May 8, 2017: Generation to generation – some issues are perennial

By Michael Regenstreif

A story and a column in this edition of the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin got me thinking about how some issues of concern to the community are perennial – even if every new generation that comes along thinks that certain concerns are unique to them.

The story is Louise Rachlis’ report about a presentation delivered by Linda Kislowicz, president and CEO of Jewish Federations of Canada – UIA, on the results of a national survey of Jewish baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964). That is the demographic group to which I belong, so the survey’s questions and answers are of personal interest.

The column is Stephanie Shefrin’s “Modern Mishpocha” on page 22.

I was specifically taken with this observation of Stephanie’s: “We think that what our community is going through is unique to now, that it’s our fault, that we need to strike a new committee or devise a new program or do better outreach. All those things are probably true to some extent, but the underlying challenges and fears have been there for decades.”

Stephanie made that observation by looking at issues of the Bulletin published about once every 10 years beginning in 1945, and noticing that many of the concerns faced by Jewish mothers of young children over the generations are the same or similar to many issues faced by Jewish mothers of young children – such as herself – now.

I had a similar observation six years ago after attending one of the Jewish Federation of Ottawa’s openOttawa events.

The openOttawa process was a series of meetings and reports aimed at engaging young Jewish adults in the community. It was the beginning of what is now the Federation’s well-established Emerging Generation division.

In my May 30, 2011 Bulletin column, I noted that “while the openOttawa discussion was fascinating, I couldn’t help but be reminded of how similar the discussion was – minus, perhaps, the Facebook, Twitter and website references – to discussions I was party to in Montreal during the 1970s and ‘80s when I was in that age group. And mine was hardly the first generation to have that discussion.”

My generation, of course, is the baby boomers who are the subjects of the survey, the results of which Linda Kislowicz discussed in her presentation.

There were no big surprises for me in the results of the survey. We want to be engaged in the community in ways we find interesting; we care about making a difference; and, like the generations that came before us, and like the generations that have followed us, we have changing understandings of how we define ourselves as Jews.

I suspect that, if the millennials are surveyed when they reach the ages we boomers are now, the results will be similar.

As I mentioned, some issues of concern are perennial. One of the major issues we’ve continuously covered over the years I’ve edited the Bulletin is Jewish education in Ottawa – and one of the most pressing concerns in recent years has been the fluctuating levels of enrolment in both day schools and supplementary schools. Although there have been some encouraging signs recently, enrolment levels have generally declined over the past couple of decades.

But, as I discovered when I was perusing archived issues of the Bulletin, this is not a new concern.

The February 7, 1941 issue featured an editorial entitled “Educating The Next Man’s Children” in which the author (the editorial was unsigned, but I believe it was written by Rabbi Oscar Z. Fasman, Ottawa’s community rabbi at the time) lamented that most parents in the Ottawa Jewish community of 76 years ago were opting to send their children to public rather than Jewish schools. Now doesn’t that sound familiar?

February 6, 2012: Core community issues like Jewish education need to be addressed by every succeeding generation

By Michael Regenstreif

Last year in this space in our May 30 issue, I mentioned my attendance at the follow-up session to April’s openOttawa symposium, the initiative aimed at engaging Ottawa’s young Jewish adults with the community and providing assistance to the 20- to 35-year-old demographic group in their quest to find new ways to express themselves Jewishly that are relevant to them.

I mentioned that I couldn’t help but be reminded of how similar the discussion was – minus, perhaps, the Facebook, Twitter and website references – to discussions I was party to in Montreal during the 1970s and ‘80s when I was in that age group. I also noted that mine was hardly the first generation to have had such discussions.

Expressions like “the more things change, the more they stay the same” and “everything old is new again” become clichés because there’s a ring of truth to them.

I was reminded of that when I read the editorial, “Educating The Next Man’s Children,” which appeared in the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin 71 years ago this week in the issue of February 7, 1941.

The piece is about the importance of Jewish education to Jewish continuity and is an appeal to parents in Ottawa’s Jewish community to send their children to Jewish schools. Variations on the thinking expressed in that editorial more than seven decades ago are at the heart of the arguments on behalf of Jewish education in Ottawa made by today’s educators and community leaders.

Jewish education and ensuring the present and future viability of both day schools and supplementary schools are a high priority for the Jewish Federation of Ottawa in the face of declining enrolment over a period of many years. Witness both the Federation Report by Steven Kimmel and the From the Pulpit column by Rabbi Howard Finkelstein on the opposite page.

Ottawa’s Jewish schools of 71 years ago faced some of the same challenges faced by today’s schools. Some of the grandparents and great-grandparents of today’s Jewish school students – and potential students – were likely objects of that 1941 appeal. I suspect today’s students will see similar appeals aimed at their grandchildren and great-grandchildren many decades from now.

Revitalizing and redefining Jewish life has always been the job of each succeeding generation and part of that process has been ensuring that Jewish education remains both relevant to contemporary times and true to its traditions. The community leaders and Jewish educators understood that in 1941; today’s community leaders and Jewish educators understand that even more.

May 30, 2011: Mayor did the right thing by withdrawing Whitton proposal

By Michael Regenstreif

Mayor Jim Watson did the right thing on May 8 when he withdrew his proposal that Ottawa’s new archives and library building be named in honour of Charlotte Whitton.

The proposal had been approved by the city’s Finance and Economic Development Committee on May 3 following six presentations by individuals and organizations, including the Jewish Federation of Ottawa, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Friends of the City of Ottawa Archives, who were opposed to Whitton being honoured with the naming of the building. There were no presentations from citizens or organizations in support of the Whitton proposal.

While Watson wanted to honour Whitton’s place in history as Ottawa’s first female mayor – in fact, the first female mayor of a major Canadian city – the Jewish community was opposed to honouring her because of the major role she played, years earlier, in ensuring that Jewish orphans not find refuge in Canada during the Holocaust, thus sealing the fate of hundreds of Jewish children at the hands of the Nazis.

Despite the objections, the committee voted 8-1 to approve the proposal. Only Councillor Keith Egli stood against it.

“Our job is to listen to our constituents,” said Egli. “With the Jewish, French Canadian and historical communities all opposed [to naming the building for Whitton], I must vote against.”

The measure was to go to the full city council for ratification, but didn’t when the mayor withdrew his proposal following the online and media brouhaha that erupted as a result of news coverage of the committee vote. Emails from many in the Jewish community and beyond to the mayor and city councillors, an online petition, op-ed pieces and letters-to-the-editor in the Ottawa Citizen and the Ottawa Sun, all helped convince the mayor that withdrawing the proposal would be the best course of action.

“These kinds of commemorative namings should be positive occasions that bring the community together. Instead, this suggestion, which was mine, and mine alone, was creating disunity in parts of the city, and as mayor, I felt it my obligation not to allow the matter to continue to divide,” wrote Watson in his memo to city councillors advising them he was withdrawing the proposal.

In withdrawing the Whitton proposal, the mayor, like Egli, listened to his constituents.

The May 8 revocation of the proposal, and the new plan for a proper consultative process before a new name proposal for the building next comes before council, was the best possible outcome for the Whitton-naming controversy. But, it did mean that my editor’s column in the May 16 issue of the Bulletin – which called for the building not to be named for Whitton – was out-of-date three days before anyone read it. Such things occasionally happen with publications that have a lengthy lead time.

The column was written on May 5 and we went to press on May 6. Copies of the May 16 Bulletin were first available for sale on May 11 (and arrived in most mail subscribers’ homes on May 12 and 13).

My plan, of course, was for the mayor to read my column, agree with my logic, and then retract the proposal. That’s not the way it worked out. But, all’s well that ends well.

openOttawa

On May 18, I attended the first follow-up session to April’s openOttawa symposium, an ongoing initiative aimed at engaging Ottawa’s young Jewish adults with the community and providing assistance to 20- to 35-year-olds in their quest to express themselves Jewishly in ways that are relevant to them. We’ll have a full report on the session from reporter Jacqueline Shabsove in the June 13 issue of the Bulletin.

While the openOttawa discussion was fascinating, I couldn’t help but be reminded of how similar the discussion was – minus, perhaps, the Facebook, Twitter and website references – to discussions I was party to in Montreal during the 1970s and ‘80s when I was in that age group. And mine was hardly the first generation to have that discussion.

It is up to every generation to find ways of engagement that are relevant to them and it’s also up to the preceding generations to help them in their quest and to make room in the open tent for those new ways of engagement.