I write to clarify the issues raised by the recent apology sent by Principal Johnny Cole to the whole seventh-grade class at Diamond Middle School. In a June 22nd email, the principal apologized to Diamond seventh-graders for “a session about antisemitism connecting the learning you had done in Social Studies class about the Holocaust to the modern world” that left some students feeling “left out or erased.” Because the apology did not name the harm it was apologizing for, but did name Arab, Muslim, Lebanese, and Palestinian student identities, it left the impression that parents of these backgrounds had objected or felt “left out” of a lesson on the Holocaust. That is not true.
Earlier this month I joined a parent meeting with Dr. Cole and Lexington school superintendent Dr. Julie Hackett. I was there as a member of Concerned Jewish Faculty & Staff, a New England Jewish organization of higher education professionals dedicated to clarifying the distinction between Jewish identity and pro-Israel political views.
In fact, the Lexington parents were objecting to a workshop at Diamond run by an outside group called TribeTalk this spring. Purporting to educate students about how to prevent antisemitism and be “upstanders,” TribeTalk instead gave a presentation conflating Jewish identity with support for the Israeli government—a conflation that only feeds antisemitism, as many mainstream Jewish organizations have warned.
TribeTalk materials and workshops do not teach the Holocaust, they exploit it. They insist on the disingenuous “Three Ds” yardstick coined by former Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs Natan Sharansky—Delegitimization, Demonization, and Double Standards—which is used to shield Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank from criticism. TribeTalk pushes the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which mislabels political speech as anti-Jewish ethnic or religious bias. TribeTalk and similar groups silence critical perspectives and pro-Palestinian views, trying hard to ignore the plurality of American Jews who do not identify as Zionist.
Once these problems were explained, it was heartening to see the administrators’ willingness to learn and try to repair the harm their misguided invitation had caused. Unfortunately, what followed was a predictable smear campaign. The vehement, ill-informed online response has been fanned by a Washington, DC-based group called StopAntisemitism, known for stunts like placing children’s content creator Ms. Rachel on its “Antisemite of the Year” list. Such groups seek simply to co-opt our K-12 education system and public discourse in the service of a foreign government. They do not care if they destroy our civic fabric in the process. No wonder they are now spreading misinformation about both the TribeTalk fiasco and the district’s response.
Margaret Litvin
The writer is a founding member of Concerned Jewish Faculty & Staff.
Since you know what was presented, I’m assuming you have a copy of presentation! The article says that “Cole told LexObserver the district does not have a copy of it.” Can you share it with LexObserver so the rest of us can judge it as well?
I am a graduate of Lexington Public Schools (Bridge, Clarke, LHS), product of Lexington’s Jewish community, as well as a Jewish member of Boston’s higher education community, as is Ms. Litvin.
The above letter to the editor was not merely misleading – it repeated falsehoods and rhetoric that many Jews recognize as deeply harmful.
The author’s public record demonstrates a consistent pattern of anti-Israel activism. As an active member of the Jewish higher education community, I have watched organizations such as “Concerned Jewish Faculty & Staff” spend the period since October 7 working not to build dialogue, but to undermine support for Israel on college campuses and sow division within the Jewish community.
In her letter, the author attempts to separate the Jewish people from our ancestral homeland while denying the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination. She further claims that most American Jews are not Zionists—a statement that is simply false. Zionism, at its core, is the belief that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland, a view held by the overwhelming majority of American Jews across denominations.
Equally troubling is the author’s dismissal of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, the framework recognized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and widely adopted by governments, educational institutions, and mainstream Jewish organizations to identify contemporary antisemitism. Rejecting that framework while simultaneously redefining antisemitism on one’s own terms does nothing to combat hatred against Jews.
The author’s defense of Ms. Rachel, a public figure who has generated significant controversy for her selective advocacy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including criticism for failing to acknowledge Israeli victims of terrorism and the October 7 hostages, further illustrates how far outside the mainstream her perspective has become.
Perhaps most concerning is the suggestion that efforts to address antisemitism in our schools were undertaken “in service of a foreign government.” Such conspiratorial accusations echo longstanding antisemitic tropes about Jewish loyalty and influence rather than engaging with the facts.
Readers should understand the actual context. TribeTalk was invited to Diamond Middle School in response to an incident of antisemitism. Rather than acknowledging the need to address anti-Jewish bias, both the author’s letter and Principal Cole’s response demonstrate precisely why additional education about contemporary antisemitism remains necessary.
You write “TribeTalk instead gave a presentation conflating Jewish identity with support for the Israeli government”, but the summary of the presentation found in the article you cite at the start of your letter, says “Criticism of the government and the policies of Israel is NOT antisemitic.”
The Lexington Observer properly criticizes Fox, X, etc. for how they represented the situation. I have chastised Prager for repeating the Fox accusation without adequate due diligence.
However, the Lexington Observer and the school clearly fell short in their responses.
The letter should have encouraged students to speak up; that encouragement is notably absent. A key question is “Why did the students choose not to speak up?” Did the presentation discourage them or is it a reflection on the environment at the school? The apology letter failed to show interest in addressing this issue. (Note: the summary of the session suggests that it was not the session itself, but without being able to listen to a recording, this is inconclusive.)
It is not clear in what way the students did not “feel safe“. Unfortunately, people sometimes say they don’t “feel safe” simply because they were confronted with an idea that was challenging or unpleasant; that’s being overly sensitive. We certainly want to create an environment that is safe for our children, but it can be dangerous to create a false or blind sense of safety. Where children can increase their safety, it is appropriate to assure that they are conscious of potential threats. For example, we prepare them for the risk of school shootings, discourage them from going off with a stranger, and teach them not to play with guns.
We should teach students to be less sensitive, trying to understand rather than looking to be offended. Relative to the challah posting, the “Free Palestine” response has been identified as antisemitic in that context. That’s a nice case of delving into difficult, but appropriate, subtleties. But I wonder whether the discussion included suggesting that the Jewish recipient of that “Free Palestine” response not take it as an intentional antisemitic response but rather simply recognize that the respondent feels strongly for the plight of the Palestinians.
The apology letter says “we missed the mark and did not achieve what we hoped to do”. This conclusion seems extreme and wrong. The post-session feedback indicates outstanding success. The subsequent feedback might suggest they could have done better, but it is impossible to have perfection, and the difference between the post-session feedback and comments after the students went home might suggest that parents handled the situation poorly and caused a problem.
The Lexington Observer says “some students came home from school feeling confused about whether it is antisemitic to say things like “free Palestine” or criticize the Israeli government”. The summary suggests that the session addressed that issue well. No matter how good the curriculum is, this result seems likely because people don’t pay 100% attention, may misunderstand, etc. However, neither the Lexington Observer nor the school addressed clarification of this important issue.
TribeTalk edited the program to respond to all prior feedback. Thus, the content seems to have been fine. TribeTalk broadened its discussion of the swastika. That seems appropriate. You can acknowledge the hateful way it has been used as well as recognize its other uses.
The Lexington Observer article questions the inclusion of the Blue Square Alliance and says the district told TribeTalk those stickers “can be challenging for some families.” That is way off base! The newspaper and school missed an important educational opportunity in this regard. Mr. Kraft is entitled to his beliefs and to expression of those beliefs. His exercise of his free speech is independent of the Blue Square Alliance.
Margaret Litvin’s letter misses the central issue.
Diamond Middle School apologized for teaching about antisemitism. That should never have happened.
Understanding context is important. But context does not excuse or diminish bigotry. We would never say racism should be viewed differently because of political context, nor should we do that with antisemitism.
Harvard learned that treating antisemitism as something that must always be explained or contextualized, rather than condemned directly, undermined trust and left many Jewish students feeling unsupported.
People can disagree about Israeli government policies. They should not confuse that debate with whether antisemitism should be recognized and condemned. The district had nothing to apologize for.