April 27th: Why Is Everyone Greeking Out?

Only a month after a fraternity at the University of Oklahoma was kicked off campus for heinous acts that poorly represented their house, another chapter has gotten into hot water with behavior detrimental to a Greek house’s values.

Over the weekend, members of Zeta Beta Tau (ZBT) from the University of Florida and Emory University apparently accosted military veterans who were sharing a resort in Panama City Beach. They poured beer on the veterans, as well as spitting on and even urinating on them. One man even reported that his service dog had been spit on. More details can be found here, here, and here.

Immediately, as was the case in the Oklahoma incident, the schools these fraternities came from began to investigate and impose sanctions, suspending ZBT from campus and working to expel guilty individuals. ZBT as an organization condemned their members, repeating often that this is not a reflection of the values they look for in their members.

And, once again, members of ZBT and the Greek system at large have to apologize for the bad behavior of a small few who are shaming their letters. I have a very close friend in ZBT. He shouldn’t have to be identified as having a common bond with the type of people who publicly humiliate the men and women who fought for our country. He should not have to apologize for belonging to an organization that not only let him in, but gave membership to these morons.

The fraternity system has a serious branding issue, and it starts with incidents like this. Too often, houses are forced to create a separation between the fraternity and it’s members. “No, it wasn’t ZBT that spit on veterans, just THOSE ZBT brothers…” “No, SAE isn’t racist, only THOSE SAE members are…” There are too many incidences when the minority is allowed to represent the majority in their bad behavior. Are there non-Greeks doing stupid, insulting things? Sure. But they aren’t being asked to represent an organization when they go out in public.

This kind of misrepresentation is present, though, even in much less blatant examples. If you ask any non-Greek alum of a major university to describe the Greek system, I would be willing to bet a year’s tuition that most would reference partying in the first sentence. Sure, the Greek system identifies with values of networking, philanthropy, and brotherhood. But nobody is noticing, because the outward appearance is that the Greek system is built for the purpose of getting drunk, getting laid, and getting into trouble.

As a non-Greek alum of a VERY Greek university, I know that I have little to no understanding of what goes on within the confines of a house. I don’t know the feeling of brotherhood and support. I don’t know what goes on in chapter meetings or in study hours. What I do know is that, from the outside looking in, it is easier to identify frat parties and hazing than it is to identify social action and philanthropy. It is easier to acknowledge the flaws than to see the values. And that is a huge problem for the thousands of brothers who ARE in a fraternity for the right reasons.

It isn’t that these values don’t actually exist. They most certainly do. But there is a serious issue in public appearance, and as long as it continues to be a problem, fraternities will have a hard time selling their brand of brotherhood without also having to answer for the idiocy of some of it’s members. The time is now for frats to clean up their organizations, imposing much stricter rules about who gets in and what brotherhood looks like, before more issues continue. Every time a fraternity allows the inappropriate behavior of one of it’s members to impact the greater whole, it is jeopardizing the future opportunities to participate as meaningful members of the collegiate community and society as a whole.

If you enjoy the work of the Zoot Perspective, please visit my GoFundMe page, to help support me on my journey. Thank you very much.

For more content from ZPMedia, visit www.zootperspective.com.

April 20th: The Moral Pulpit

I was reading an interesting article the other day about what many in the religious community refer to as the “moral pulpit.” This references the obligation of members of the clergy to use their position at the helm of their communities to give guidance and suggestions regarding issues of character, and to attempt to lead their flock in the right direction ethically. In short, it is the need for religious leaders to ask for the best from their congregants, especially when they come up short.

The problem is that the moral pulpit is disappearing. More and more often, rabbis are shying away from giving their thoughts on issues of value, because they fear that their congregations will not want to hear what they have to say.

It is difficult to give moral judgements. Even harder than giving them, it is uncomfortable to be told that you aren’t doing enough, that you aren’t good enough. Rabbis are saddled with the difficult obligation to ask their congregation for the best of humanity, when so often the people know that more is possible and struggle to get there.

This comes directly in conflict with the notion that religion is a form of sales. Temples are competing for time, attention, and money not only with other congregations, but also with other forms of entertainment and communal engagement. There is immense pressure on these communities to find ways to remain relevant, to remain a central part of the day-to-day Jewish lifestyles of Americans.

One of the most significant ways that this is done is by making congregations comfortable for all members. Comfort comes in the form of welcoming anyone and everyone who wants to join. Comfort comes in catering the experience for members by delivering a wide variety of programming and services. Comfort comes in the form of accepting who people are and where they come from. This is a balancing act, though, and all too often, comfort comes at the expense of the moral compass that has been so important in organized religion throughout history.

When the rabbi stands in front of the community and says that we are not doing enough to help out our community, it is uncomfortable. When the rabbi demands patience, humility, and kindness, even in the face of adversity, it is uncomfortable. When the rabbi reminds us that we are not perfect, that we have places where we can learn and grow, it is uncomfortable. And rabbis are choosing to avoid the issue, rather than risk losing a congregant to this discomfort.

We need to do better than that, though. There are constant ways we can improve as people. We can be more patient. We can be more thoughtful. We can do more in our communities, both for those we know and those we don’t. If we aren’t told how to improve our lives, how will we ever be able to pursue the holiness that we are forever striving for?

One of my favorite lines from the Mishkan T’filah, the Reform Movement’s prayerbook, is “Disturb us, Adonai, ruffle us from our complacency; make us dissatisfied.” Someone needs to wake us up, to inspire us to be better. Someone needs to point out our flaws, and, with kindness and love, demand that we do more to improve the world and make it better. Rabbis are the moral compass of their congregations, and should be allowed to steer their congregants in the right direction.

We cannot let our goals of comfort and welcome be a barrier for the morals and ethics that are so important to our Jewish identity. If we are not held accountable, we will get lost in our complacency. As I begin my journey to becoming a rabbi, I  want to start a career of working toward making the world a better place. I have high expectations of myself, and I hope that the communities I serve will allow me to help point us all in the right direction. We need to elevate the level of debate in our synagogues. It doesn’t mean we will always be right, but it means we always need to try.

If you enjoy the work of the Zoot Perspective, please visit my GoFundMe page, to help support me on my journey. Thank you very much.

For more content from ZPMedia, visit www.zootperspective.com.

April 13th: The People's Candidate

After months (ok, maybe years) of speculation and preparation, Hillary Clinton has finally announced her candidacy for President of the United States. In a video shared on social media on Sunday, Clinton featured many Americans of every age, gender, race, and sexual orientation, discussing the challenges and opportunities in their lives. Some face economic difficulties, some run small businesses, others are excited to finally get married. When Clinton finally takes to the camera, she acknowledges that she too has goals. She’s running for President.

The most pivotal quote from her speech was: “Everyday Americans need a champion. And I want to be that champion.” And she’s absolutely right. The American people need a champion who will look out for their best interests. A candidate who will tell them how it really is, rather than putting spin on every little statement. A candidate who will run on values and purpose, rather than a cutthroat campaign, with winning as the only goal.

A calculated launch of her campaign wasn’t necessarily the best foot to get started on. We all knew she was running. Why did she need to delay, to play games with the public until the timing was absolutely perfect? It is understandable to want to have control over the release of that information, but this presents a huge opportunity for Hillary to stop her political spin right out of the gate and to run a campaign that has the correct focus and dedication to what is truly important.

The last thing we need in America right now is an election wrought with politicking and manipulation. There are so many issues that divide us, and we need to know exactly who we are about to elect, so that we can choose a candidate that best serves our needs. The Democratic Party has frequently referenced that they do not want a “coronation,” an easy, single horse race for the Democratic nomination. My question is: why not? Why not pick a candidate, one good candidate, who can accurately reflect the views, opinions, and direction of her party, and allow her to stay true and honest to her platform, rather than struggling through the in-fighting of a tough primary season?

The Republicans sure won’t have that luxury. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio are the first to throw their hat in the ring, and it doesn’t appear as though that will be the end of it. By the time we are ready to have a Republican primary debate, we might need to hire a carpenter to construct enough podiums. The Republicans will be beating the snot out of each other for months, trying to gain an advantage and to knock their opponent down a peg. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Democrats could have a civil, thoughtful primary campaign that focuses on the issues at hand?

Clinton has already set herself up to be the anti-Republican, especially against the religious right. Her opening video showed a pair of gay couples, and she referenced that “when families are strong, America is strong.” She is setting herself up to be the candidate of the people. Against a Republican party where half of the members have bigotry as their main platform, Hillary can rest easy, knowing that she is going to be the candidate of tolerance and compassion.

In fact, she isn’t speaking like a woman being crowned supreme leader at all. In her video, she specifically says “I hope to earn your vote.” Is that a political move on her part? Sure. That doesn’t mean it isn’t the case. Americans need a candidate who is willing to work hard to earn their votes on their own merit, rather than by bending over backward to say whatever it is that we need to hear to put herself in the Oval Office. This may be America’s opportunity for an election that avoids the political mudslinging and rather focuses on the issues at hand. We can only hope.

If you enjoy the work of the Zoot Perspective, please visit my GoFundMe page, to help support me on my journey. Thank you very much.