Chanukah, diversity, inclusion, and the COVID empire
The coercive actions of the COVID empire dim the lights of Chanukah.
Before the rise of the COVID empire, the celebration of Chanukah provided heartwarming opportunities to remind children and people of all ages of our own culture’s values of diversity, inclusion and accommodation.
Here are my old notes, drawn from reading various Chanukah classics, written to introduce Chanukah to young children in a multicultural group:
Thank you so much for inviting me here today to tell you about Chanukah. When I was a child, I grew up in Israel. In Israel, many people are Jewish, and they celebrate Chanukah. Today at home we celebrate both Christmas and Chanukah. Chanukah is the Jewish festival of lights. In Chanukah, we light the eight lights of the menorah. Do you think it would be a good idea to light real fire at school? No. It’s not safe. At home, there are usually only 1, 2, 3 or 4 kids, so real fire is easier to supervise. At school we have almost twenty children in the classroom, so real fire is not safe. Today I would like to tell you the story of why we light those eight candles. I will tell you the story of the first Chanukah.
The story of the first Chanukah
The story that explains why we celebrate Chanukah happened in Israel, where I grew up. But it happened long, long before I was born, and long before you were born. It happened about two thousand years ago. Two thousand years ago, the Jewish people had a big, beautiful temple in Jerusalem. They gathered in the temple to worship their God. They believed that there was only one God in the world. The God that they believed in did not have a body or a face, so you could not make a statue that looked like God. When the Jewish people thought about their God and their faith, they often thought about light. Light for them was a symbol of truth, knowledge and joy. Inside their hearts, the Jewish people felt a light that reminded them of who they were.
In the temple, the Jews had a great menorah, a lamp with candles. The menorah was lit with oil every day (in those days they did not have candles). The menorah burnt night and day. The bright, clear, steady light of the menorah was a symbol of the faith of the Jewish people.
The Greek empire
The Jewish people felt strong in their faith, but their country, Israel, was not very strong. It was a small country. The strongest country at that time was Greece. The Greek kings wanted to build an empire. Who knows what an empire is? An empire is a country that occupies and controls other countries to create one big country. So the Greeks conquered many countries, including Israel. The capital of Israel was Jerusalem, and the Greek soldiers said: to Jerusalem! Can you say: to Jerusalem!
Greek culture
The Greeks brought many good and beautiful things to Israel. If you like sports, raise your hand! Well, the Greeks loved sports. They wanted to be fit and strong. They were the ones who started the Olympic games, and they taught the Jews many sports. The Greeks also loved music, art, good food and wine. The Greeks believed in many gods. They had one god for the sun, one god for the thunder, one god for love, and many other gods for different things. The Greeks believed that they knew how their gods looked like, and they made statues, sculptures, to look like their gods. They worshipped those statues.
Jews react to the Greeks
Many Jews liked the Greek way of life, and they started to imitate and follow it. They played Greek sports, such as wrestling. They learnt the Greek alphabet. They read Greek books. They wore Greek clothes. Would you like to wear a toga?
Some Jews say NO
But there were also Jews who said: No! We do not want to be Greek. We want to be ourselves: just the way we have been. We are not afraid to be different. At first, the Greeks did not mind that some of the Jews wanted to be different. They accepted them just the way they wanted to be, and they let them wear their clothes, eat their food, read their books and worship at their temple.
Antiochus
But one day, a mean man called Antiochus became the king of the Greeks. Antiochus did not like anyone to be different than the Greeks. He wanted everyone to be the same. He wanted everyone to be Greek. He made some rules that everyone had to follow to be Greek. For example, the Jews changed their names to Greek names. Many Greek names end with “us,” like Antiochus. My name is Gefen. It is a Hebrew name. If I must change my name to a Greek name, I will have to add us: Gefenus. Can you figure out what your name will be in Greek?
Who would like to tell us what you’d like to eat for a snack? Antiochus says: no good, you must eat only Greek food: how about olives and feta cheese instead of popcorn?
And tell me the name of one book that you like to read. Well, from now on I want you to read only Greek books, and you must start learning the Greek alphabet at once!
Many Jews agreed and did what Antiochus wanted them to do.
Why do you think some Jews obeyed Antiochus?
· They were afraid to say no.
· They were afraid to be different.
· They thought that Greek culture was better than their own culture.
Practicing Judaism in secret
Some Jews really followed Antiochus. But there were many Jews who only pretended to follow Antiochus. In reality, they never forgot the Jewish light inside of them. Secretly they continued to follow their own way of life and their own traditions. Antiochus said that Jewish children had to go to Greek schools. They could not go to Jewish schools. But some Jews organized secret Jewish schools. Could I ask for two volunteers to imagine that you are students in a secret Jewish school, and one volunteer to be a Greek soldier? The Jewish students sit at the table and study Jewish books. Then the Greek soldier will knock on the door of your classroom. As soon as you hear the Greek soldier knock, you should hide the books (perhaps by sitting on them, perhaps under the table) and start playing with Dreidels. The soldier will ask you in a harsh voice: What are you doing? And you will reply: Oh, just playing. This is not a school, just a cool place to hang out and spin our dreidels. And the soldier will leave, because, after all, playing games was a part of Greek culture. It was not against the law.
Suspicions
But king Antiochus suspected that these children and many other Jews were lying to him. He knew that secretly, they were not really and truly trying to be Greek. That made Antiochus angry. Antiochus became obsessed with forcing the Jews to change and adopt Greek culture. He would not allow the Jews to be different. They must be the same as the Greeks.
Harsher measures in the temple
So Antiochus decided to become even harsher with the Jews. Antiochus sent his soldiers into the temple, the place that was most important and holy for the Jews. Who wants to be a Greek soldier? The soldiers put out the light of the menorah. They brought into the temple a Greek idol, a statue of a Greek God that looked very much like Antiochus. They put similar statues in villages around Israel. Who wants to be a statue of a Greek god? Antiochus issued a command: the Jews must all bow down to the statues of Greek Gods. Some Jews agreed. I will be one of them and bow down to you, the statue. Why do you think I bowed down to the statue? I was afraid to die. Antiochus threatened to kill the Jews who would not bow down to the statues.
Maccabees
But some Jewish people refused to bow down to Antiochus and his statues. They ran away to the hills around Jerusalem and established an army to fight Antiochus. These soldiers called themselves the Maccabees. Maccabee means a hammer, and the Jews wanted to hammer the Greeks out of their land. Who wants to wear the dress of a Maccabee and hold a hammer? As you can see, the Maccabees did not look like soldiers. They were not professional soldiers, but farmers and herdsmen, and they had to teach themselves to fight.
Today a popular singer invented a song that imagines how the Maccabees used to sing to motivate themselves to fight:
Antiochus tells us to obey him.
What do we say?
We say nay!
You’re not gonna be
The boss of me.
Victory of a few against many
The Maccabee army was much smaller than the Greek army. Antiochus had many troops, and he even had elephants from India to help the soldiers fight. The Maccabees and the Greeks fought for three years, and at the end of those three years the Maccabees won and liberated their temple in Jerusalem. The temple was theirs again, and they could practice their traditions in it.
The Chanukah miracle
But when the Maccabee soldiers entered the temple, they realised that it was a mess. The menorah was not lit with candles. It was empty and cold. The Maccabees wanted to light the menorah. In those days, the menorah was lit with olive oil. But the Maccabees realized that the Greeks had stolen all the olive oil from the temple. All that the Maccabees could find was a small jug of oil. They knew that that jug of oil would last for barely one day. But then, a miracle happened: the oil that was expected to last for one day, actually lasted for eight long days—until the Maccabees could bring fresh oil from the Galilee, from the north of Israel.
Chanukah today
This was the story of the first Chanukah; this was how Chanukah started. Now let’s talk about how we celebrate Chanukah today. Every year, Jewish families light their menorah for eight days on Hanukkah to remember the miracle. On the first day we light one candle, on the second day two—until we light eight candles on the eighth day. The glow of each candle symbolizes the goodness and beauty of each individual person, each individual soul. Inside each one of us, there is a unique light. When we allow this light to shine, miracles can happen. The eight candles together are like a family. Goodness should increase when we are together.
When I was in elementary school in Israel, we used to make “stained glass” candles out of cellophane paper and put them on the classroom window. I used to love those cellophane “stained glass.” During class, I would look at them endlessly and daydream. I remember vividly how one day in grade one before Chanukah I got sick and felt so disappointed not to go to school because I longed to sit in the classroom and stare at those “stained glass” cellphone candles.
The enduring meaning of Chanukah
Let’s now speak about the BIG meaning of Chanukah. What does Chanukah teach us about our lives today?
Chanukah gives us the courage to be different
Chanukah teaches us that we should not be afraid to be different. We are free to be different. We should not do things that don’t feel right just because other people ask us to do them. Today, we don’t use violence against people who try to force us to do things; we have better ways of saying no. If you stay true to yourself, you can perform wonders and miracles.
Just as the Chanukah lights shine clear and bright, each person has a light inside of him or her, and we have to be proud of that light, proud of who we are.
The Maccabees teach us to
1) Do what you believe is right, even if others are telling you to do something else.
2) Say what you think, even if others are saying something else.
Let’s imagine that my grandmother gave me a colorful sweater that I really like, and one of my friends tell me: this sweater is so weird. Should I be scared to wear this sweater and stop wearing it to school? No, I should continue to like it and have the courage to be different.
Can you think of other situations in which you need the courage to be different?
Thus end my notes from what now seems like ancient history, when we still believed we had liberty and could educate young children accordingly—when we could still teach children about the Maccabees without telling them that being a superhero today means taking the jab.
This is how future generations might tell our story:
Once upon a time there was a medical empire.
The empire brought many benefits to human civilization.
But the leaders of the empire forgot that the achievements of medicine came out of a long tradition of scientific inquiry. The leaders believed those achievements were their own personal property.
The leaders of the medical empire hoped that every human would become a pharmahuman.
Pharmahumans swallow any medicine that they are told to swallow and inject into their body any injection that they are ordered to.
Many people were happy to be pharmahumans. Occasionally, some of the substances that they injected into their bodies made them sick, but then they just asked for another substance that they hoped would make them feel better.
In the beginning, being a pharmahuman was a choice. Many people chose to be pharmahuman, but some people chose to not be pharmahuman.
But then Antiochus decreed that everyone must be a pharmahuman.
Those who refused to be pharmahuman lost their jobs, lost their friendships, lost . . . what else did they lose?
And where does the story end? Will the light of liberty shine again?
What happens to our foundational values of diversity and inclusion when the light of liberty is dimmed?
This is the meal pleasantly set…this is the meat and drink for natural hunger,
It is for the wicked just the same as the righteous….I make appointments with all,
I will not have a single person slighted or left away.
Walt Whitman, Song of Myself
These lines from Walt Whitman speak of diversity and inclusion, in its true form, about a century before diversity and inclusion was adopted as an official ideology. Whitman emphasized that “what I assume you shall assume, as every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you,” the simple notion that we are indeed part of a shared humanity and a shared Nature.
Our society in Canada has rightly prided itself over the last few decades on embracing diversity and inclusion as an official social doctrine. In some ways, I owe the very existence of my family and my work to that principle because as an immigrant and an individualistic person such as myself would be much more marginalized and ghettoized in a society that did not embrace diversity and inclusion.
One of the important principles of diversity and inclusion is accommodation for feelings and perspectives that may seem subjective, “different” or non-obvious to an outside observer. For example, many workplaces over the past couple of decades have been granting paid and often prolonged sick leaves for problems such as anxiety and depression—in contrast to more judgemental societies that might deny the feelings of a person who does not look obviously sick, or might suggest that getting paid to not work is not the solution to depression and anxiety.
Another example of the growing respect for individual autonomy and bodily autonomy has been in our response to complaints of assault. Many situations of sexual misconduct that in the past would be denied or blamed on the gaslighted victim today are today treated seriously as sexual assault—often with justification but sometimes at the unacceptable cost of lending legitimacy to false accusations.
Our own twenty-first emphasis on diversity and inclusion has a strong historical grounding in the tendency of English-speaking cultures to make decisions pragmatically rather than categorically. The dangers of decision making based on categorical principles is perhaps best embodied in how Adolf Eichmann tried to “defend” himself at his trail by distorting the Kantian categorical imperative (even though in my opinion the Nazis were nothing more than perverted opportunists).
Against the background of this living history of pragmatism and growing emphasis on accommodation, diversity and inclusion, the treatment of people who have chosen not to take the COVID vaccine stands in stark contrast. The exclusion of these individuals from the public sphere is both scientifically ill founded and morally wrong <see, for example, this paper published in Israel: https://pecc-il.org/docs/position-paperthe-science-and-the-ethics-regarding-the-risk-posed-by-non-vaccinated-individuals/>. An issue that has to be addressed with particular urgency is the placing of employees on unpaid leave or even firing them for not taking the vaccine even though their organizations are currently working mostly from home and even though in many cases they can be accommodated by being allowed to work from home.
The absurdity of not accommodating non-vaccinated people by allowing them to work from home (especially in organizations in which most people have been working from home) indicates a worrying cultural shift and raises alarming questions about whether or not we can still call ourselves a society that believes in accommodation, diversity and inclusion—in the idea that every person should belong and be encouraged to make a meaningful contribution. In the echo chamber of group think created within the COVID empire, leaders can tell themselves that by pressuring people to get vaccinated, they, the leaders, are doing what is right for those people and for public health. But in reality those leaders are creating a legacy for themselves that might look differently than how they are currently choosing to portray themselves.
So, how did we get here, and how do we get back on track toward diversity and inclusion?
In recent years, diversity and inclusion initiatives have become integral to most organisations, reflecting a society-wide drive to create environments that are free from discrimination and bias, and acknowledging that we need to be accepting of different identities and points of view. Such initiatives are also promoted on the basis that they are “good for business,” as having and hearing a wide range of opinions and views helps to head off groupthink and ultimately leads to better decisions. Diversity and inclusion initiatives have also been made more imperative as our society grapples with how best to improve outcomes for those who are disadvantaged. Simply, diversity and inclusion means acknowledging the differences among us in a respectful way so that we can all feel valued within our society.
Despite the high awareness of the need to create a diverse and inclusive society, one of the most glaring failures of COVID culture has been the recurring drive to split our society into groups—to create one group that is virtuous and responsible, and another that is selfish and embodies the reason that the pandemic continues.
On their face, the measures enacted to contain COVID, and the culture behind it, have run counter to any notion of diversity and inclusion. Instead, they have repeatedly sought to index society into two groups, with exclusion at its core.
At the outset of COVID-19, lockdown measures that were supposed to last for 2-4 weeks were quickly put into place to “flatten the curve.” The lockdown measures identified those businesses and activities that were “essential” and could remain open, and those that were “non-essential” and would be closed. Immediately our society was split, with millions of people not only put out of work, but also told that what they did was not important and didn’t really matter. Public health authorities seemed to not care that those deemed “non-essential” had spent their lives building a career or business in the lockdowned sectors, and that they depended on their work to support themselves and their families. Instead, they were told, in no uncertain terms, that there was a hierarchy in our society – those who were essential and those were not. Not surprisingly, most of the people making the rules were in the “laptop class” and were thus able to work from home and did not suffer as much from such rules.
Another feature of the lockdowns was the establishment of a set of rules related to where and how people were “allowed” to interact. The measures were described as “social distancing”, a euphemism for what amounts to forced separation. We were no longer allowed to meet people, those we love and cherish, in our homes. And when we went out into the world, we were required to maintain a distance of 2m from our fellow human beings. These rules applied both indoors and outdoors. So when the first good weather appeared in April and young people congregated in public parks (after many weeks of isolation and the long Canadian winter), they were immediately labelled as “Covidiots” for egregiously putting themselves and others at risk (never mind that enforced isolation is harmful for one’s health, and that there was ample evidence that outdoor transmission was a very low probability event as was the risk of morbidity for those in their 20s). People were also encouraged to snitch on their neighbours when violations were observed. Almost immediately, public health authorities were dividing society into those who would abide by the rules—the virtuous—and those who did not abide by the rules—flawed and in need of re-education.
In the summer of 2020, as the lockdowns were being lifted when COVID transmission fell, the next public-health measure to be enacted would be mask mandates. Mask mandates had intuitive appeal. Does it not make sense that masks can help stop the spread? While the empirical evidence that widespread masking can materially prevent society-wide transmission was mariginal at best, we were told that we could stop the pandemic if we all just wore our masks (interestingly, the second, third and fourth waves all occurred despite widespread adoption of masking). The appeal of this measure to public health authorities is that it provided a highly visible means for those who wished to display their virtue or moral superiority. For example, many people could be seen wearing masks while walking alone in an empty street or sitting in their cars.
As part of the policy, exemptions were given to children who were older than five years old but had some developmental challenge that prevented them for being able to wear a mask. Immediately, this served to identify children who are developmentally delayed from a distance, and, in effect, exclude them from contact with other people under certain circumstances. Some parents who saw a child not wearing a mask at the playground would promptly inform their own children to keep their distance – despite the extensive evidence that outside transmission among children was extremely rare. Sadly, the indexing and exclusion of children who are developmentally delayed has a long history in the totalitarian regimes of the past. Once again, inclusion seemed to fall prey to the measure of the day.
A concurrent theme of COVID culture that has continually made a mockery of diversity and inclusion is the silencing of debate around COVID measures. Recall that the case for diversity and inclusion is that in any organisation, or society for that matter, there are significant benefits to having a wide range of points of view around the table. Diversity—and thus disagreement–are essential to good decision making. It is also essential to good science. Often, COVID measures were promoted on the basis that they were “following the science,” that “the science was clear” and that those who disagreed were being “anti-science.” But this assumes that science is something that rests on consensus and that it is free from politicization. It is not. Science depends on questioning and debate – a diversity of views that are ever questioning the assumptions and evidence in front if us. Sadly, COVID culture has sought to cut off this debate, as critics (often medical and scientific experts, no less) are silenced, de-platformed and in some cases, fired from their jobs.
The implications of not respecting diversity at the level of public decision making is highlighted in Barbara Tuckman’s The March of Folly. Tuchman follows the decisions that were made by leaders across four episodes from history: The Trojan War, the rule of the Renaissance Popes, the loss of the American colonies and the United States’ entry into the Vietnam War. In each case, Tuckman points out how policymakers convinced themselves that there was no other way to proceed (e.g. opening the gate to bring the wooden horse inside the walls of Troy) despite the fact that the policy could lead to disaster. She also usefully demonstrates that there were often voices who argued for a different policy (e.g. Cassandra’s warning not to trust the gift from the Greeks), but that such voices were silenced or ignored. COVID culture has left little room for voices to question the policies that have been implemented, voices that could have led policymakers to better outcomes. For example, the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for targeted protection for the vulnerable, was roundly dismissed. Instead, lockdown policies were implemented in an attempt to attain COVID-0, which, in retrospect, was foolishly unattainable. As COVID culture rolls on, it will be a test of our attachment to actual diversity and inclusion whether or not we begin to accept that there may have been a more humane way to respond to COVID-19.
The real test of our society’s commitment to diversity and inclusion has come through the implementation of vaccine mandates and vaccine passports. In response to COVID-19, several vaccines and mRNA-type vaccination programs have been rolled out across the globe. In the case of Canada, the first doses of the vaccine were reserved for the most vulnerable, which typically meant those in their 80s and 90s. Moreover, in the spring of 2021, most policymakers were communicating that vaccination, while strongly encouraged, was still voluntary. However, rhetoric that suggested that policymakers would be willing to accept that some Canadians may wish to assert their Charter Right of security of the person quickly faded, and by the summer of 2021 there were once again two kinds of people: the virtuous, who got vaccinated, and the selfish, who did not, and by consequence were putting everyone else at risk.
By late summer, any notion of accepting divergent views was cancelled. Physicians who raised legitimate questions about the efficacy of the vaccines, or their side effects, were removed from their positions and threatened with being de-licensed. This was despite that the fact there was considerable evidence that the efficacy of the vaccines was fading, as seen in Israel, the UK and Iceland. Social death was quickly implemented. Inclusion was off the table. Vaccine mandates put into place–get vaccinated, or lose your job. Vaccine passports followed quickly–get vaccinated if you want to enjoy the full experience of living. If you don’t, no restaurants, no movies, no gym. Along with the creation of two-tier society came the increasing vilification of those whose views differed from the narrative of public-health authorities. For example, a healthy unvaccinated person walking into a store was made out in some cases to be equivalent to an armed robber looking to murder the store’s occupants. Likewise, some medical practitioners publicly stated that they would be unsympathetic and even unwilling to treat patients who were not vaccinated. Those who were unwilling to submit their bodies to an experimental mRNA vaccine were lumped together with those who hold other socially undesirable views such as those associated with misogyny and white supremacy. We were no longer “all in this together.” There was us and them–and the them were to be excluded as quickly as possible (despite data suggesting that vaccinated people get and transmit COVID and that natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity).
The simple fact is that COVID culture has failed by any reasonable measure of what it means to live diversity and inclusion. COVID culture has sought systematically, from its inception, to index people into those who are virtuous and those who should be vilified and excluded. It has showed little empathy for those who present a differing point of view and who have a different identity than the official COVID narrative. It is hard to know when COVID culture will end. When it does, it will be interesting to see if those who divided our society will ever accept the fact that they do not actually believe in diversity and inclusion.
In the short run, here are some questions that decision makers should reflect on:
· What are other countries doing to accommodate people who choose to not get vaccinated (for example, frequent testing, working from home)? If these accommodations are not offered, what is the underlying intention—is it to index people as good or bad citizens?
· Why is natural immunity acquired due to infection with COVID-19 not taken into account in vaccine mandates?
· As some legal experts have pointed out, will employers who pressure people to get vaccinated then take responsibility for adverse effects?
· Virtually all institutions and workplaces have embraced principles of diversity and inclusion that aim to make each person feel included and to promote a variety of voices. Why are unvaccinated people excluded from respect and accommodation?
· Given that the efficacy of the mRNA vaccines fades over time, it is very likely that booster shots will be recommended for the general population (something which is already happening). Will these booster shots be mandated as a condition of employment? Will employees have to submit to a yearly medical intervention, such as vaccination, to maintain their employment status?
For many, there is an apparently simple answer to these moral problems: we are just following directives from those above us. However, it is important to note that the “just following orders” directive is copyrighted from the 1930’s and 40’s and can no longer be freely used.
At this highly politicized time, it is tempting to invoke “safety” and “health” to stifle debate and facilitate conformity. However, we must think not only about the current politicized climate but also about the people who are suffering as a result of that climate, as well as about how we will be judged by history. Science is an open-ended process of inquiry, and scientific truth is not the same as a particular politicized policy. If we do not accommodate people who choose to not be vaccinated, history will, with justification, judge us harshly.
Right now, we have more reason to feel gamed than grateful when it comes to the COVID empire. However, hopefully in the longer run we will see a renaissance of true science and of true principles of diversity and inclusion.
When the Canadian army helped to liberate Europe from the Nazis, the Chanukah lights that shone once again took on an especially moving message for the Jewish refugees and their liberators:
The COVID empire is an extremely successful adaptation of totalitarianism because it mobilizes our pre-existing tendencies to worship medicine and our willingness to be pharmahumans.
Defeat on the battlefield is irrelevant when it comes to the COVID empire, and violence must be avoided. And yet—somehow—the light of liberty and individualism will shine once more.
Happy Chanukah! Let us hope that the light of liberty can be reignited.