Goldsmith Sees No Antithesis Between Stern and Lurie Plans but Favors Latter

There is no antithesis between the plan of Judge Horace Stern calling for the synagogue to become the center of Jewish activity and that of H. L. Lurie, director of the Bureau of Jewish Social Research who holds that the Jewish welfare organizations must be strengthened for this purpose, Samuel A. Goldsmith, executive director of the Jewish Charities, here stated to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, inclining however to the welfare groups as the center of Jewish undertakings.

Mr. Goldsmith places his vote with the welfare bodies, not because they have perfected a form, but “because more than the synagogue, they are representative of diverse elements in Jewish life.

“The efforts of the Jewish Daily Bulletin in the direction of intensifying and uniting community effort through a discussion of the so-called “Stern and Lurie Plans”, if judged by the excerpts of replies published in the Bulletin, would seem to have created an antithesis between synagogues and welfare funds. Undoubtedly, this is not the intention either of the Bulletin or of the statement made by Judge Stern or of that made by Mr. Lurie,” Mr. Goldsmith said.

“It would seem to me that Judge Stern has attempted to do two things: first, to strengthen various Jewish communal organizations by adding to them the expressed interests of the synagogue; second, to bring into the synagogue some interest in Jewish communal organizations. These are laudable and desirable purposes with which no one who is interested in Jewish communal organization can quarrel. Essentially, these purposes represent an educational process exerted upon individuals, and, in turn, upon institutions. The difficulty that has arisen in the discussion is that there has been an interpretation to the effect that one plan desires to make the synagogue the focal point of Jewish community organization, and that the other plan, representing more or less the status quo, would make of a generalized and representative organization the organization for community planning and effective work,” he continued.

“There seems to be abroad some attempt to think of the Jew as a disembodied person, with no economic interests, no social interests, and no political interests, but only cultural interests. Naturally, anyone of us who thinks and works in the field, knows that the term “cultural interests” covers a multitude of sins. But, there is no possibility of having the Jew escape from his economic troubles and secure better social adjustments without the ministration of the social agencies that he has created and that he has maintained in one respect or another for thousands of years, and through all kinds of depressions and political and military upheavals.

“Some of us have maintained that the one kind of social organization to which the Jew has contributed well has been community organization. It isn’t far-fetched to think in terms of all the Jewish community interests, some day, receiving the consideration of a central group in each community. It is, however, far-fetched to think of that at the present time. The best that we can do under the circumstances is to see to it that our people secure the best help that they can from the state and local governments, and from our own resources, so that all of the manifold interests in which they are involved are served. It isn’t possible, under the circumstances, to think in terms of turning over to the state all the Jewish hospitals, child caring organizations, family service groups, etc., any more than it is possible to think in terms of turning over to the state (because certain European states subvent these matters) Jewish educational enterprises. It is not apparent to me, in any sense, that a Jew who suffers economic and social and other disabilities in the United States is, because of his residence in the United States, less a Jew than a Jew who needs economic and other aids in Palestine or in Europe,” he asserted.

“People who seek to divide forms of organization are seeking to divide the corporate entity of the Jewish individual and the Jewish community. There would be very little sense in discussing the needs of international organizations exclusively, or Jewish education exclusively, or Jewish “relief” exclusively. All of these factors are factors in the life of the Jewish group in the United States, locally and nationally, and require the attention of the community organization.

“What we require is a form of organization that will permit, as soon as possible, all these elements to find some expression in a central place. Synagogues cannot be united for this purpose, unfortunately, nor if they were united would they express the interest of many groups who are without the synagogue. The present Jewish Welfare Funds and the Jewish Federations have certain shortcomings, and some of us are at work in an adaptation of the form to get rid, at least of some, of the shortcomings. In the long run, a community organization, to be sound, must be based on the community, on the people, and on their various interests. While utilizing the institutions now existing in the community and utilizing some national interests and even international organizations, one cannot express community organization in the terms of one or another form of organization. The community organization embraces all the interests, because it embraces, theoretically, all the Jewish people-synagogue and no synagogue, labor and capital, the Zionists and those indifferent to Zionism, etc.” stated Mr. Goldsmith.

“Insofar as Jewish Federations have approached representation of the various groups and interests either through the Welfare Fund appendages to the Federation or the Federation itself, they are working in the direction of community representation and organization. What I have said about the efforts being made to think in terms of any one interest being the sole interest of the Jewish community, and particularly about those who have claimed that Jewish organizations should subsist only on the basis of vague and ill-defined, essentially Jewish interests, of course, has no reference to either the statement made by Judge Stern or Mr. Lurie, because each of these two persons is altogether too well balanced and has had too much experience in Jewish community work to be a party to that kind of a statement. But there is a very definite opinion,-which was quite vehemently expressed in the course of the Conference of Jewish Social Work at Philadelphia,-to the effect that Jewish philanthropy is dead, that there is no need any longer for any kind of basic economic or social organization, which Jewish philanthropy essentially represents and that the state should take over the Jewish body while the Jewish community, as such, takes over the cultivation of the Jewish spirit and soul. The Jew has never been such an ethereal person. Perhaps at no other point in Jewish history was it necessary that we be concerned with what is happening to Jews in the economic world, in the professional world, and in the other general problems of citizenship.

“Of course, the Jews share many of their difficulties with other peoples, but they are still Jews and they still need the ministration of their organizations, even if only to see to it that in those things which the State is now supplying they receive considerate and just treatment. The extent to which expression of various plans of community organization will help in thinking to develop a reasonable form of Jewish community organization for the United States-to that extent such expression is valuable. What we need to do reasonably, is to study the interests of the Jews as individual persons, and as aggregates or groups in the United States, and to adapt our present form of community organization to meet those needs. There is no reason, ultimately, why we cannot develop a form of organization that will, so far as the interests of the community are concerned, deal with the manifest economic, social, political, religious, and cultural needs of the Jews, both as individuals and as groups, in the individual communities throughout the country.

“In thinking about the subject I tried to estimate the number of persons who actually are affiliated with the synagogue, using the statistics published by the American Jewish Committee, on the basis of the census of religious bodies in 1926. These statistics, however, were not helpful at all in this respect, because of the assumption based on historical grounds that all members of synagogues. One’s practical experience would lead one to believe that in those synagogues that have reached the status which makes them effective institutional members of the Jewish community, one would find that many of the people who exercise some leadership in the synagogue are already exercising leadership in Jewish community affairs. The formalizing of the relationship primarily through these people might be helpful in broadening the base of Jewish communal support, which Mr. Waldman and others have recently advocated.

“I am afraid that the solution cannot come primarily through the synagogue, but, because of our history and our present form of organization, is more likely to come through an adaptation of the Jewish Federation. This will become more apparent when the lay-members of our communities understand that our various institutions are, in reality, not dealing with petty relief problems, but are aiming at fundamental economic, social, and cultural problems and procedures,” concluded Mr. Goldsmith.