The letter from Rabbi Cohen is noted below:
Dear Father Boroughs,
Thank you for your solicitation and invitation for input into the discussion about the Crusader as Holy Cross’ mascot. Many other universities and institutions are involved in this process. There are a number of websites with data and arguments both pro and con. One example:
sites.dartmouth.edu/crusadememory/2016/05/30/the-crusader-mascot/ Whatever the outcome, I find it a positive development for our alma mater to discuss and consider this as it gives me an opportunity to speak personally about this as a graduate, as a Jew, and as a Rabbi.
As a proud alumnus of Holy Cross and a serious sport fan, I have a keen interest in this discussion. When I was a student from 1968 through 1972, I attended a multitude of sports events. I recall going to the Worcester auditorium wearing my purple attire for our home basketball games. I recall cheering for our team, the “Saders” (which was more comfortable for me than “Crusaders”). I even served as a sports commentator for the college radio station, WCHC, broadcasting a variety of games, including basketball and baseball, travelling to Boston, Springfield and Providence for some of the contests.
When I was recruited as a part of Holy Cross’ mission to diversify the student body, I understood that the College was a Jesuit Catholic institution with an intense justified pride in that heritage and its traditions. My visit to Worcester during my senior year of high school revealed a beautiful campus with many prominent Catholic symbols and an awareness of the Christian ambience of the environment. I came to appreciate that unique ambience throughout my four years. In fact, I am grateful for the kind of respect toward religious faith that pervades the atmosphere, something different than is found on the campuses many secular and state institutions. I credit that approach to spiritual identity, which I first experienced at Holy Cross, as a major influence in my growth and decision to become a rabbi.
I find great comfort teaching at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul Minnesota for the same reason. Over my career, my favorite teaching positions have been at schools of similar orientation: Edgecliff College and Xavier University in Cincinnati, St. Catherine’s University, St. Olaf College, and United Theological Seminary in Minnesota.
All that being said, as a Jew and a rabbi, I have serious concerns about the “Crusader” as our College’s symbol.
Be that as it may, in my opinion, the time has come when schools like Holy Cross need to examine the connotations and conclusions that accompany such symbols that are mixed at best and that conjure up at the very least uncomfortable and at worst, painful, immoral and even anti-Christian implications of the past.
On my many visits to campus since graduation, in which I serve as a visiting chaplain to the Jewish students, administration and faculty, I have participated in discussions with some of them who have asked why the college in our day and age continues to hold up a Crusader as their mascot. “Rabbi, why don’t you do something about this? Bring it to the attention of those how can do something about it.” I have always asked why they, the faculty and others, did not do that since they are more present on campus.
Now the time has come, with your invitation, to express some of the arguments that express the difficulty that many non-Christians have with this symbol.
The centuries in which the Crusades took place were a dark period in Jewish history. Jews were no more than second-class citizens – actually, they were not considered citizens at all in the countries ruled by the Christian church. An infidel was the term applied to Jews and Muslims and other non-Christians throughout the Middle Ages.
While the Crusades may have been seen positively as a campaign to win souls for Christ, the result was the slaughter and massacre of myriads of innocent people whose religious faith was different. It is painful for millions of people today to recall that historical period. The image of a Crusader conjures up that nightmarish era in human history.
In an article that appeared on February 6, 2015, in the Washington Post by Jay Michaelson of the religious News Service, he wrote,
“Along the way, the Crusaders massacred. To take but one example, the Rhineland Massacres of 1096 are remembered to this day as some of the most horrific examples of anti-Semitic violence prior to the Holocaust. (Why go to the Holy Land to fight nonbelievers, many wondered, when they live right among us?) The Jewish communities of Cologne, Speyer, Worms, and Mainz were decimated. There were more than 5,000 victims.
And that was only one example. Tens of thousands of people (both soldiers and civilians) were killed in the conquest of Jerusalem. The Crusaders themselves suffered; historians estimate that only one in 20 survived to even reach the Holy Land. It is estimated that 1.7 million people died in total.
And this is all at a time in which the world population was approximately 300 million — less than 5 percent its current total.”
For me, someone who has devoted his life to interfaith dialogue and the building of mutual respect between differing religious groups, there is another aspect to this debate that needs to be carefully considered as well. In the 1960’s, Pope John XXIII, one of my childhood heroes, a man who changed the course of interfaith history, opened up the world of interreligious dialogue through the process of Vatican II, the 50th anniversary of which we recently observed. That turning point, a revolution in thinking, would lead to a reversal of the tragic history of religious interaction of the two millennia that preceded it.
While we each believe in the truth of our faiths, we have come to understand that God’s breadth includes the possibility of other faiths in covenant with the Deity. One does not have to regard the “other” as wrong in order to be right about one’s own religious truths and beliefs. It is not necessary to convince the other of the wrongness of their faith in order to have confidence that your own path to God is valid. Proselyting has receded to make room for serious interfaith inquiry, seeking to understand for the sake of understanding and respect and not for a passionate and by virtue of its definition disrespectful attempt to convert another to the “one true faith.”
Replacement theology, supersessionism, and triumphalism, the terms used to describe the approach nearly two thousand years ago of early Christianity to Judaism, and of Islam to Christianity and Judaism six centuries later, have been overshadowed by a worldview that seeks respect and peace between varying groups, including religious ones.
The Crusader as one who champions the conquering army of zealots intent on saving the world in a particular fashion while not making room for others who take seriously the covenant they perceive to be Divine, should be put in its proper place of history and not continue to represent modern seekers of a different kind of interfaith respect and understanding as we hope to pursue today.
The education and learning that I experienced at the College of the Holy Cross between 1968 and 1972 and the forward thinking environment I have witnessed on my many visits to our campus over the years reinforces that approach.
Thank you very much for including this perspective in your discussions.
Rabbi Norman M. Cohen ‘72
Rabbi Norman M. Cohen
Rabbi Emeritus
Bet Shalom Congregation
13613 Orchard Rd.
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305
952-933-8525
rabbi.cohen@betshalom.org
On Sep 28, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Rev. Philip L. Boroughs, S.J., President, College of the Holy Cross <hcpres@holycross.edu> wrote:
College of the Holy Cross
Dear Holy Cross Alumni,
At the end of last semester I said that we would be undertaking a conversation about the Crusader moniker and mascot this fall. As you may remember, the question of the appropriateness of the Crusader name and mascot was raised in the 2016 report by the Mulledy Healy Legacy Committee, which was charged with coordinating and summarizing a discussion about the name of Mulledy Hall in light of Fr. Mulledy’s ties to slavery. We will be moving forward with this discussion over the next few months, and I wanted to let you know how we will be approaching the process.
To facilitate our dialogue, I have convened a working group of alumni, faculty, staff and students to design and implement a process that engages the Holy Cross community, both on campus and from afar, in a discussion about the following question:
In what ways do you think the Crusader moniker and mascot are appropriate, or inappropriate, representations of the College, given our mission, values and identity?
I have asked Dan Kim, Vice President for Communications to chair this working group. The full list of members is below.
Dan Kim, Vice President for Communications, Chair
Tess Andrekus ’18, Officer of Diversity, Student Government Association
Brian Duggan ’96, President of the Holy Cross Alumni Association and member of Board of Trustees
Kristyn Dyer ’94, Director of Alumni Relations
Rev. Paul Harman, S.J., Director of Special Projects in Mission
Ed O’Donnell ‘86, Professor, History
Marcellis Perkins ’19, member of the Men’s Basketball team
Rose Shea ‘87, Associate Director of Athletics
Brenda Hounsell Sullivan, Director of Office of Student Involvement, Assistant Dean
I have charged the group with creating opportunities for students and families, faculty, staff and alumni to participate in the dialogue. The working group will then create a report and summary of findings to be reviewed by the Board of Trustees at the February board meeting. The working group will not be making a recommendation or suggesting any particular course of action.
The Crusader name is an undeniable part of Holy Cross’ history. It has been in use since 1920, when the College first used it in reference to the athletic teams. Since then, students have adopted the name for their own clubs and organizations, even in representing our community as ‘Sader Nation. And, unlike many mascots, the Crusader has a direct link to our religious identity.
At the same time, we acknowledge our responsibility to thoughtfully examine the sensitivities and implications this name may bear. We look forward to conducting a thorough, inclusive dialogue that invites participation by all members of our community.
The working group has developed an online submission form for comments, which I encourage you all to utilize. The working group will also schedule two or more live discussion sessions for the College community this semester. A webpage has been set up to provide background and direction for submitting comments. After receiving all of this input, the working group will submit its report to me in January. I will present the summary report and all of the comments to the Board at its February meeting, and anticipate that we will come to a conclusion at that time about the use of the moniker and mascot. If further action is required, the Board will decide next steps.
I am looking forward to a thoughtful and engaged discussion and am confident that the Board will carefully reflect upon the information presented and thoughtfully discern the question before them when they meet in February.
Sincerely,
Boroughs
Rev. Philip L. Boroughs, S.J.
President
College of the Holy Cross - Ask More
College of the Holy Cross
1 College Street, Worcester, MA 01610
508-793-2011 • webmaster@holycross.edu
© 2017 College of the Holy Cross
College of the Holy Cross
1 College Street
Worcester, MA 01610
If you wish to be removed from this group's mailing list, click here