Testimonial from Jake Goodman

The point is that two historic decisions were made in this academic year of which the student body had little effective voice; decisions were made for us and we had to deal with them.  The issue was complicated, of course, by the fact that the Law Committee's decision affirmed two contradictory responsa (which has much historical precedent):  students were in essence given "permission" to feel any way they wanted.  There was no "right" or "wrong."  And students were of diverse beliefs.  On top of that, the various schools that make up JTS (rabbinical, cantorial, education, graduate, undergraduate) all have different admission policies--some have been truly pluralistic for many, many years while others (obviously) have not.  Some people felt this to be the issue facing students; others felt it to be an issue relatively irrelevant to their experience.  Tensions were high and it felt as if there were two "sides" to this issue--black and white--and that all of our beliefs were intractable, our differences insurmountable.  People on both "sides" felt oppressed and marginalized by the other.  To my knowledge, dialogue, in the true sense of the word, between these two sides was quite rare if not nonexistent.

So the Jewish Dialogue Group (JDG) was invited in the Jewish Theological Seminary to help facilitate a dialogue explicitly for students with diverse opinions and beliefs regarding gay and lesbian ordination, and regarding the way gays and lesbians are perceived within Jewish tradition and law.  The dialogues facilitated by the JDG were extraordinary and transformative.  Although this particular topic was uncharted territory for the JDG, they had the experience and expertise to know to keep the groups intimate and highly structured.  It became clear to me, as a participant, that this was not simply a two-sided issue, that there were many shades of grey in all of our opinions.  Not only were we given the space and the respect to be heard, but we also had to do the same for other people.  And that was the amazing part:  it became clearer than ever that although some of the other participants held beliefs that I thought were heinous,  it was obvious that they were struggling to do what was right (just as I was).  And we were able to find some common ground and mutual respect for each other and our positions.  The goal was never to convince the other of our own opinions (although that is a very tricky thing not to do), but to listen.  So it became a very reflective and reflexive process.  I changed in these dialogues and I know others' testimonies that they did too.  It is through these dialogues, explicitly, that I feel the climate at JTS will become more open, honest and truly pluralistic.  We may not agree with each other, but we do not have to marginalize others' voices either.  At the same time, we were given the space to safely and respectfully respond to other people's comments and even to challenge and, in turn, be challenged.  We all left feeling that the time was productive and healthy.  I only wish that more dialogues of this sort were held at JTS--that they continue.  I don't know how else real progress can be made.

I also had the experience of helping to plan this dialogue.  Mitch Chanin was an incredibly responsible, reliable, passionate and objective collaborator.  I could not recommend him more highly.  I could not recommend the JDG more highly.  The dialogue they facilitate is vitally important.