In Response to “‘And Then The Politics Came Into It’: Evolving Jewish Community Spaces at Harvard” by Madeleine A. Hung and Asher J. Montgomery

I was on a Hillel retreat when the recent article about Jewish spaces on campus was published, training yet another uninvited eye on our community. I had been asked to comment for this piece, but declined on the grounds that I did not want more scrutiny on the divisions in our Jewish community, which I was told the article would not do. But that’s exactly what it did.

For 5,000 words, Jewish students were thrust into an unwanted spotlight in an article that seemingly portrays Jewish groups on campus as fighting each other for the soul of Judaism. In addition to not quoting a single person on Hillel’s current leadership, the article appeared to pit Hillel and Chabad’s struggles with antisemitism against those of more progressive, less institutional Jewish groups, as if we didn’t have the same goal of reducing hatred against our community.

Throughout the article, these groups were portrayed as “alternatives” to Hillel and Chabad, even though there is countless overlap between all these groups. Even within Hillel itself, the article distinguished our Reform community — which faded during the Covid-19 pandemic and is being revitalized now — from the more established Conservative and Orthodox minyans.

The article effectively separated and divided Jewish groups on campus in a time when we should be focusing on coming together. The Jewish community needs the space and time to heal, and I’m extremely disappointed that the editors of The Crimson were unwilling to grant us that.

As Hillel president, my greatest hope is that I can play a part in uniting and supporting Jewish students at Harvard, instead of siloing into the different groups highlighted in the article. As my friend Jeremy O.S. Ornstein ’24 said in this article: “Here’s my hand, I need you talking with me.”

Believe me when I say that I do not want the Jewish community to be defined by our divisions. We want to grow from this and become stronger, as Jewish communities faced by internal conflict always have, not shut out those who say things that make us uncomfortable.

So I’m offering my hand to all of you, to quote the Tanakh, “in righteousness and justice, in kindness, and in mercy.” Please, do me the honor of taking it.

—Nathan B. Gershengorn ’26, President of Harvard Hillel

To set the record straight: I never stopped belonging to Hillel. I love Hillel because we may disagree in anger, and welcome each other back anyway, to pray and talk and be together.

I spoke to The Crimson because I was upset to see my Jewish community struggle — and national leaders often fail — to acknowledge the suffering of Palestinians and our part in it.

But I’ve also been increasingly inspired by Hillel: hearing Rabbi Getzel pray for extinguished lives on both sides, in Gaza as well as Israel; joining a joyous Shabbat dinner attended by Jews of all politics; seeing the Hillel-hosted conversation between two analysts living across borders.

We know that the future of peace will rest on our belief in the equality of Palestinians and Jews. My community is showing us one way to get there.

To better understand our challenge, I turn to Hillel — not the organization, but our namesake, the first century Rabbi. He poses three questions for how to live. The first: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?”

This is the question on so many of our minds when we confront the pernicious antisemitism of the recent Palestine Solidarity Committee post. It’s the question on our minds when we commit to pairing calls for ceasefires with calls to bring home the hostages.

That brings us to the second question: “If I am not for others, what am I?”

Without either question, we lose ourselves. So we ask both. Again and again.

I know we are exhausted by all this. I see glimmers of hope anyway: people from different perspectives and organizations going on walks together, having conversations. We are all growing. Hillel’s third question: “If not now, when?”

—Jeremy O.S. Ornstein ’24

In Response to “Cambridge Residents’ Division over Bike Lane Expansion Continues” by Ayumi Nagatomi

Last week, The Crimson again miscovered the nature of the bike lane debate in Cambridge.

Among residents, the discussion is all but over: Cambridge wants more bike lanes. That’s why Cambridge City Council candidates supporting the Cycling Safety Ordinance nearly swept the top of the ticket. That’s why Bluebikes usage has soared dramatically in recent years.

People support bike lanes for good reason. Federal data — hard evidence — shows protected bike lanes can reduce crash rates and injuries by up to 50 percent. Though some have alleged that bike lanes harm local business, a recent economic study commissioned by the city found that businesses near bike lanes see virtually no negative effects.

By many measures, Cantabrigians are happy with the bike lane expansion. The Crimson’s newsroom, however, has chosen to frame bike lanes as divisive.

Two of the people interviewed for this piece who were against bike lanes are current or former members of Cambridge Streets for All, a group which sued the city to remove them. They have a demonstrated interest in derailing popular support for cycling infrastructure that saves lives.

By normalizing Cambridge Streets for All as a “transit advocacy group,” the newsroom moreover misses the chance to inform our community about mobility justice, which seeks to ensure everyone can safely use our streets. Instead, The Crimson’s coverage ought to better represent voices like those of Cambridge Bicycle Safety, as well as of the many students who bike to classes and through Harvard Square every day.

—Clyve Lawrence ’25, Crimson Editorial editor

Letters to the Editor must respond directly and explicitly to either an opinion piece recently published on the Editorial page, or else to The Crimson’s manner of coverage within any section of the newspaper. Letters that respond to the subject matter of a non-opinion Crimson article, rather than The Crimson’s coverage of that matter, will not be accepted.

Letters to the Editor are evaluated at the discretion of the Editorial Chairs. They should be submitted to editorial@thecrimson.com and should run between 150 and 350 words. We require Letters to the Editor to be signed, with the signatures appearing on the page or as a hyperlinked list at the discretion of the Editorial Chairs. We do not accept Letters to the Editor from organizations or anonymous writers.