Jonathan Cannon November 9, 2001 The diversity of our school community is a defining characteristic and also a challenge. Michel Eyquem de Montaigne, a sixteenth century French writer, said, “There never was in the world two opinions alike, no more than two hairs or two grains; the most universal quality is diversity.” At CES JDS, we celebrate that diversity, and all those who work within the school are daily confronted with the need to make decisions in a sea of wildly differing opinions as to what that decision should be. The job of the decision maker is to weigh up all of the input and also use his or her knowledge of the context within which a decision is being made to come to a conclusion. Often it is only the decision makers who can visualize that context, and while the advocate of a particular viewpoint cannot be expected to see an issue from all angles, there must always be an appreciation of the fact that this is the way in which effective decisions are made. Not everyone will agree with an outcome, and it is always beneficial to be as communicative as possible of the reasoning that leads to a particular conclusion. We are fortunate that our school has a working dynamic that allows our constituents to be critical of one aspect of school life while still being passionate advocates for, and believers in, the institution as a whole. In this way our school has managed continuously to grow and thrive and has celebrated its diversity as a driving force in the process. There is an obvious benefit in applying this dynamic beyond the doors of the school. It can and should form the basis for our relationship as Jews with the State of Israel. Over the last year and a half, Israel has been the subject of intense media and community criticism both in the United States and abroad. There is no doubt that some of what is written in the media concerning Israel is of the style envisioned by G.K. Chesterton when he wrote, “Journalism is popular, but it is popular mainly as fiction. Life is one world, and life seen in the newspapers is another.” However, it is too simplistic to attribute all concerns about activities in Israel to media exaggeration. In such a climate, we have an additional responsibility to ensure that any criticism of actions of the Israeli government is understood in the wider context of commitment to, and passion for, Israel’s core values and her centrality to the Jewish people. Interestingly, this discipline of trying to view the wider picture has become, at least temporarily, part of the American political scene. In the midst of fears about anthrax contamination, Tony Williams, the Democratic mayor of Washington, was pressed hard by the media to criticize the Republican administration’s handling of the issue. He repeatedly refused, citing his belief that the administration did the best that it could with the knowledge available at that time. Difficult times have created a new depth of empathy but will that approach characterize political debate in the months and years ahead? Don’t get me wrong—I am not advocating that we give up our right to criticize or that we don’t continue to hold our leadership accountable for its actions. After all, alongside baseball and football (and unfortunately for me, not soccer), criticizing our leadership is a national sport. What I am suggesting is that together with our right to complain and second guess, we retain a powerful commitment to the greater values of our institutions and our national identities. Jonathan Cannon is Head of School. |
