Connect with us

The Conversation

How a letter helped create an American bestseller about antisemitism

Published

on

theconversation.com – Rachel Gordan, Assistant Professor of Religion and Jewish Studies, University of Florida – 2025-01-14 07:46:00

The novel about reporter Phil Green, which was soon made into a film, put prejudice and hypocrisy in the spotlight.
John Springer Collection/Corbis via Getty Images

Rachel Gordan, University of Florida

Eighty years ago, the Jewish American novelist Laura Z. Hobson was contemplating her next writerly move and was seeking a little help from her friends.

Gentleman’s Agreement,” the story she was drafting, felt like a bold idea. Maybe too bold. In her vision for the novel, reporter Phil Green is assigned to write an article about antisemitism. He pretends to be Jewish so he can experience bigotry firsthand. Readers follow the character as he encounters the prejudice of supposedly good people and learns how to respond to the slights and jabs casually meted out even by Americans who consider themselves liberal.

It was 1944, three years after the United States joined World War II. What prompted Americans to finally fight, however, was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, not Nazi persecution of Jews and other marginalized groups. Antisemitism in the U.S. remained rampant throughout the early and mid-1940s.

With so many fraught feelings about Jews, and about the war in which American soldiers were risking their lives, Hobson was unsure how a novel about domestic antisemitism would be received. She might have wondered if readers would dismiss the story as a Jewish writer’s “special pleading” on behalf of her own.

Should she move forward with the novel that was bubbling up inside of her? To find her way out of her writing quandary, Hobson did something she had never done before and would never do again in her four decades of writing more than a dozen books: She consulted several friends and colleagues, mailing them her proposal for the novel and a cover letter explaining her quandary.

She did not know it at the time, but Hobson was about to write her most important book – one that would help broaden conversation about prejudice by reaching many more readers than would ever hear a rabbi’s sermon or read a committee’s report on antisemitism.

A formally dressed woman with white hair poses, with her arms folded, in front of a marbled backdrop.
American novelist Laura Z. Hobson.
Peter Jones/Corbis Historical via Getty Images

The right words

When the responses started to come in, it became clear that not all the feedback was of the helpful variety.

Lee Wright, Hobson’s editor at Simon & Schuster, seemed not to have fully grasped that writing fiction was a matter of placing oneself in the shoes of someone else. The editor advised Hobson that she was ill-suited to write from a gentile’s perspective because Hobson herself was Jewish. Further, Wright cautioned, Hobson should not attempt to write from a man’s perspective.

Hobson’s publisher and friend, Richard Simon of Simon & Schuster, was also skeptical. He did not believe that novels were the way to fight antisemitism or bigotry. And then Simon did that worst thing an editor could do: He reminded Hobson that her last novel, “The Trespassers,” had been a commercial disappointment.

Hobson stewed over these replies, as evident from her autobiography and letters archived at Columbia University, which I found while researching my first book, “Postwar Stories: How Books Made Judaism American.” As Hobson later noted in her autobiography, her publisher’s less-than-enthusiastic reply sapped some of her confidence. She wasn’t entirely certain that she wanted to continue with her writing.

It was one of Hobson’s closest female friends, Louise Carroll Whedon, whose letter offered just the right words of encouragement. Known as Carroll to her friends, she was married to TV writer John Whedon – and the family’s writing success would continue with their grandson Joss Whedon, of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “The Avengers” fame.

Familiar with the ups and downs of the writing life, as well as Hobson’s insecurities, Carroll replied with the enthusiasm that Hobson needed. “Let me say right away that I think the book ought to be written,” Whedon assured her, “and the sooner the better – not to highlight the plight of the Jew, but to examine the even more appalling plight of the non-Jew, and what the seeping poison of prejudice can mean to America.”

The Americans who really needed “Gentleman’s Agreement,” Whedon argued, weren’t the extreme antisemites, but the people hoping that “if you just pretend it isn’t there, maybe it will go away.” Otherwise, she warned, that willful ignorance and passivity could destroy the country – “at least the America that most people want to believe exists.”

Whedon did not deny the risks. But she wasn’t willing to watch her friend doubt her abilities – or her insights as a Jewish woman who had experienced antisemitism firsthand, and observed casual antisemitism from her non-Jewish friends. That Whedon was one of Hobson’s non-Jewish friends made her enthusiasm for a novel about antisemitism especially valuable to Hobson.

“It’s a controversial subject, Babe, and there’ll be arguments who should do it and when and how it should be done no matter what comes of it,” Whedon concluded. “For me, I think you’re in a singularly good spot to write it – in hot anger, sure – but in cold truth as well.”

Whedon had brought Hobson back to herself. Now, it was time to write.

Instant success

In a few years, the book stuck in Hobson’s mind would become a sensation. First published as a series in Cosmopolitan magazine, “Gentleman’s Agreement” was then printed by Simon & Schuster in 1947. It became a bestseller and later an Academy Award-winning film starring Gregory Peck.

“Required reading for every thoughtful citizen in this parlous century” was how The New York Times described the novel. Because of Hobson’s readable style and romance, the novel received attention from a wide range of publications, from the Saturday Review of Literature to Seventeen magazine. From books like Hobson’s, Americans were learning “how we could be humane, as well as human, beings,” Times reviewer Charles Poore wrote in a December 1947 roundup of the year’s top books.

A movie poster with actors' names and the title 'Gentleman's Agreement'
Within a year of the novel’s publication, it was adapted into an award-winning film.
Twentieth Century–Fox Film Corp via Wikimedia Commons

“Gentleman’s Agreement” was never perceived as “just” a Jewish novel – mostly because readers mistakenly assumed an author named Hobson was not Jewish. Even for critics, the book broadcast a new openness toward discussing antisemitism. It was a story full of teachable moments.

Hobson’s novel was part of a wave of 1940s fiction against antisemitism. Some of these novels were written by Jewish authors who were beginning to form the nucleus of postwar American literature, such as Saul Bellow and Arthur Miller. Others were by writers who made their mark during the 1940s, but whose names have faded over the decades, such as Gwethalyn Graham and Jo Sinclair. But Hobson’s was the most popular of its time.

If it weren’t for Whedon’s encouragement, though, “Gentleman’s Agreement” might never have been finished. If every friend of a writer said just the right thing – offering the needed encouragement or tough love – it would not feel like such profound treasure to spy a pearl of encouragement. But nobody gets all the encouragement they need, and writers are no exception.The Conversation

Rachel Gordan, Assistant Professor of Religion and Jewish Studies, University of Florida

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post How a letter helped create an American bestseller about antisemitism appeared first on theconversation.com

The Conversation

Rents rise faster after disasters, but a federal program can help restrain excesses

Published

on

theconversation.com – Anthony W. Orlando, Assistant Professor of Finance, Real Estate and Law, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona – 2025-01-14 13:02:00

Two people embrace on Jan. 9, 2025, in Altadena, Calif., amid property destroyed by the Eaton Fire.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Anthony W. Orlando, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

The wildfires raging across Los Angeles are setting the scene for a real estate nightmare.

Thousands of homes and other structures are destroyed and hundreds of thousands of residents have been evacuated at various times. Many will not return for months, if ever. Homeless in an instant, they are now flooding the housing market, desperately seeking shelter.

The Los Angeles housing market is poorly equipped for this crisis. It is already one of the nation’s most expensive markets to buy or rent a place to live, largely due to a significant and growing shortage of affordable housing. That shortage will become only more dire with the destruction of so many fire-ravaged buildings.

For the past two years, I have been studying the effects of natural disasters like this one on rental housing markets. As a professor of real estate, I have analyzed the question from a distance, sifting through data.

This time, however, as a resident of Pasadena, I have seen the carnage up close. I watched the Eaton Fire spread across the mountains from my back porch. I helped friends evacuate before their neighborhood was consumed in flames. Now, they’re sitting at my dining table as they process what they’ve lost and search for a new place to live.

Unfortunately, from my research, I have no doubts about what comes next.

Why disasters drive up rents

Scarcity is the enemy of affordability. This is one of the central tenets of economics. When too many people chase too few goods, prices rise.

So, you might expect that a natural disaster, which destroys housing and inundates the remaining units with new renters, would drive up rents, at least in the short run.

That is exactly what my research has found – but it’s not just the short run.

Two years ago, I worked with a team of researchers to prepare a report for the Brookings Institution, where we compiled a database of natural disasters across a variety of major markets throughout the country from 2000 to 2020. We measured the change in rents in places such as Atlanta, Detroit, Miami and San Francisco that landlords were asking for apartments in disaster-impacted neighborhoods. We then compared those cities with similar neighborhoods that weren’t impacted by the disasters.

We found that natural disasters increased rents during those two decades by 4% to 6%. That means rents were at least 4% higher than they would have been in the absence of the disaster.

These rent hikes were especially clear and pernicious after wildfires in California.

These weren’t just short-term effects. It took 18 months for the full effects to be felt in the market, and they never fully went away. Even four years after the disaster, renters were still paying 2% to 3% more than they would have been without the disaster.

In short, we found that disasters permanently change rental housing markets. They eliminate older, affordable housing, allowing developers to build newer, higher-end and even luxury housing in its place. Those changes drive up insurance costs, and the disasters motivate cities to adopt stricter building codes that in turn add to construction costs for the sake of weathering future disasters better.

How much rents increase, however, depends on how communities and the authorities respond to the disaster.

A burnt-out area following a big fire.
Burned homes are seen from above near the Los Angeles neighborhood of Pacific Palisades on Jan. 9, 2025, after massive fires engulfed whole neighborhoods and displaced thousands of people.
Josh Edelson AFP via Getty Images

Federal aid can slow the growth of rents

We found that rents did not grow as fast when the government stepped in to help.

Specifically, we investigated markets where Congress had used the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery – CDBG-DR – program, providing grants through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This federal funding typically comes with strings attached and “rental requirements” often mandating that a significant portion of the money be used to build affordable housing.

At least one of these disaster relief grants was issued every year from 2003 to 2020. In some years, Congress allocated as many as 27 different grants across the country to different disaster-impacted areas.

In these markets, we found that rents still rose after disasters – but at a significantly slower pace than in the markets where Congress didn’t send these disaster relief funds.

We dug deeper into several case studies in 2024 to understand why the CDBG-DR program is associated with lower rent hikes over the long run. In this new study, we found that housing markets that benefited from these disaster relief grants were able to build more rental units, easing the housing shortage. They improved affordability by tackling the scarcity problem directly.

Rental units were the key to solving the rent crisis. These cities, where affordability was better post-disaster, didn’t build more single-family homes than the other cities. They built more apartment units.

In these markets, these disaster relief grants saved the average renter between $780 and $1,080 in annual housing costs in 2023.

We believe that this finding shows why it is important not only to rebuild the houses destroyed in disasters like the Los Angeles fires but also to create new rental opportunities in all kinds of housing.

Hope in the aftermath

Here in Los Angeles, the clock is already ticking.

News reports are mounting of landlords raising rents to eye-popping levels.

Fortunately, there are government policies and programs that can help Angelenos find shelter today and that may help the Los Angeles housing market not get even less affordable tomorrow.The Conversation

Anthony W. Orlando, Assistant Professor of Finance, Real Estate and Law, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post Rents rise faster after disasters, but a federal program can help restrain excesses appeared first on theconversation.com

Continue Reading

The Conversation

How the CIA director helps the US navigate a world of spies, threats and geopolitical turbulence

Published

on

theconversation.com – Matthew Clary, Senior Lecturer in Political Science, Auburn University – 2025-01-14 12:44:00

The CIA is the U.S.’s premiere spy agency.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Matthew Clary, Auburn University

Today, the United States is navigating an increasingly unsettled world. The positions advising the president on national security are as important as ever. One such position, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, is key to providing the president and Cabinet with timely intelligence and analysis.

So, what is the job of director of the CIA? What role does the director play in U.S. national security? How has the position changed over time?

The CIA’s role in national security

The CIA director leads the government agency responsible for conducting espionage and covert action. The CIA director is a Cabinet level position but reports to the director of national intelligence.

The CIA was established by the National Security Act of 1947 as America’s premiere civilian-led foreign intelligence agency. The agency carries out espionage and covert action exclusively outside the U.S.

The CIA is organized into five directorates – analysis, operations, science and technology, digital innovation, and support – and 11 regional and topical mission centers. The number of CIA employees is classified.

Espionage activities include the use of spies tasked with collecting useful information from influential people in countries around the world. This information, referred to as human intelligence, often provides depth and context about threats posed to the U.S.

In addition to collecting intelligence, the CIA analyzes and interprets it. The agency employees thousands of expert analysts who assess the information’s implications for U.S. national security. It is this in-depth analysis that is often presented to the president and Cabinet to inform their decision-making.

Covert action is an activity intended to influence political, economic or military conditions abroad without the role of the U.S. being apparent. Such actions include programs such as disinformation campaigns, counterterrorism operations and military raids such as the one used to kill 9/11 attack organizer Osama bin Laden.

a group of people stand in front of a wall with a three-story concrete building in the background
The CIA tracked 9/11 attack mastermind Osama bin Laden to this house in Pakistan, where U.S. special operations forces killed him.
AP Photo/B.K. Bangash

During the Cold War, from 1947 to 1991, the agency conducted numerous controversial covert actions. These included conducting coups in Iran and Guatemala and attempted or successful political assassinations in Congo, the Dominican Republic, Chile and Cuba. It also carried out highly effective programs such as the U-2 spy plane and Operation Argo, which rescued six Americans stranded in Iran after the 1979 revolution.

Effective espionage and covert action are likely to prove crucial for blunting threats that nations such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea pose to the U.S. They will be key to monitoring the activities of these nations and enabling the director to deliver timely and valuable analysis to the president.

CIA director’s changed role

During the Cold War, the director of central intelligence had autonomy to conduct these covert actions with limited oversight. The position was extremely powerful at the time because the director was in charge of overseeing all U.S. intelligence activities, not just those of the CIA. This left the director of the CIA as the primary voice on intelligence matters to the president.

Since significant reform of the U.S. intelligence community in 2005 in response to the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks, the role of the CIA director has changed. The most significant of these changes is that the CIA director no longer manages all U.S. intelligence. The reforms gave that responsibility to the more independent director of national intelligence.

The reform also saw the CIA director’s influence diminished because the position is no longer the primary intelligence adviser to the president. This has created tension between the two positions at times, with the CIA maintaining a high degree of independence from even the director of national intelligence.

In 2017, for example, President Donald Trump restored the CIA director as a formal member of the president’s Cabinet. Later, the CIA director was made a regular attendee of the National Security Council, the president’s principal forum for national security deliberations.

While there is more oversight of the CIA today from Congress and the director of national intelligence, the agency remains relatively independent in conducting espionage and covert action. These include covert actions during the Syrian civil war and during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

black and white photo of armed men around a boat on a beach
These Cuban soldiers helped defeat the CIA-organized Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba in 1961.
Keystone/Getty Images

Another change has been the increased size of the intelligence community. The CIA today is only part of a much larger group of intelligence agencies. These include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and more specialized agencies like the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

In spite of this more capable and larger intelligence community, the CIA remains the premiere U.S. intelligence agency. This ensures that the CIA director will remain a key player in any presidential administration. The director possesses an immense responsibility to protect the U.S. from foreign threats.

Although the CIA director’s role has changed over time, what remains clear is its central importance to the success of U.S. national security efforts. This has become only more apparent given the increasing turbulence in world affairs.

This story is part of a series of profiles of Cabinet and high-level administration positions.The Conversation

Matthew Clary, Senior Lecturer in Political Science, Auburn University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post How the CIA director helps the US navigate a world of spies, threats and geopolitical turbulence appeared first on theconversation.com

Continue Reading

The Conversation

Terrorist groups respond to verbal attacks and slights by governments with more violence against civilians

Published

on

theconversation.com – Brandon J. Kinne, Professor of Political Science, University of California, Davis – 2025-01-14 07:48:00

Yazidi women in Iraq mourn the victims of Islamic State group attacks.
Ismael Adnan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Brandon J. Kinne, University of California, Davis; Iliyan Iliev, The University of Southern Mississippi, and Nahrain Bet Younadam, University of Arizona

After an Islamic State group-inspired attack in New Orleans killed 14 people on New Year’s Day 2025, President Joe Biden warned that terrorists would find “no safe harbor” in the U.S.

Governments often condemn terrorist groups in this way, as well as making threats and engaging in what we call “verbal attacks.”

But such an approach may be counterproductive; extremist groups tend to respond to such comments by ratcheting up violence against civilians. That’s what we found when we analyzed six years of data on incidents of terrorist violence and their proximity to government denunciations.

Our study focused primarily on the Islamic State group.

The extremist organization came to the world’s attention in early 2014, when it began seizing territory in Iraq and Syria. At the height of its power in 2015, the Islamic State group controlled over 100,000 square kilometers (39,000 square miles).

Although it has declined substantially since then, the group remains the world’s deadliest terror organization – responsible for nearly 2,000 deaths in 2023.

The rapid metastasis of the Islamic State group – it has affiliates across the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia – combined with the extreme brutality of its tactics, triggered waves of condemnations by foreign governments. Former U.S. president Barack Obama initially referred to the Islamic State group as the “JV team” in 2014, implying that the group was not as formidable an opponent as more established groups like al-Qaida. A year later, he vowed to “destroy” the group.

Our motivating research question is whether these and similar statements affect terrorists’ behavior.

Traditionally, researchers have dismissed statements like this as “cheap talk.” And government officials similarly do not take seriously the possibility that such statements might have unintended consequences or inflict actual costs.

But when extremist groups commit terror attacks, they always have an audience in mind. And the Islamic State group closely monitors how governments respond to its actions.

Terrorist groups use attacks on civilians to illustrate the extreme measures they are willing to take to achieve their goals. Our research suggests that when governments denounce terrorists, reject their demands or make retaliatory threats, targeted groups infer that they are not being taken seriously. As a result, they commit further atrocities against civilians, with the intent of signaling their intentions and capabilities even more forcefully.

To confirm this, we used a large-scale machine-coded dataset known as the Integrated Crisis Early Warning System to extract daily data on all events involving the Islamic State group for the period 2014 to 2020. We then employed a coding system known as CAMEO to identify events where governments threatened, denounced or otherwise verbally attacked the group.

We found that when governments initiated any form of verbal attack against the organization, the Islamic State group responded by targeting civilians, typically within two days of a verbal attack.


Iliyan Iliev, Nahrain Bet Younadam, Brandon J Kinne, CC BY-SA

Our model showed that every three verbal attacks by governments led to an additional, otherwise unexpected attack by the Islamic State group on civilians. These attacks averaged over six deaths per attack, so the humanitarian consequences of this effect are substantial.

Why it matters

Government leaders face enormous pressures to address national security threats, and terrorism is a powerful source of anxiety for citizens.

Yet, counterterrorism is expensive, risky and logistically difficult.

As such, publicly threatening or denouncing an organization offers a tempting alternative strategy. But there has been little research into how government leaders’ words might backfire, encouraging extremists to attack civilians.

At the same time, although the Islamic State group has diminished greatly in capacity, transnational terrorism continues to flourish. And the resurgence of the Islamic State group remains a threat to security in the Middle East and beyond.

What still isn’t known

We extended the analysis to the terrorist groups Boko Haram in Nigeria and Al-Qaida in Iraq, and we found similar results. But further research is needed to determine whether this pattern holds for terrorist groups in general.

Our theory argues that extremists respond so strongly to verbal attacks because they view those remarks as questioning the group’s credibility – a phenomenon we refer to as a “credibility deficit.”

But terrorists have many motivations, including the desire to control territory and repress dissent. We don’t yet know the magnitude of these influences relative to credibility.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.The Conversation

Brandon J. Kinne, Professor of Political Science, University of California, Davis; Iliyan Iliev, Associate Professor of Political Science, The University of Southern Mississippi, and Nahrain Bet Younadam, Postdoctoral Research Associate in the School of Government and Public Policy, University of Arizona

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post Terrorist groups respond to verbal attacks and slights by governments with more violence against civilians appeared first on theconversation.com

Continue Reading

Trending