"IS THERE A CANOPY IN STORE FOR ME?"

What do the fictional characters of Fiddler On The Roof think about same-sex marriage?

On Tuesday, speaking during the Illinois House of Representatives debate on marriage equality, State Rep. David Harris summarized the acclaimed musical Fiddler On The Roof. He then used its plot points to argue against equal rights for people who are gay or lesbian. Eager to know what others thought of his confusing analogy, I tracked down the residents of the Russian shtetl of Anatevka. The villagers’ comments (translated here from the original Hollywood-accented Yiddish) were surprising and insightful:

Do You Love Me?

“I’m flattered and honored,” kvelled milkman Tevye (who did not provide his last name). “To be referenced by Illinois State Rep. David Harris has been a lifelong ambition of mine, right alongside escaping persecution and building a dream-home for my wife, Golde. And not only that—David Harris said my name on the House floor and he almost pronounced it correctly. What a mensch!”

As she watched the marriage equality debate, Tevye’s wife Golde paid attention to the politicians who explained that her heterosexual marriage was under threat. “After 25 years of cooking Tevye’s meals, cleaning his house, and milking his cow, I was worried that the gays and the lesbians would ruin everything for us. Would our marriage last another 25 years? Would Tevye still love me? But, after the bill passed, my Tevye reassured me that our healthy bickering and kvetching about each other would continue until one of us dies. Thank God. So, now my only fear is that I’ll be expected to invite these newly married gays and lesbians for Shabbes dinner all at once. I mean, where would they all sit?”

Matchmaker, Matchmaker

Golde’s friend Yente, the local matchmaker, was incredibly excited when the marriage equality bill SB10 passed with 61 votes to 54. “Oy, it’s vonderful!” she clapped. “All the boys and boys, and all the girls and girls I can now set up together! They have vebsites and smart phone apps. for hook-ups, I know, but you just can’t beat a good old fashioned shidduch [arranged marriage]. To be honest, with a same sex-marriage, I’m not sure vhich side of the family will need to pay the dowry, but, as I’ve said before, even the vorst husband, God forbid, is better than no husband, God forbid.”

Newlyweds Motel and Tzeitel Kamzoil were somewhat apathetic to the passage of the bill. Motel, a tailor and rising fashion designer who is rumored to appear on Season 82 of Project Runway, explained: “All these Illinoisans are running around calling the vote a wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles, but Tzeitel and I don’t see what all the fuss is about. It doesn’t make a difference to us.” Tzeitel, Tevye and Golde’s eldest daughter, added: “It doesn’t affect us, true, but we’re still delighted that every person in the Land of Lincoln will soon be able to find and catch and marry her or his own perfect match.”

Tradition!

With Tevye and Golde’s fourth and fifth daughters still unmarried, Tevye acknowledges that marriage equality could now double each daughter’s chance of finding a husband or wife: “I’m all about TRADITION!—as David Harris reminded us—but my children and grandchildren come first. As my son-in-law Motel once told me, even a poor tailor is entitled to some happiness.”

“Representative Davis Harris doesn’t get it,” Tevye’s son-in-law Perchik snapped. Perchik is known for his modern interpretations of biblical texts and for insisting on dancing with his girlfriend, Hodel (now his wife), at a family wedding. Perchik argued, with passion in his voice and a camp skip in his step, “David Harris failed to understand that the story of Anatevka is about the history of antisemitism, the roots of prejudice, and the struggle of social minorities to live in freedom and without fear.”

“Exactly!” Hodel agreed, speaking over Skype from Siberia, far from the home she loves. “The central point of the musical is that traditions change over time. As we danced at my sister’s wedding, Russian thugs, encouraged by the authorities, set the venue on fire. Yet David Harris has the chutzpah to use the historically-inspired 1905 story of our Jewish family’s struggle to justify the contemporary discrimination of another minority group that simply wants to live and love in peace.”

Sunrise, Sunset

Tevye’s daughter, Chava, was also unhappy with Rep. David Harris. “I’ve been awake from sunset to sunrise thinking about what he said,” Chava sighed. David Harris cited Chava’s quarrel with her father over her marriage to Fyedka, a Christian man, as an example of tradition stretched too far. “At first, Papa didn’t approve of my marriage to a non-Jew,” Chava explained. “But at the very end of our Tony Award winning play and Academy Award winning film, Papa gave me his blessing. 'May God be with you,' he called out to me. I know it’s a three hour film, but it’s available on YouTube, for goodness sake; there’s just no excuse for misquoting the plot.”

“And on top of that,” Fyedka chimed in, “David Harris seems to not realize that in the United States it’s perfectly fine to marry someone of a different faith. So his analogy was as unstable as...” His father-in-law Tevye interrupted: “You could say his analogy was as shaky as a fiddler on the roof.”

A Blessing On Your Head

On hearing the news of the passing of the marriage bill, a number of shtetlfolk were overjoyed. “To life, to life, L’Chayim!” shouted local butcher and business owner Lazar Wolf and he pledged one month’s profits in support of defending the bill from lawmakers who may try to repeal the new law.

Even voices from beyond the grave shared their elation: “A blessing on your head, Mazal Tov, Mazal Tov,” sang Golde’s late mother, “To see a daughter wed, Mazal Tov, Mazal Tov.” Tevye, who heard her voice in his dream, found himself changing his mind on equal rights for gay and lesbian people: “I’m now certain that her blessing was a sign that full marriage equality will become a new tradition for all of us. As my sweet, gentle child Chavaleh once told me, the world is changing. In fact, if I were a rich man, I’d consider moving to Illinois and running against David Harris in the Republican primaries, biddy-biddy-biddy-biddy-bum.”

Tevye had to cut his interview short. But as he ran off to deliver the last milk cans to his neighbors before dragging his cart home before dinnertime, he called back with a final thought. “You know, there’s a bigger lesson here,” he said, looking up at the beautiful, autumn sunset. “As the good book says, thou shalt not cite a Broadway musical when arguing against gay rights.”

TO MY TEACHER, MR. PASZEK

You were angry. “If you have ever called Dominic a fairy,” you snapped with your arms crossed, “get up right now and stand at the front of the class.”

I’d heard the fairy slur many times. Dominic was a musician. I’m sure you would have remembered him. He was slim and talented and softly spoken. When he sang, he sounded like a choirboy. For a few years at our all-boys-school on the northeastern edge of London, Dominic was one of my closest friends.

Dominic sat at his desk and looked at the floor, all eyes on him. You, our teacher, watched us as the classroom filled with the sound of scraping chairs as some of the boys started to stand.

I once called Dominic a fairy, too. I don’t know why. Dominic was my good friend, but that didn’t stop me from participating in teasing him. Blame high school culture, blame the ever-present homophobia, blame kids saying stupid things without thinking, but bullying is bullying.

And I found myself pushing back my chair and walking to the front of the room to join the majority of my classmates. Only a handful of students remained seated. You, Mr. Paszek, a young mathematics teacher who was new to our school, must have been astounded to watch most of your students standing, the backs of our school uniforms to the chalkboard, looking at Dominic with our collective embarrassment and regret.

That was 1992. I was almost 14 years old.

Today, I think you’d be proud to know, alongside classes on the Holocaust and genocide, I teach about rape culture and sexual health, college hazing and addiction, poverty and homelessness. And I teach about homophobic and transphobic bullying and their affects on depression and suicide amongst young people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT). I teach about the It Gets Better Project, a virtual support community for LGBT youth. The project’s message to its audience is clear: Don’t despair; You can survive the bullying; Your adult life is going to be great; You are amazing.

A week or so ago, I came across a video clip posted to Facebook that changed the way I think about fighting homophobia.

In 2008, in Oxnard, California, 15-year-old Lawrence King asked 14-year-old Brandon McInerney to be his Valentine. Two days later, in front of their classmates in the school computer lab, Brandon took out a gun and shot Lawrence in the head. Lawrence died in hospital and, in 2011, Brandon pleaded guilty to second-degree murder while the hate crime charges against him were dropped.

The recently released HBO documentary Valentine Road deals with the events surrounding the shooting. In one scene, Shirley Brown, a former teacher of murdered student Lawrence King, explains, “I knew his inclination. He had discussed it with me. When he asked me what to do about the situation, my response to him was Nothing, what to do about this situation is nothing, and to keep it private, and to dwell upon it.” Lawrence, it seems, had little support in coming out as gay.

Ms. Brown continues, “I relate to Brandon [the murderer] because I could see my own self being in that very same position. I don’t know if I would have taken a gun, but a good, swift kick in the butt might work really well.” In other words, Brown believed that it was Lawrence’s gay “behavior,” rather than Brandon’s prejudice, that led to Brandon’s violent response. According to his teacher, Lawrence King—the boy who asked another boy to be his Valentine—brought his murder upon himself.

And so, it seems, in schools around the world, the young bullies might not be the heart of the problem. Teachers and administrators, not to mention parents, need to see that their words and actions—and inactions—have immeasurable repercussions. They are the adults. They set the example.

You, Mr. Paszek, looked at us with deep disappointment and sadness as we stood at the front of your classroom in silence. We all returned to our seats knowing that calling Dominic a fairy was wrong.

Two or three years later, you—the young, funny, talented, energetic Mr. Paszek—died. A rumor about you—quietly confirmed by other teachers—spread through the school: “Mr. Paszek was gay; he died of AIDS.”

My high school’s response to your death was minimal. I can barely remember the announcement. There were no big speeches about you from our headmaster. There were no memorial ceremonies for you. There were no plaques for you. No flowers for you. No candles. No silent ovations. Only rumors and inadequate explanations leading to a continual silence. Almost denial.

This was mid-1990s Britain and, under Prime Minister Thatcher’s Conservative government and the 1988 passage of Section 28, all British schools were prohibited from “promoting”—i.e., “talking about”—homosexuality.

And there I was, a gay teenager learning about reproduction and teenage pregnancy with no way of talking to my teachers about my sexuality and my specific questions about safe gay sex and my fears about HIV and AIDS. The British law wasn’t struck down until 2003. I was 25.

Today across the U.S., conservative lawmakers continue to block anti-bullying legislation that would protect LGBT school students from harassment. And in many states across the country, schools continue to fire teachers for being gay or lesbian or transgender while continuing to employ, tolerate, and even promote teachers like Shirley Brown who blame homophobic violence, and even murder, on LGBT youth themselves.

At the time, Mr. Paszek, I was too young and too naive to realize the significance of your presence. When you died, our school did not honor you. Yet, as my teacher, you instilled in me values that I still hold today. You stood up for Dominic and against homophobia and, by doing so, you asked us—your students—to stand up, too.


(Note: The names of Mr. Paszek and Dominic have been changed to protect privacy.)

WHEN GUNS & SCHOOLS COLLIDE

“We’re not allowed to talk about what happened yesterday,” she says, “but I want you all to know that I hope you’re okay.”

What happened yesterday? I sit with my back against the classroom wall, trying to decipher the teacher’s vague words of condolence.

“I saw them,” one student calls out. “It was a drive-by.”

A shooting?

The teacher ignores the comment and begins the lesson.

After class, standing close to the metal detectors and armed school guards, I ask the teacher why the school has a policy of silence around shooting incidents. “If it’s gang related—” she starts to explain. Her voice trails off, distracted by students fighting in the hallway.

On the train-ride home, for the first time since I arrived in the U.S., I feel unsafe.

I moved to Chicago in September 2004. In the daylight, the skyscrapers reflect in the cold water of Lake Michigan. At night, the gay bars and cafes of the Boystown neighborhood are packed. In the winter, when the sun disappears by late afternoon and everyone walks with their hands in the pockets of their heavy coats, the cityscape is still beautiful and the bars are still busy, but the dark alleyways and side streets no longer feel like convenient shortcuts. I keep to the main roads, even though it means a few more minutes out in the sub-zero temperatures.

I return to the school, located twenty minutes from my new home, to conduct research on its after-school programs; programs designed in part to keep the teenagers off the streets and in part to help them learn marketable skills.

I jump when the school’s Vice-Principle bursts into the classroom and screams at two students to “Get the fuck out, you worthless pieces of shit,” because, “You don’t deserve the privilege of this program. You’re headed for prison.”

As the boys grab their coats and leave, they don’t say a word—clearly accustomed to being spoken to in this way—and I also say nothing, because I expect one of the teachers to speak up. But nobody does.

An hour or so later, I overhear a group of students discussing the recent shooting. When they realize I’m listening, they change the subject. In this school, to talk about gang violence is not allowed. To express how they feel about “what happened” is forbidden, even if the victims or shooters were their friends. They can’t voice aloud what they wish would be done about gun violence and gang culture in their neighborhoods. They can’t discuss what they are afraid of, or what they saw with their own eyes. And they can’t even begin to discuss possible solutions.

When I ask about the students and teachers in uniforms, I realize that the school is attached to a military academy where young teens are recruited and prepared for the U.S. army. And yet talking about guns and gangs is off limits.

I’m astounded when a teacher explains to me that talking about guns and gangs can lead to a formal detention—a full-day detention, where students must sit in silence from morning until mid-afternoon, staring forward, fed only jelly sandwiches, forbidden from going outside, forbidden from reading, forbidden from writing, forbidden from learning, forbidden from being listened to.

After nine years of living in Chicago, car alarms and buses breaking at traffic lights and the squeaking metal of the trains on their tracks and the smells of fuel mixed with waste in the underground stations all still remind me of London. But I now look left when crossing the street and I pronounce water with a softened 't' and I say elevator and candy and sidewalk, and I’ve learned to use most American spelling and punctuation.

But I still hold onto some British-isms. I teach my daughter English nursery rhymes. And I still pronounce it aluminium and I still ask for the loo and I still apologize if someone on a crowded train steps on my foot. And I still think of school as a safe place. A place where teenagers are encouraged to debate and challenge and think and talk, where they're spoken to with at least a little respect.

Facebook bleeds with the news of another mass-shooting. A man—who heard voices in his head and had a known history of “minor” shooting incidents—walked into a store and purchased a shotgun. Legally. Days later, he arrived at work—a secure Navy base near the nation’s capital—and he shot a dozen people dead before he too was killed.

When the President stands at his podium to reflect on this “unimaginable” violence—even though such incidents happen all the time and are, in fact, entirely imaginable—; when politicians call the victims of these shootings “heroes" and “patriots”—as if they chose to die in the name of their country—; and when journalists compare this latest mass-shooting to the recent elementary school shooting and a movie-theatre shooting and the daily drive-by shootings in Chicago, I find myself deeply frightened, mostly for my young daughter and her friends.

“We’re not allowed to talk about what happened yesterday.” We’re not allowed to challenge the so-called rights of Americans to hoard guns, military grade guns included. We’re not allowed to imagine a real change in gun control policy where people are required to undergo meaningful common-sense background checks before purchasing firearms, where all states are permitted to implement gun buy-back programs, where talking openly about gun and gang culture is part of every school’s curriculum.

Here’s an idea:

If we can’t yet change gun control policies, then let’s at least allow, support, and train teachers to raise questions about American gun culture in their classrooms. Let’s at least encourage students to think deeply and talk honestly and openly about what they see on the news and what they witness on their journeys home from school. Let’s at least give students time and space to reflect on the sounds of gunshots that they hear in their neighborhoods at nighttime—and in broad daylight. Rather than armed guards, let’s employ more school counselors.

In the struggle against gun violence, every person across the United States is already in possession of a powerful, sacred, American weapon: the freedom of expression.

I have a feeling that solutions to gun violence won’t come from Congress, or from lectures behind podiums, or from suited politicians in closed rooms with gun lobbyists taking aim at their political careers.

I have a feeling that, given the opportunity, it will be a classroom of high school students in Chicago or Aurora or Newtown that comes up with some tangible ways of reducing gun violence and gun deaths across the United States. I’m close to giving up on our adults and so-called leaders. On the issue of gun violence, it’s time to let our youth speak.

SYRIA & PILLARS OF SALT

When disturbing YouTube videos of atrocities go viral, should we hit “share” or should we look away?

Almost every week, I meet with artist and writer Ava Kadishson Schieber (her book Soundless Roar is exceptional) to learn about her experiences and memories as a Holocaust survivor. Once, during our conversation, Ava compared herself to the wife of Lot (the nephew of Abraham). Despite the warning, the biblical woman could not resist looking back at the burning cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, causing her to be transformed into a pillar of salt.

Twice a year, Ava visits my classroom to share with my students her experiences as a teenager during WWII when she hid on a farm for four years, pretending to be unable to hear or speak. Her father, Leo, was murdered in Auschwitz. Her older sister, Susanna, disappeared forever, consumed by Hitler’s war.

“How old are you?” a student asks. “I am fifteen,” the eighty-something-year-old woman smiles. When Ava turns to look back at her traumatic past, she is confronted by a reality that, in many ways, kept her girlhood frozen in time.

I’ve always thought of the story of the pillar of salt as a warning against human bystanderism. If we’re not prepared to take action against atrocities, then we cannot look only to be voyeurs. If we choose to look at violent scenes, we need to do so for the right reasons.

As we stare in shock at violent images that play on repeat on our television and laptop screens, we must know why are we watching. Are we fulfilling our collective responsibility to bear witness, or are we satisfying a collective morbid curiosity?

The photographs and videos of the recent Syrian attacks on civilians are omnipresent and continue to make headlines. Children and adults shake uncontrollably or lie still on the ground, asphyxiated on the fumes of chemical weapons. And YouTube views climb.

Smart phones and cameras in the hands of the world produce countless images that can go viral in minutes. This is both a blessing and a curse. The amount of evidence and publicity of these crimes multiplies, yet victims and survivors are captured and catapulted into the media at their most vulnerable; in ways they may not want to be seen or remembered.

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, many survivors were told to keep their heads facing forward. To look back on and talk about past trauma was once synonymous with opening—and reinfecting—old wounds. But, in just a few decades, our ideas of therapy have changed dramatically. Today, we encourage survivors of any traumatic experience to reflect on and to confront their psychological injuries. And rightly so. Ava Kadishson Schieber and other survivors of atrocity recall their experiences and losses in order to rebuild their lives—and in order to teach.

As we dare to look—and encourage others to look—at very real violent images, we must be prepared to respond beyond hitting “like” or “share”—to email our political representatives, to sign petitions, to educate others, to voice our disgust loud and clear. Otherwise, what are we turning into?

THE OLYMPIC SHAMES

Leading up to the 1936 Olympics, Hitler’s government re-opened a number of gay bars and cafés in Berlin as part of a broader campaign to conceal Nazi violence and hateful rhetoric.

At the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, what will Putin do?

The world was watching as Nazi Germany prepared for the 1936 Summer Olympics. Activists, politicians, and organizations around the globe called for a boycott. The Jewish community in Germany and abroad hoped the Games would draw attention to Nazi antisemitism (the anti-Jewish Nuremberg Laws had been passed just months earlier).

Intending to impress and dazzle the world, in the weeks before the opening ceremony, Hitler ordered the “clean up” of Berlin.

The Nazi government removed and relocated Berlin residents they deemed undesirable. Roma and Sinti people were evicted and transferred to Nazi “Gypsy” encampments on the outskirts of the city with the false promise that they could return to their homes once the Olympics were over.

At the same time, mindful of public opinion and mounting international criticism, the Nazi government temporarily relaxed its oppressive policies and actions against certain racial and social minorities. Nazi rhetoric was tempered. Anti-Jewish signs and pervasive antisemitic propaganda were hidden from sight. Gay bars and cafés that the Nazis had shut down were re-opened. Foreign homosexuals were not arrested.

For the two weeks of the 1936 Olympiad, the Nazi capital resembled elements of the open, tolerant, vibrant Berlin of the late 1920s.

Learning from history isn’t easy.

Before the 2004 Athens Olympics, the Greek government evicted some 2,700 Roma from their homes and created a housing crisis that continues to this day. These evictions were mostly ignored by the international press.

In the months leading up to the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, the Chinese government removed and relocated hundreds of thousands of people living in poverty, people who were homeless, people involved in the sex trade, and other people deemed undesirable. The world watched the spectacular Beijing opening ceremony, mostly oblivious or indifferent to China’s human rights abuses.

Again and again, governments with shameful human rights records have been awarded the honor of hosting the Olympics. Each time, discrimination and violence is overlooked or excused. Giving an oppressive regime the opportunity to host the Games could lead to improvements for human rights, we tell ourselves.

And now, with the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi in southwestern Russia just months away, Putin’s government has passed an outrageous law that makes it possible for police to arrest and jail anyone—Russian citizens, foreign tourists, Olympic athletes—who voices support for the rights of gay and lesbian people. A senior public official has gone as far as calling for gay people to be banned from organ donation: “Their hearts, in case of the automobile accident, should be buried in the ground or burned as unsuitable for the continuation of life.”

There are reports of a recent increase in government-sanctioned violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Russia (or at least an increase in media attention), leading to calls for LGBT-friendly countries to grant asylum to Russian victims and targets of homophobic and transphobic violence.

News organizations, bloggers, and activists have compared Russia’s new anti-gay laws with the anti-Jewish and anti-homosexual laws of Nazi Germany, citing parallels between the Nazi-hosted Olympics of 1936 and the upcoming Sochi Winter Games. Just as the Nazi Games raised questions about the participation of athletes of Jewish or African descent (a number of Jewish and Black sportspeople competed and won medals in Berlin), LGBT athletes and LGBT spectators at the 2014 Games could face harassment, arrest, and imprisonment.

Activists are calling for a boycott of Putin’s Olympics. Boycotts of Russian products have begun (gay bars in Chicago and New York have stopped buying and serving Russian vodka, for example). And there are calls for public protests, to be led by Games participants and medal winners, that would dare Russian police to arrest and jail Olympic athletes.

When President Obama cancelled his recent meeting with President Putin, although he made clear his opposition to the idea of a boycott, he took the opportunity to speak out in support of LGBT athletes and against Russia’s homophobic legislation.

When the Berlin Olympics of 1936 came to an end, Nazi Germany returned to business as usual. The gay bars and cafés were boarded up again. The Nazi roundup, deportation, torture, and killing of homosexual men resumed. Later, the Roma prisoners of the Nazi “Gypsy” encampments were deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau and elsewhere. The regime’s discriminatory anti-Jewish laws accelerated into meticulously planned and implemented genocide.

In the coming months, even if Putin tones down his anti-gay rhetoric, even if he softens legal restrictions and threats of arrests over the duration of the Games, there’s a good chance that the persecution of LGBT Russians will return in full force once the Olympic athletes and media have returned home.

We cannot be silent. Every person who chooses to participate in the Sochi Games—as an athlete, as a vendor, or as a spectator, including those watching from home—must do something that draws attention to the plight of LGBTs in Russia. The international community, particularly each country that has pledged to protect the rights of LGBT people, has a responsibility to voice its objection to Putin’s anti-gay legislation in the strongest possible way.

GAYS, GYPSIES & GENOCIDE

“How did you get into Holocaust education?” is a common question and I tend to answer differently depending on who’s asking and what’s on my mind.

Why I Do What I Do: Reason #3

Exactly 69 years ago, Nazi guards at Auschwitz murdered in one night almost all Birkenau prisoners categorized as “Gypsies.”

Three months earlier, when Auschwitz guards surrounded and sealed off the Birkenau Zigeunerlager (Gypsy camp), the prisoners armed themselves with shovels and iron pipes and refused to leave their barracks. In response, over several weeks, Auschwitz administrators transferred Roma and Sinti prisoners capable of work to other camps. Just under 3,000 people—mostly children, the elderly, and the sick—remained.

On the night of August 2nd 1944, Birkenau guards marched with their guns into the Gypsy camp and forced the women, men, and children toward and into the gas chambers.

Until a few years ago, I didn’t know that the Nazis had systematically sterilized, ghettoized, and murdered people of Roma and Sinti descent. Just as the Jewish community refers to the Nazi genocide as the Shoah—catastrophe—, the Roma community uses the Romani term Porajmos—devouring. The Nazi regime and its collaborators murdered approximately 25% of the one million Roma and Sinti living in Europe.

Yet the Roma and Sinti were not recognized as victims of Nazism until 1979.

The Nazi genocide of European Jewry echoed through familial and community memories into my 1980s childhood. The Holocaust films we watched in Jewish youth clubs, the Jewish Holocaust survivors we listened to at school, and the hushed conversations we overheard at home ensured that our Jewish identities would be molded by a Jewish responsibility to remember our dead. The dead Sinti and Roma were never mentioned.

It wasn’t until 2005 that I started to notice.

I’d just moved from London to Chicago. I was getting used to the larger food portions and the divisive politics. And I started to become involved in the gay and trans rights movement. I came across a news article that would change the way I think about Holocaust history: In January 2005, world leaders gathered at Auschwitz-Birkenau to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the camp. But Polish authorities had prevented representatives of the gay community from attending.

I asked one of my professors if, instead of sitting an upcoming exam, I could research and write a paper on Holocaust memory, focusing on how and why the narratives of homosexual victims of Nazism had been pushed to the margins of genocide commemoration.

I knew a fair amount about the Jewish Holocaust narrative, but I felt embarrassed, as a politically engaged gay guy, that I knew so little about the Nazis’ persecution of homosexuals. I began to explore books and articles. I didn’t know about the origins of the pink triangle. Or the German anti-homosexuality law Paragraph 175. Or that the Nazis considered lesbians non-threatening—a euphemism, perhaps, for “easy to rape.” I learned about the Nazis’ forced castration and arbitrary torture of homosexual prisoners. In some concentration camps, concerned about masturbation, the Nazis forced homosexual prisoners to sleep with their arms outside of their blankets, even in the dead of winter.

My work led me to ask questions about collective memory and silenced histories.

I learned that, after liberation in 1945, British and American lawyers recommended that homosexual prisoners of the Nazi camps be re-incarcerated. Homosexual survivors were denied reparations. Paragraph 175 remained on Germany’s books for decades. And in the 1990s, Ultra-Orthodox rabbis and conservative Christian clergy protested against any inclusion or mention of homosexual victims in U.S. Holocaust museums. Homosexuals persecuted during the war were not considered victims of Nazism—and did not qualify for reparations—until 2002.

Marginalized victimhood became the focus of my doctoral research. And my work broadened. Surely, I began to argue, if a goal of Holocaust education is to identify warning signs of future atrocities, then students should learn about the relationships between different forms of Nazi prejudice, policy, and persecution. This approach is especially vital in the face of continued government-led oppression of Roma, LGBT, and other minority communities around the world.

We can’t understand—not fully—any one of these victim group narratives without the others. The Nazis conducted experiments with gas as a method of murder on people with disabilities before building the gas chambers and ovens that consumed the Jews, Sinti, and Roma. While the Nazis tried to find a “cure” for homosexuality, they considered people of Jewish or Gypsy or African descent as “incurable.” If we omit the non-Jewish victims of Nazism from our collective Holocaust memory, then we lose something critical to our understanding of the Nazis’ full intentions.

I understand why Simon Wiesenthal was frustrated with the insistence of some prominent historians and scholars that definitions of “The Holocaust” refer to only Jewish victims. Definitions matter. Definitions determine what and who makes it into history textbooks and exhibitions and remembrance ceremonies.

I now focus my work on helping educators find ways to include—meaningfully and appropriately—all of the Nazis’ victims within Holocaust commemoration and education. After all, if the Nazis made room for all of these categories of people in their concentration camps, if they made room for them in the same mass-graves, then we have a responsibility to make room for all of the dead in our classrooms, museums, and memorials.


What I Do What I Do: Reason #1

What I Do What I Do: Reason #2

A PLAYGROUND AT BIRKENAU

“How did you get into Holocaust education?” is a common question and I tend to answer differently depending on who’s asking and what’s on my mind.

Why I Do What I Do: Reason #2

As our group walked through Auschwitz and Auschwitz-Birkenau, one thing we saw disturbed us over and over again: Tourists with children.

When I was eight years old, I saw something I shouldn’t have seen. We were at the home of my parents’ friends. With the adults in the kitchen, I was in the TV room upstairs with the older kids. Flicking through the channels, our eyes became fixed on the screen: A teenage boy watched naked women and children walk toward the gas chambers of a Nazi camp. He couldn’t look away. In another scene, men who had tried to escape the camp were about to be executed when the Nazi officer in charge explained the full punishment: each condemned man was ordered to choose an additional prisoner to be shot. The hundreds of other prisoners—women and men—were forced to watch the mass execution. If any were to turn their heads or close their eyes, they would also be killed.

This was the made-for-TV film “Escape From Sobibor,” based on real events. I imagined myself in the shoes of the Nazis’ victims and, for years, those violent and confusing scenes gave me nightmares. I can still remember myself sitting on the carpet, looking up at the screen, finding it impossible to look away and stunned into silence. I was too young.

When it comes to Holocaust education, how young is too young? Should Holocaust museums and Holocaust sites set minimum age requirements for visitors? The Imperial War Museum in London sets age requirements for entry to its Holocaust history and crimes against humanity exhibitions. Holocaust museums in the U.S. leave the decision to parents. There was a time, our guide told us, when children under 14 year olds were not allowed on the site of Auschwitz. But that ban was lifted.

Over our three days at Auschwitz and Auschwitz-Birkenau last week, we watched toddlers playing—and sometimes throwing tantrums—inside the preserved barracks and prison building of Auschwitz. Seven and eight year olds walked by the ruins of the gas chambers of Birkenau. And they stared at the exhibits of human hair and piles of shoes and explicit photographs of emaciated prisoners and listened through their headphones to the Auschwitz State Museum tour guides who described the gruesome details of mass-murder and Nazi experiments.

As we watched these children and their parents tour Auschwitz, I became more and more troubled. What were the parents’ justifications for bringing their children to these sites of atrocity? Weren’t they concerned about traumatizing them?

Or do the lessons about prejudice and extremism outweigh the emotional risks? How should parents explain this history to their children? At what age are children able—cognitively and emotionally—to comprehend the Nazis’ intentions and actions?

In 1943, the Nazis built a playground in Auschwitz-Birkenau. It was placed in the “Gypsy camp” and it included a sandbox, swings, and a carousel. Unlike most Jewish children who arrived at Auschwitz, children of Roma or Sinti descent were not gassed on arrival. Instead, they were allowed to remain with their families and many were used in Nazi experiments before the “Gypsy camp” was liquidated in August 1944.

Throughout the Nazi era, children witnessed extreme violence. Jewish children smuggled food into the Nazi ghettos. They kept diaries and created art. Jewish parents saved the lives of their children by sending them on the Kindertransports to Great Britain. Meanwhile, German “Aryan” children were indoctrinated into Nazi ideology. The Germans kidnapped Polish children who looked “Aryan” and raised them as Germans. Jewish children, along with the elderly, were often the first to be murdered in the Nazi camps. The experiences of children are woven into the fabric of Holocaust history. But that does not make Holocaust history a child-friendly topic.

One of the reasons I do what I do is out of concern for young learners who, despite the good intentions of teachers and parents, are often exposed to violent Holocaust content too early or in problematic ways.

There’s no perfect solution. Because of the nature of Holocaust and genocide education, we can’t avoid the possibility of traumatizing young learners. But we can minimize the risks. Before choosing to expose learners to violent images—in photographs and on film—teachers, youth educators, museum designers, and parents need to tread carefully:

1. INTRODUCTIONS: When we first introduce children to Holocaust history, we do not need to show them images of starved Jewish children in Nazi ghettos or open mass graves. Violent images can overwhelm and stifle critical thinking. We can teach about Holocaust history through words—spoken or on the page. That way, each learner has a chance to move through content at her or his own emotional pace.

2. PREPARATION: When learners are ready to view violent images, we have to prepare them properly. Although Holocaust history is shocking, we don’t want to shock young people into silence. Before sharing violent images—or before a trip to a museum or historical site—we need to ask learners: What do you expect to see? Then, if their expectations are off, we need to tell them what they will see. That way, we minimize the shock and set the stage for conversation and reflection, later on. (To be clear, we should not tell them how they will feel, because everyone responds differently.)

3. VIEWING: When showing violent images to young people we must provide context. We have to go beyond the image. We can ask learners: Who took the photograph or film, and why? What might have been happening beyond the frame? What might have happened before the photograph or film was taken? What might have happened afterwards? How did the photograph or film survive the war? What evidence does each photograph and film provide?

4. REFLECTING: After viewing violent images, we have to help learners reflect on what they saw. We can ask learners: Did anything surprise you? Did you find it easy or difficult to look at the image, and why? How do the images add to—or even contradict—what you already knew about Holocaust history? What new questions about the Holocaust and genocide do you now have?

My hunch is that the children we saw walking through the Auschwitz sites weren’t prepared or supported in these ways. I’m worried that, when those young and older children look away from the piles of hair and photographs of mass graves, they’ll keep their thoughts and questions to themselves, unable to process and learn from what they saw.


Why I Do What I Do: Reason #1

THE H WORD

As our three weeks in Poland come to an end, I've been thinking about why I do what I do. “How did you get into Holocaust education?” is a common question and I tend to answer differently depending on who’s asking and what’s on my mind.

Why I Do What I Do: Reason #1

Nine summers ago, I had just finished putting together a human rights youth program. But, just before its launch, I was told to remove all references to the Holocaust.

In 2004, as a youth worker in inner-city London, I traveled with my colleagues to Cape Town to plan an anti-racism youth exchange program for British and South African teenagers.

We recruited around 30 young people, we facilitated human rights training in both countries, and we prepared them for a summer of travel. First, the teens from South Africa would fly to London for two weeks to meet the Brits. Later in the summer, the Brits would fly to Cape Town and its surrounding townships. Working with the London teens, I was responsible for putting together the itinerary for the UK-based part of the program. We planned trips for the South African teens to various London neighborhoods, focusing on racism in the UK, immigration, homophobia, sexism, Islamophobia, and social inequality.

I decided to start the two weeks of learning by focusing on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by the United Nations in 1948. I was especially excited that I had arranged for the teenagers to meet with a Jewish Holocaust survivor who had lived in South Africa before settling in the UK.

But when I presented the schedule to the program funders, I was ordered to remove two elements from the itinerary. First, I was not allowed to focus on the gap between rich and poor (which is another story!). Second, I had to remove all references to the Holocaust and Nazi antisemitism, including canceling our meeting with the Holocaust survivor. I was stunned and it became very clear that the person overseeing the project would not allow the program to go ahead if references to the Holocaust remained in the schedule. I argued back. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, the international community had the guts and the will to advance major human rights and anti-genocide laws. Beginning a human rights education program by learning about Nazi genocide and its implications seemed, to me, entirely appropriate. But I was overruled. The Holocaust content had to go. The Holocaust survivor had to be cancelled. Disgusted by the decision, I apologized to our program partners for the last-minute changes. Then I quit the program in protest.

I still don’t fully understand what happened. I was young. I didn’t ask the questions I would know to ask today. I didn’t understand the politics. I’m still not sure if quitting the program was the best decision.

A year later, I found myself in graduate school, training as a learning scientist. As I explored various specializations, with my experiences in London at the back of my mind, I began to form questions around Holocaust education design. I focused my work on Holocaust museums and collective Holocaust memories. And it was soon time to choose a dissertation path.

I remember the methodology class session. Two faculty instructors and my peers listened to my presentation—a proposal to conduct research on Holocaust pedagogy. When one of the faculty instructors told me—in front of everyone—that focusing on the Holocaust was a terrible idea because “Nobody will care about the Holocaust in 20 years,” I was shocked, angry, and determined to prove the professor wrong.

I walked out of the classroom knowing that despite—and perhaps because of—the professor’s comment, I would dedicate my research, my teaching, and my design work to Holocaust education.

These experiences triggered in me a sense of indignation; at first, my work was a protest against those who would rather we not mention “the H word.” But, over time, as my frustration was replaced by my excitement for my work, these moments became reminders that not everyone understands—or wants to understand—the importance and power of Holocaust history to shed light on ongoing atrocities.

Was I right to quit the youth program in protest, back in 2004? I don’t know. But what I know now is that it’s part of my work to stand up to people who would rather we stay silent.


Why I Do What I Do: Reason #2