While Jews no longer face the widespread discrimination and bias which marked their American experience until relatively recently, surveys commissioned by Jewish communal agencies regularly uncover alarming trends in both anti-Semitic attitudes and the quantity and quality of anti-Jewish incidents.
But different surveys attempting to measure Americans’ attitudes toward Jews, taken within a few years of each other, can turn up markedly different results and can help explain the paradox of anti-Semitism in America today.
The results, say critics, often depend upon the way anti-Semitic attitudes are measured; how survey questions are asked and in what context.
Survey results, they say, depend on the way questions are positioned.
If poll respondents are asked to rank ethnic and religous groups that they feel have too much influence, for example, the results can be quite different than if they are asked simply if they feel Jews wield too much influence in the United States.
When asked to compare, respondents regularly rank many ethnic, religious and business groups as having more influence than Jews.
What does the Anti-Defamation League press release headline, “Nearly 40 million adults — one in five Americans — hold strongly anti-Semitic views” really mean, for example?
The conclusions of the most recent survey of attitudes, commissioned by the ADL, were that approximately one-fifth of Americans hold “hardcore” anti-Semitic attitudes.
EMPHASIZING THE BAD NEWS
And although the percentage of Americans who hold anti-Jewish attitudes had declined 9 percent since it commissioned its last survey in 1964, the ADL chose to emphasize the bad news rather than what might be considered encouraging, critics say.
But “what has come down is percentage” points, ADL National Director Abraham Foxman pointed out, not the actual number of people holding anti-Semitic views.
“People have said we have created anti-Semitism by saying it,” he said.
But by revealing that there is a problem, “the American people, faced with the truth, will be more likely to deal with it.”
Still, in contrast, other surveys and polls gauging anti-Semitic attitudes which define “hard-core” differently have uncovered much less alarming findings.
The Gallup polling firm, in a 1981 survey, found that only about 5 percent of Americans met the definition of “hard-core anti-Semite.”
And in a 1979 Roper poll, less than 3 percent of respondents answered yes when asked point-blank if they were inclined to be anti-Jewish.
Another piece of the puzzle of modern anti-Semitism in America lies in Jewish history.
Some observers have pointed out that the perception of greater prejudice than really exists is natural, and inevitable, given the recent past.
“It just takes one teen-ager with spray paint to get everyone worried,” said Ken Stern, program specialist on anti-Semitism and extremism at the American Jewish Committee.
“We’re sort of in the golden age now; Jews are more integrated into society, there’s less measurable overt bigotry. But people always see bigotry as something that strips them naked,” he said.
According to Earl Raab, an expert on anti-Semitism at Brandeis University, Jews are afraid to say that anti-Semitism is not serious because it might be serious tomorrow.
ADL’s Foxman agrees, attributing it to the post-Holocaust mentality. “After Auschwitz, the Jewish community’s antennae to anti-Semitic acts vibrate very actively.
“An incident is magnified many times,” he said, referring to the fact that many people may hear about one incident of vandalism, for example, and all will be very concerned about a possible increase in anti-Jewish bigotry.
ANXIETY LEVEL IS HIGH
“Our anxiety level is high. Unfortunately, we’ve earned it. If I had to choose between hypersensitivity or clinical detachment, I’d choose the former. It’s part of our baggage, our history, our experience,” said Foxman.
But at what cost?
The dramatic and attention-grabbing nature of anti-Semitic incidents can often push other, more amorphous issues to the backburner of the national Jewish agenda. The fight against anti-Semitism also attracts large sums of money.
The ADL, for example, has a $30 million operating budget for 1993.
But that figure does not represent a diversion from other Jewish causes, Foxman emphasized. Half the money comes from non-Jewish sources like corporate donations, he said, and only $1.25 million comes from Jewish federations.
The rest is raised from the Jewish community through fund-raising dinners, direct mail and other solicitations, Foxman said.
Sociologist Steven M. Cohen agreed with Foxman’s assessment. The money raised by communal organizations to fight anti-Semitism is not the same money that would otherwise go to fund Jewish educational programs, for example, he said.
While Foxman asserted that the most important challenge facing American Jewry is not anti-Semitism but Jewish continuity, he rejected the notion that too much money is spent on fighting anti-Semitism.
“That’s b.s.,” he said. “Anyone making these comparisons is short-sighted.
“Money spent on fighting anti-Semitism by the Jewish defense agencies is $50-60 million a year, a pittance in terms of the disease which has wiped out one-third of our people and is virulent all over the world.”
But even if the financial cost is limited, there is a price of another sort being paid by the Jewish community for its focus on anti-Semitism, said one observer.
Numerous studies have shown that anti-Semitism has been one of the primary reasons that Jews who are on the threshold of breaking away from the organized community decide to disengage completely, according to Jerome Chanes, co-director of domestic concerns at the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council.
“The most effective approaches to Jewish continuity are less about negative reasons (to stay connected to the Jewish community) and have more emphasis on positive focus,” Chanes said.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
