that decorum has always been the velvet rope the comfortable use to keep the desperate out of the room. Their parents were there, but they wanted to capitalize on the ceremony’s visibility. I understand.
I am the daughter of Soviet refugees who fled a state that decided which moments were sacred and which could be seized. I believe the public square is worth protecting precisely because it can hold disagreement without devouring the people inside it. But if the protesters’ goal was to persuade an audience toward policy change, they failed.
The Stanford audience was not a war cabinet. It was families, many of whom had saved and sacrificed for a single moment they will never get back. The protesters converted what might have been sympathy for the plight of Palestinians into resentment. The people who most want Palestinians to be heard should be the ones most furious about this method.
The protesters chose the drama of villainizing Google over the dignity of restraint and mistook the noise they made for effective communication.There is a time to raise hell. There is also a time to let someone else have their moment. Commencement was the latter. The students who stayed seated understood that instinctively. They are the graduates I will remember.
Olivia Raykhman
Stanford, Class of 2026
Lawsuits aren’t about Israel
In his letter published in the June 12 print edition of J., David Spero is right that “a school’s job is to keep students safe while teaching them about the real world.” But he otherwise misrepresents the May 29 op-ed by Eric Horodas that his letter was in response to. Spero implies that Horodas objects to teaching legitimate criticisms of Israel, but the actual argument is narrower: Jewish students should not be harassed regardless of their views on Israel, and administrators who ignore such harassment should face accountability. That’s a meaningful distinction.
I have not heard of a single successful lawsuit in California against an educator for simply teaching facts about the conflict in Gaza. Meanwhile, the same issue of J. reports that the Sequoia Union High School District settled a lawsuit over incidents that are not matters of political discomfort. One student was brushed off by administrators after a classmate told him that Hamas should kill him and his entire family. A teaching assistant warned a Jewish student that she would “get what she deserved” if she didn’t conceal her Star of David necklace. These are not instances of Zionists conflating legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism; they are unambiguous threats that left students with no recourse after administrators repeatedly ignored their complaints.
Spero is right that students’ discomfort with “Free Palestine” buttons or teach-ins is not necessarily a school’s responsibility to manage. But that is not what these lawsuits are about. They are about schools that failed to address children facing genuine antisemitic harassment and threats.
Cliff Bargar
San Francisco
Remembering Rabbi Kelman
In addition to the many pioneering efforts of Rabbi Stuart Kelman mentioned in Sue Fishkoff’s lovely tribute (“Rabbi Stuart Kelman, Conservative pioneer, 84,” June 3) he was part of the Tiferet Project, a consortium of Conservative rabbis who spent two years studying issues of intermarriage, resulting in a groundbreaking book, “A Place in the Tent: Intermarriage and Conservative Judaism.” The group advocated in the book for making “a genuine place” “for intermarried households within the communal tent” because “by doing so, many Jews who feel there is no place for them or for their Jewish children will come to be a vital part of the Conservative synagogue community and, by extension, the larger Jewish community.”
Edmund Case
President, Center for Radically Inclusive Judaism
Newtonville, Mass.
Loved the crossword puzzle
We have enjoyed being longtime subscribers of J. I rely on it to learn about upcoming events and to connect with the community at large.
This week I was pleasantly surprised at what was included within the June 12 issue: a crossword puzzle! While usually letters to the editor are reserved for more serious reflections, I wanted to share with you how much I thoroughly enjoyed working on and completing the puzzle. I especially loved so many Jewish-related clues and I sincerely hope you will continue to include the crossword puzzle as a regular part of the J. moving forward.
Sameya Gewirtz Pasquale
San Jose
One kidney is better than two
Thank you for the uplifting article on organ donation (“Organ donation: One heroic decision can save a life,” June 16). As a living kidney donor, I can honestly say that life with one kidney is better than life with two since both the recipient and I are doing so well after almost 18 years.
Susan Light
Palo Alto