In a recent book entitled The Myth of the Cultural Jew, Roberta Rosenthal Kwall argues that Jewish law throughout the ages has been informed by Jewish culture, and thus the two cannot be seen as wholly distinct. She then tries to demonstrate that those who consider themselves “cultural” Jews are participating in something deeply informed by Jewish law. Jay Lefkowitz dissents:

[If] Kwall is accurate in her conclusion that Jewish law depends on Jewish culture, it does not necessarily follow that the opposite is true—that cultural Jews are “inevitably molded and shaped by the Jewish tradition, which includes Jewish law.” To support [the latter contention], Kwall observes that “a strong concern for social justice is deeply embedded in the text of the Torah.” And she cites, as an example of [cultural Jews’ allegedly] halakhic connection to the concept of tikkun olam (“repairing the world”), the biblical injunction to preserve portions of the harvest and vineyards for strangers, orphans, and widows.

But there is nothing uniquely Jewish about wanting to do good deeds and good works, or to pursue justice and be charitable. Baptists and Methodists and secular humanists and other religious groups pursue these same ideals. And while it is nice that Jews are able to point to a biblical text that endorses such behavior, there is no basis for maintaining that the overwhelming majority of Jews, who do not define their Jewish identity primarily by the practice of religion, are committed to social justice because of Jewish law.

While it is commendable that administrators of several universities finally called upon police to crack down on violent and disruptive anti-Israel protests, the actions they have taken may be insufficient. At Columbia, demonstrators reestablished their encampment on the main quad after it had been cleared by the police, and the university seems reluctant to use force again. The school also decided to hold classes remotely until the end of the semester. Such moves, whatever their merits, do nothing to fix the factors that allowed campuses to become hotbeds of pro-Hamas activism in the first place. The editors of National Review examine how things go to this point:

Since the 10/7 massacre, Columbia’s Jewish students have been forced to endure routine calls for their execution. It shouldn’t have taken the slaughter, rape, and brutalization of Israeli Jews to expose chants like “Globalize the intifada” and “Death to the Zionist state” as calls for violence, but the university refused to intervene on behalf of its besieged students. When an Israeli student was beaten with a stick outside Columbia’s library, it occasioned little soul-searching from faculty. Indeed, it served only as the impetus to establish an “Anti-Semitism Task Force,” which subsequently expressed “serious concerns” about the university’s commitment to enforcing its codes of conduct against anti-Semitic violators.

But little was done. Indeed, as late as last month the school served as host to speakers who praised the 10/7 attacks and even “hijacking airplanes” as “important tactics that the Palestinian resistance have engaged in.”

The school’s lackadaisical approach created a permission structure to menace and harass Jewish students, and that’s what happened. . . . Now is the time finally to do something about this kind of harassment and associated acts of trespass and disorder. Yale did the right thing when police cleared out an encampment [on Monday]. But Columbia remains a daily reminder of what happens when freaks and haters are allowed to impose their will on campus.