The Jewish Ethics of Google Reviews

A generation ago, if you experienced bad service in a restaurant or a dirty hotel room, you told a few friends about your unfortunate experience. It might have influenced their decision about future dining choices or where to stay on vacation, but the impact on those businesses was insignificant. In today’s digital age, the power of the internet allows users to broadcast their displeasure to thousands of people around the world within minutes.

The effects of an online review cannot be underestimated. Whether you’re choosing a venue for your daughter’s wedding, a tour guide for your family vacation or a new orthodontist to put braces on your kids, chances are you’ve consulted online reviews to help guide your decision. These reviews have become an integral part of how we interact with businesses, yet the ethical considerations of leaving a review are often overlooked. As both a rabbi and the owner of a technology company that manages Google reviews, I’ve given much thought to the Jewish ethical perspective on this modern phenomenon.

Governor Rick Snyder's Flip Flop on Refugees is Shameful

I first learned about the Holocaust as a middle school student at Hillel Day School in metro Detroit, but it wasn't until high school that I became aware that the United States could have done more to help European Jews looking for safe haven. As a high school student studying the Holocaust I remember being shocked that the U.S. State Department clung to its strict application of the 1924 Immigration Law during the Holocaust, which made it very difficult for Jewish refugees of Nazi Europe to obtain entry visas.

Later, as a college student I devoted an entire semester to researching the restrictive immigration policies maintained by U.S. consuls, which delayed and rejected granting visas to the Jewish refugees fleeing persecution for national security reasons. By the time the U.S. realized it needed to take in these refugees, it was too late.

That was a harsh lesson that our nation learned in the middle of the last century. However, it's now more than seventy years since that time and our country seems to have forgotten our responsibility to refugees who are fleeing persecution.

Just over a month ago, Michigan's Governor Rick Snyder, who I think has served our state well, said he was working with the federal government to figure out the best process for Michigan to accept refugees from Syria. Of course, he made the caveat that these refugees would have to be carefully screened to assure they were not security threats and that makes complete sense. I am very disappointed, however, that today Governor Snyder, like several other governors, has done a complete 180 on Michigan's policy toward these Syrian refugees.

Efforts to bring Syrian refugees to Michigan have now been delayed following Friday's terrorist attacks in Paris. Governor Snyder has continued to say that Michigan is a welcoming state is proud of its rich history of immigration, but as of now he is unwilling to welcome in the hopeless refugees from the Middle East.

While this might sound like the most cogent policy in order to ensure the security of Michigan, I'm not convinced it's the right policy. In fact, it's the same excuse the U.S. government used in the 1940s when our country could have provided a safe refuge to the thousands of Jewish men, women and children fleeing Hitler's Europe. It certainly isn't the right moral choice and I would think that Governor Snyder would know better. We cannot allow Islamic State's threat of terrorism to prevent us from doing the right thing, which is participating in potential Syrian refugee resettlement efforts and serving as a safe haven for Syrian refugees. Governor Synder: Michigan's better than that!

New Reality TV Show Puts Needy Families in Moral Quandary

In my recent contribution to Time.com, I take a look at the ethical issues of a new reality TV show on CBS. It's often said that these reality TV shows are simply a magnifying glass on American society. Well, I certainly hope that our society is better than this!

Why ‘The Briefcase’ Is the Worst Reality TV Show Ever
CBS's new show "The Briefcase" takes advantage of desperate people and calls it entertainment
By Rabbi Jason Miller

This summer marks a milestone of sorts for the reality TV genre. It was 15 years ago that the television show “Survivor” became a breakout hit and gave birth to a new industry. Some of the most successful reality shows have helped talented individuals who may otherwise have gone unnoticed begin lucrative careers. But most of the reality TV productions tend to bring out parts of society that are unethical, exploitative, and just plain wrong.

The most extreme example of this aired its first episode two weeks ago on CBS. “The Briefcase” features financially struggling American families and showcases their many hardships. These are men and women who are down on their luck, out of work, and seem miserable. The premise of the show is that they are surprised with a gift of $101,000. Of course, there are strings attached.

These impoverished, hard-working people are given an unfair decision to make upon receipt of the “fortune.” They are told that the rules of this game (and it appears to me to be a game of playing with people’s minds) are that they can either choose to keep the money, which they desperately need, or gift all or part of it to another family in need. They aren’t told the other family has also received a similar briefcase and instructions.

Reaction to the show has been very critical, and an online petition calling for CBS to cancel the show has more than 100 signatures.

The biggest problem of the show is that it’s meant as entertainment. Yet the families featured on the show aren’t actors—they truly are struggling. They have lost hope as they try to keep their homes, feed their children, and pay their medical bills. Putting them in front of television cameras and presenting them with a “Faustian bargain” is cruel and unusual.

Restoring Faith in Sports: The Michigan Sports Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony

Like most of my friends, growing up I was a dedicated sports fan. Baseball was my favorite sport to watch, collecting baseball cards was a hobby that occupied much of my time, and memorizing player stats took precedence over any subject in school. All that changed the summer between high school graduation and my freshman year at college. The Major League Baseball player strike in 1994 was a watershed moment for me. It gave me a glimpse into the strong focus on money in professional sports. My favorite players went from being heroes to goats, who only cared about another million dollars or a signing bonus and getting their TV revenue share. I tuned out.

It took a few years until I returned to loving professional sports. I came to understand that the players were only fighting for what was rightfully theirs and the greed was part of the culture, mostly perpetuated by the franchise owners and sports agents. Over the years, as my own children have become avid sports fans there is nothing I enjoy more than heading to the ballpark, arena or stadium with them in tow to enjoy another exciting sports event. I now smile widely while watching a game on TV as I listen to my kids talk player stats just as I did with my friends a generation ago.

Nevertheless, I've been very critical of professional sports lately. From football's rampant concussion problem and off-season arrests to players using performance enhancement drugs and being abusive to the women in their lives, there are a lot of reasons to rule pro sports as inappropriate for today's youth. There have been stories of pro athletes making ungodly amounts of money during their playing careers only to file for bankruptcy a few years later. These millionaire sports stars charge their adoring young fans for each autograph and then quickly skip town when another team offers them more money. Fighting between players is no longer unique to hockey games as fights have increased in the NBA and NFL, in addition to more bench-clearing brawls in pro baseball. In my more pessimistic moments, I wonder if there are any role models for our kids in pro sports anymore.

The other night I put aside this pessimism as my eyes opened to some truly amazing stories of humanity in sports. If you want to see what is still great about athletes, just attend a local Hall of Fame induction ceremony. Every state has its own Sports Hall of Fame into which it inducts the top athletes with connections to that state. On Thursday night I had the privilege of watching some truly wonderful sports stars become members of the Michigan Sports Hall of Fame. The focus was less on their career statistics or accolades as players or coaches and more on how they have given back to society and are leaders with ethics and integrity.

There was no doubt that these men and women will go down in history for their accomplishments on the field, but for those couple of hours as I listened to their philanthropic contributions off the field I felt very confident about the future of sports. In this year's extraordinary class, the Michigan Sports Hall of Fame inducted NY Yankees all-star and Kalamazoo, Michigan native Derek Jeter (he was unable to attend at the last minute and will be formally inducted next year), Cincinnati Reds Hall of Famer and University of Michigan standout Barry Larkin, Michigan State University's beloved basketball coach Tom Izzo, Detroit Red Wings great Sergei Federov, Detroit Lions All Pro defensive tackle Doug English, pro-bowler Aleta Sill and four-time Olympian swimmer Sheila Taormina.

Michigan Sports HOF Inductees: Tom Izzo,Barry Larkin, Sheila Taormina, Aleta Sill, Sergei Federov & Doug English 

These former players, along with Coach Izzo, spoke about the philanthropic foundations they have set up to support the causes that are near and dear to them. (While Jeter wasn't able to be there in person, his own foundation has famously raised close to $20 million to help guide students toward leadership roles and educational opportunities.) These men and women spoke of the sacrifices they made throughout their careers -- often at their family's expense -- and how they always tried to put their fans first. They spoke about how they are fans themselves and never lost sight of how fortunate they were to have the opportunity to play a sport they love for so many years and be compensated well for it.

Tablet Web Comments: Pay to Play?

Over the years I've written quite a bit on the topic of the comments section on the Web. I often refer to this section located under Web articles as "The Wild Wild West." In fact, after my first article was published on The Huffington Post about five years ago I become inundated reading the many comments from around the world. Very few of these comments were on topic and most were, quite frankly, of an anti-Semitic nature.

I remember asking my colleague Rabbi David Wolpe, who had already written several articles for The Huffington Post, how he managed to read and respond to all these comments -- and whether he was alarmed by the hateful nature of so many of them. He responded to my inquiry with something to the effect of: Just write, don't bother with the comments.

The ability to post comments anonymously was often thought to be the problem that allowed trolls to comment off topic on articles posted on the Web and so many websites changed their policies forcing users to sign in before leaving comments. That solution only goes so far since users can create dummy accounts and many of these trolls don't care about masking their identities. Over the years, many websites have come up with solutions to the problem of what I call "garbage comments" (e.g., 9/11 conspiracy theory comments on a cute YouTube video of my kid playing guitar). These solutions include the ability for users from within the "community" to be able to vote up or down comments and also to report violations of the terms of service or commenting policy. This is a good start and I think all Web media sites should employ this strategy, allowing users whose comments typically receive up votes to filter to the top and banning users whose comments are often reported for abuse.

The NFL and Its Ethics Problem

The commissioners of the major professional sports leagues have been in the news quite a bit lately. Adam Silver, the NBA commissioner who replaced David Stern a year ago, has received high marks for his first year in office. The biggest items he's currently dealing with are the idea to add four new basketball franchises in Europe and whether to expand the NBA All-Star rosters. NHL commissioner Gary Bettman, who is routinely booed at the NHL All-Star Game and when presenting the Stanley Cup, has actually done a great job of diminishing the role of fighting in the league and has significantly grown the NHL's annual revenue from increased ticket sales, TV contracts and apparel sales. Rob Manfred, the new commissioner of Major League Baseball who replaced Bud Selig, just started his new post and his biggest controversy to date is whether to ban infield defensive shifts.

That brings us to Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner. It seems that when Goodell isn't dealing with the off-season arrests of his pro football players for everything from drugs and rape to weapons and drunk driving, he's embattled in cheating scandals and lawsuits of former players who barely remember their playing days due to their many concussions.

The NFL's ethics problem isn't new. Eleven years ago, back in February 2004 after Janet Jackson revealed too much during the Super Bowl halftime show, I wrote on this blog that, "So many people are citing this year's Super Bowl as proof of a complete absence of dignity and moral behavior in our society." I then quoted New Jersey Jewish News Editor Andrew Silow-Carroll's argument about the Super Bowl. He wrote, "I hate to sound like a prude, but this year’s Super Bowl was an assault of tasteless, inappropriate, and uncomfortable images — and we missed the half-time show! Like most viewers, I used to look forward to the Super Bowl commercials. But that was before advertisers seemed to decide that the country’s most powerful economic cohort lives in frat houses."

Immunizations and Responsible Parenting

With the recent outbreak of Measles due to an unvaccinated child at Disneyland, everyone seems to be talking about the parents, known as anti-vaxxers, who choose to not have their children vaccinated for various reasons. Hillel Day School, the Jewish day school that I attended as a child and where my children now go to school, recently changed its policy about vaccinations -- a decision which I support wholeheartedly.

The Head of School, Steve Freedman, sent out an email to the school community outlining the new policy which he implemented. The bottom line is that no children without up-to-date vaccinations, unless they have a medical waiver from the child's physician, will be allowed to continue at the school. He wrote, "Hillel reserves the right to: Exclude any child whose family has refused immunization, exclude any child who is not immunized against measles or pertussis and has been potentially exposed, for the duration of the incubation period." Regarding students who are not immunized for non-medical reasons, such as on religious grounds or for a philosophical objection, he explained, "Hillel Day school will not accept religious grounds as an objection. On the contrary, Jewish values would insist on vaccinations based on the concept of pikuah nefesh – saving a life. Vaccines not only protect your children, they also protect the others in the community. If not enough people are immunized, others are put at risk, including young children, babies, the elderly, and pregnant women." (Waivers for philosophical objections will only be granted after parents take a required class from the county health department).

After the email from Hillel last week, I was contacted by the Detroit Jewish News for my opinion of this decision, both as a rabbi and as a parent in the school. Here's how I responded:

"A core ethic of Judaism is pikuach nefesh, the idea that preserving human life overrides virtually any other Jewish law. With modern medicine we understand that it is essential for good health that babies and young children receive vaccinations on the required schedule. Not receiving these vaccinations puts that individual's life at risk, as well as countless others. Therefore, I argue that refusing vaccinations for babies and children is antithetical to living in accordance with Jewish law."

"When I read the recent email from Steve Freedman at Hillel Day School, where my children attend, I was grateful for his tough stance on vaccinations. Just one child at a school who isn't vaccinated puts everyone else at risk and that is irresponsible."

Can Ryan Braun Do Teshuvah?

An interview with the Detroit Tigers' new manager Brad Ausmus about his Jewish heritage spread out over a half page in yesterday's Detroit Free Press. The interview was an excerpt from the new book by Larry Ruttman, “American Jews and America’s Game: Voices of a Growing Legacy in Baseball”. Ruttman's interview concludes with a prediction that Ausmus will one day become a manager of a Major League Baseball team and of course that prediction came true earlier this month when the Detroit Tigers announced his hiring.

In the two weeks since that announcement many people in Detroit -- and outside of Detroit -- have asked my opinion about the Jewishness of Brad Ausmus. That's an easy answer, I explain, because his mother is Jewish and therefore he's Jewish. However, that doesn't seem to be enough for many people. They seem to be troubled by the fact that Ausmus isn't the ideal Jewish character for Jewish baseball fans to be excited about. Growing up with a Protestant father, having a Christmas tree in the house each year, and never becoming a bar mitzvah bothers many who want to be excited about this new Jewish manager (it should be noted that Ausmus isn't the only Jewish manager currently in Major League Baseball since Bob Melvin, the manager of the Oakland A's, also has a Jewish mother and coincidentally was also a catcher at one point for the Detroit Tigers).

Ausmus has been very candid about his Jewish background and like Ryan Braun he acknowledges that Judaism didn't feature very prominently in his upbringing. In fact, both Ausmus and Braun fall very neatly into the category of Jewish American that many were surprised about in the recent Pew Research Center study. I have cynically explained to people that having Jewish baseball players in the Major Leagues and Jewish managers are statistical anomalies. After all, make up a very small percent of the U.S. population and when you factor in that many professional baseball players aren't from the U.S., the chances of a Jewish professional player are very small. Therefore, we don't have the luxury of choosing the type of Jewish player.

Yes, it would be easier to feel Jewish pride over a Jewish baseball player who plays like Hank Greenberg, refuses to play on Yom Kippur, attends a synagogue, practices a virtuous life off the field, and donates a portion of his salary to Israel and local Jewish causes. However, we have to take what we get. And that is why we should feel proud that Ausmus (and Bob Melvin) is a manager. He's honest about who he is as it relates to his Jewish heritage, explaining, "I was not brought up in any religion, I wasn’t bar mitzvahed. I married a Catholic girl and have two daughters. Other than the holidays we spent with my grandparents, there really wasn’t much Jewish religion or Catholic-based religion in the household. I think my mom enjoyed Christmas more than anyone, because she didn’t have it as a kid growing up."

You Are What You Wear: Modesty of Dress

One of the highlights of the Foundation for Jewish Camp's Jewish Camping Conference a year ago was the chance for me to get to know Nancy Lublin. I had learned about Nancy several years earlier after reading an article about her mitzvah project that turned into a successful nonprofit company.

I spoke with Nancy, CEO of Do Something for the past ten years, about her recent book Zilch: The Power of Zero in Business, encouraging teen philanthropy, and how Jewish summer camp can instill lifelong entrepreneurial skills in young people. But what I found most interesting in our conversation was how Nancy founded Dress for Success in 1996 with a $5,000 inheritance from her great-grandfather Poppy Max.

Nancy Lublin speaking to Jewish camping professionals (Foundation for Jewish Camp)

Do-overs and Learning From Mistakes

This is my contribution to the HuffPost Religion's Omer Liveblog, which features blogs, prayers, art and reflections for all 49 days of spiritual reflection between Passover and Shavuot:

"The broken tablets were put with the new ones into the Ark." --Talmud, Menachot 99a

What can we learn from the fact that Moses put the broken tablets into the Ark along with the new tablets? We move on from our mistakes, but we also take the lessons along with us.

In helping to form a new nation, Moses made many mistakes. He overreacted when he saw the people sinning before God by dancing around the Golden Calf, and he threw the tablets to the ground. Forty days of hard work were lost.

As a leader, Moses owned his inability to handle the situation calmly. He did a "do-over" and received new commandments, but the experience of breaking the tablets wouldn't be erased from memory. It was part of his narrative as a leader and part of the historical record of the Israelites. The broken tablets would endure alongside the new ones.

We all make mistakes on the way toward our goal. As a business owner and entrepreneur, there is a story upon which I often reflect that was shared with me by Josh Linkner. Everyone is familiar with WD-40, the water-displacing spray that was originally designed to repel water and prevent corrosion, but was later found to have numerous household uses. Many people, however, don't realize that WD-40 stands for "water displacement 40th attempt." It was the inventor's 40th attempt at a successful product. Norm Larsen had 39 do-overs before finding success. By naming his product WD-40 he kept the first 39 attempts with him as a lesson, just as Moses preserved the broken tablets as a reminder.

May we all make mistakes and then remember those mistakes as lessons as we achieve our goals.

This is a reflection on the fourth day of the Omer. Join the conversation by visiting the Omer liveblog on HuffPost Religion, which features blogs, prayers, art and reflections for all 49 days of spiritual reflection between Passover and Shavuot.

Must a Rabbi Report Confidential Confessions?

Earlier this week, I received a phone call from Niraj Warikoo, the religion editor of the Detroit Free Press. He told me that he was assisting another reporter on a local news story and had a few questions for me. Niraj described the case to me.

In 2009, a young girl reported to police that two years earlier when she was 9-years-old she was raped by a 15-year-old male cousin at a sleepover at her home. The boy's pastor was informed of the allegation and he summoned the boy and his mother to the Metro Baptist Church in Belleville, Michigan to be questioned about the incident. The boy confessed to his pastor about the rape and then they prayed. The pastor, Rev. John Vaprezsan, went to the authorities and has since testified about the confession. Is that legal? Is that ethical?

It's a horrible situation, but it also presents a host of interesting legal and ethical questions about what is known as pastor-penitent privilege. This privilege varies from state to state, but in Michigan it is protected in the same way as attorney-client privilege. In the Detroit Free Press article I explained that I honor the confidentiality of people who confess to me, but "if information that is confided in me would lead to serious harm of another human being, I would feel compelled to tell the authorities. That would include situations of abuse."

It is important that people have a safe space to speak in confidence with their religious leader in addition to their attorney. Judaism does not place the same emphasis on confession as the Catholic faith does, but we do want people to feel comfortable speaking with their rabbi while they're in the process of repentance.

Last night I appeared on Detroit's Fox News affiliate to discuss this topic along with Ray Cassar, the defense attorney for the boy accused of rape. It was a very interesting discussion in which I fully agreed that in this case the pastor's testimony about the accused's confession should not be admissible in court. It is very important to protect the confidential discussions between clergy and congregant (or pastor and parishioner in this case). However, if I ever felt that confidential information I was given by a congregant could prevent a tragic act from taking place, I would feel compelled to break that confidentiality. In that case, the Jewish concept of pikuach nefesh (saving a life) would dictate my decision.

Here is the video of last night's episode of "Let It Rip" on Fox2 Detroit:

What is Glatt Kosher

As a panelist for Jewish Values Online, I am asked to weigh in on various values-based questions from the perspective of a Conservative rabbi. A recent question I was asked to respond to was odd in that it wasn't a question that had to do with values. I was asked to answer the difference between "glatt kosher" and "kosher". This struck me as having to do less with values and more with a general misunderstanding.

Here is my response from the Jewish Values Online website:

Literally speaking, the term "glatt" is a Yiddish word that means smooth (it is called "chalak" in Hebrew). It is used most commonly as a kosher designation referring to the lungs of an animal. If the animal's lungs were smooth and free of any adhesion that would render it non-kosher, the animal is designated as "glatt." The term only applies to kosher animals whose meat can be eaten (not fowl or fish). Therefore, kosher food like chicken, fish, lamb, or dairy products can never be "glatt."

The term has come to mean "kosher to a higher level" leading many people to erroneously think that non-beef food items can be "glatt." In fact, I have been asked if pizza that I certify as kosher is "glatt" to which I responded that if they're concerned about the melted cheese atop the pizza being smooth, they should be fine.

Rabbi Ari Z. Zivotofsky wrote an insightful explanation of why the "glatt" designation is important. He explains, "In colloquial discourse treif refers to anything that is not kosher. The technical definition of treifa is based on Exodus 22:30 (Do not eat meat from an animal torn [treifa] in the field) and refers to an animal with any of a specific group of physical defects that are detailed in the Talmud. Examples of these "defects," which often go far beyond the health inspection of the USDA, include certain lesions, lacerations, broken limbs, missing or punctured organs, or the result of an attack by a larger animal. Such defects can occur in and thereby render both animals and fowl treif. Because most of these defects are uncommon, it may be assumed that most animals are healthy and hence there is no requirement to inspect every animal for them. An exception is the lung of an animal, on which adhesions and other problems may develop. While these problems are not common, they do occur more frequently than other treifot. Their relative prevalence led the rabbis to mandate that the lungs of every animal be examined, both manually while still in its natural position in the animal, and visually following its removal from the thoracic cavity."

Most types of adhesion on the animal would make the animal a treifa and therefore forbidden to be eaten by a Jewish person. Rabbi Moshe Isserles (the Ramah) allows for a method of peeling and testing many types of adhesions, which results in many more animals being designated as kosher. This leniency allows kosher observant individuals to eat meat that is not from a "glatt" animal, but one whose adhesions had been checked through peeling and testing. Isserles ruled only for Ashkenazi Jews, but Rabbi Yosef Karo did not rule that this was acceptable practice and therefore his Sephardic followers only eat "glatt" kosher meat.

This led to the "glatt" designation being considered a stringency that the pious would uphold. The misconception is that if meat is not "glatt" then it is not kosher. In truth, non-glatt meat that has been thoroughly inspected is considered fully kosher for Ashkenazic Jews.

There are kosher certification agencies that only certify meat that is "glatt". Those who only eat "glatt" meat are known as mehadrin, meaning "embellished." Maintaining a kosher diet leaves room for leniencies and stringencies. One who follows a more stringent level of kosher observance is considered to have embellished God's commandments and thus is said to be keeping kosher l'mehadrin. The terms "glatt" and "mehadrin" have come to describe a higher level of kosher status, but has also been misapplied to such things as water.

These terms can colloquially mean "extra strict supervision," but it is important that the actual definition is lost along the way. Rabbi Reuven Hammer of Jerusalem has written about the fact that this stringency of the pious seems to apply to kosher food, but seldom to matters of ethics. He writes, "If people want to be extra strict with themselves, that is their right, but I often wonder why this extra strictness seems to be confined to ritual mitzvot rather than to ethical ones. Whenever I hear about Glatt I am reminded of [Rabbi Abraham Joshua] Heschel's comment that we need a mashgiah [kosher supervisor] not just for food for other things such as lashon ha-ra – gossip – as well.

So, the bottom line is that "glatt" means smooth and refers to the lungs of animals like cows. When its applied to other food it is being misapplied, but colloquially means "kosher to a higher standard."

Re'eh - Giving Blessings Not Curses

It has become very common for businesses and organizations to send out weekly email messages to their list of subscribers. There is nothing unusual about that. But I've noticed an increasing number of individuals who have begun to share their own wisdom and commentary on the issues of the day with their friends and family.

Each week, I receive many weekly newsletters that arrive in my email inbox from synagogues across the country and Israel, but I've also begun to receive weekly email messages from individuals. Like the synagogue newsletters, these weekly missives from individuals include some insights about the weekly Torah portion. These individuals have realized that through email they have developed their own pulpit from which to disseminate information and offer their teaching. Through word-of-mouth, they have amassed a following through their distribution list.

Sometimes these individuals intentionally comment on the weekly Torah portion and other times they do so coincidentally. I noticed that the latter was the case this week when I received Josh Linkner's weekly message. The serial entrepreneur and motivational business speaker from Detroit titled his weekly email "Caught in the Act".  The essence of his message is that it's better to bless someone than to curse them. Linkner might not have realized that this week's Torah portion, Re'eh, is all about blessings and curses. He writes:

Bosses, parents, teachers, clergy and government officials are well trained to catch you doing something wrong. There are elaborate systems for checks and balances, controls and consequences. It's apparently very important to catch the mischievous child or the wayward employee in the act of disobedience.

With so much effort spent catching people doing something wrong, it's time to start catching each other doing something right.

In our society, wide spread labeling is an insidious force that robs individuals of achieving their true potential. When a parent tells a child they are average, slow, or stupid, these sharp words become a self-fulfilling prophecy as the erroneous labels are internalized. When a boss repeatedly lashes out at a team member pointing out their every flaw, confidence becomes shattered and performance plummets.

The good news is that labeling can work the other way too. Catch a team member in the act of delivering great work, and you'll inject her with confidence and energy. Label a colleague a rock-star, and they'll kick out the work version of a Grammy.

This week, let's all flip the poison of negative labeling, and catch each other and ourselves in the act - in the act of doing things right. These new, positive labels will tip the scales in favor of results, momentum, and overall achievement.

This week's Torah portion begins with the words, "Look, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse." The question is which one we will choose. In the Torah's case, the contextual understanding of the text is that God sets forth a blessing and a curse in front of us and we are to decide which one we'll receive. Another way of understanding the text, however, is that we all have the ability to choose to bless others or to curse them.

Tuesday marks the beginning of the new Jewish month of Elul, which is a time of deep reflection and introspection for members of the Jewish faith as we prepare for the Days of Awe (Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur). I hope we will all take Josh Linkner's message to heart during this season.

When faced with offering a blessing or a curse to someone I encourage you to remember what my mother taught me from a very young age: "You get more bees with honey." Blessing others with kind words, motivational encouragement and compliments will lead to you feeling blessed as well.

Shabbat Shalom.

Rabbi Approves of Girl Inflicting Wounds for Modesty Reasons

A letter is sent from a college campus midrasha to an Ultra-Orthodox rabbi. The letter writer explains that a young Jewish woman on campus who is a counselor at a midrasha (מרכזת מדרשה) is becoming more devout, but her non-observant parents disapprove. She wants to wear long skirts for modesty reasons, but her parents have forbidden her from doing so. Ynetnews.com reports that the letter continued, "The young woman thought that if she inflicted wounds on her legs she could tell her parents that she is wearing a long skirt to cover the wounds."

According to ynet news, the letter was sent to Rabbi Yitzchok Zilberstein, the son-in-law of prominent Rabbi Yosef Elyashiv, for his opinion. Shockingly, Rabbi Zilberstein approved of the young woman inflicting wounds on her own legs so she could dress modestly, wearing the long skirts her parents have forbidden.

If this story is authentic, it is quite troubling on many levels. The young woman is in college and should be able to determine what she wears on her own, without her parents' consent. [The ynet News translation was erroneous. It said that she was a college student, but the Hebrew explains that she was a counselor in a midrasha (מרכזת מדרשה), meaning that she is likely a teenager.] It should never have gotten to the point where she feels compelled to do self-harm in order to wear modest clothes.

While the commandment to honor ones parents is competing with the young woman's belief in modest dress, there is precedent in Judaism for disobeying ones parents if it leads to adherence of the law in other cases. But above all else, it is in violation of Jewish law to inflict harm on oneself. Inflicting wounds on oneself is a transgression of Jewish law. It would be religious malpractice if Rabbi Zilberstein actually condoned this practice.

According to the article in ynet news, the rabbi responded to the questioner writing, "She is allowed to inflict wounds on her legs in order to dress modestly and evade sin."

There is already documented evidence that young women are self inflicting wounds at a high rate. Reports of intentional cutting and self mutilation among teens, especially young women, is shocking. In a November 2008 article in the Huffington Post, Leslie Goldman wrote about the growing epidemic of troubled Jewish teenage girls who are suffering from eating disorders and body image problems that lead to cutting themselves. I would presume Rabbi Zilberstein was not familiar with this crisis when he penned his response.

Ynet reports, "In his reply, the rabbi commended the student's initiative, saying 'the blood from the self-inflicted wound will atone for the people of Israel,' adding that the coordinator should allow the student to commit the act." The rabbi's opinion is odd. In fact, it even calls to mind the sacrificial system of a bygone era in Judaism. When I first read Rabbi Zilberstein's response I couldn't help but notice that he seems to draw on Christian symbolism.

If there's truth to this story and Rabbi Zilberstein in fact opined that this young woman in college should continue to inflict wounds on her body so that she'll have an excuse to dress modestly in the face of her parents' disapproval, then he owes an explanation for his warped logic. I understand and respect those who feel strongly about modest dress, but there are boundaries. No person in their right mind would grant approval for such a horrible act.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian from a Jewish Perspective

It's been a week since "Dr. Death," Jack Kevorkian, died of natural causes. A local celebrity in Michigan, Kevorkian became synonymous with physician-assisted suicide in the 1990s. He also made his long-time attorney, Geoffrey Feiger, into a local celebrity. Growing up in Metro Detroit with Kevorkian's antics on the television news each day meant that "euthanasia" was a well-known term to my peers and me.

Kevorkian's death has once again revived the ethical conversation surrounding physician-assisted suicide. My friend and classmate, Rabbi Leonard Sharzer, MD, was recently interviewed by The Jewish Week about the Jewish perspective of Physician-Assisted Suicide. The interview was published just days before Kevorkian's death.

Rabbi Sharzer, a retired plastic surgeon in New York, was interviewed because a new documentary is airing on HBO. "How to Die in Oregon" takes a powerful look at Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, a 1994 measure allowing physician-assisted suicide and the first law of its kind, by telling the stories of several people who died under the act. Rabbi Sharzer writes and lectures on bio-medical ethics at the Jewish Theological Seminary's Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies. The following are questions he answered on the subject of physician assisted suicide:

Q: What, if anything, do Jewish texts and modern-day responsa say about physician-assisted suicide?

A: Normative Judaism, as a general matter, is opposed to suicide, although there have been exceptions, as in the case of matrydom. Jewish legal writing about physician-assisted suicide is quite new, as discussion of the phenomenon itself is recent. The predominant opinion is negative. There’s the notion that human life is a gift from God, and it’s up to God to decide when it ends, not human beings. … Judaism sees no intrinsic value to suffering at the end of life and encourages physicians to use all means at their disposal to relieve suffering — but not to actually end a life.

Do the Torah and other Jewish texts include examples of people choosing to end their lives rather experiencing an agonizing or painful death?

The classic example in the Bible is the case of King Saul, who found himself wounded in battle and surrounded by the enemy. Fearing torture and degradation, he took his own life. The rabbis go to some length to justify Saul’s action while saying it’s an exception that shouldn’t be considered the rule.

Did seeing the documentary influence your own views on the subject?

I’d say that seeing the movie gave me a much better understanding of the human condition in which this develops. It gives a human face to the issue. It’s not my position to be judgmental of anyone who makes that decision, even if I wouldn’t make that decision for myself and wouldn’t counsel it.

What’s the role of spiritual leaders, such as rabbis, in such decisions? Is it the cleric’s place to veto a decision like this and, if so, under what circumstances?

Spiritual leaders, clergy and pastoral caregivers have in role in help both patients and their families deal with these very difficult questions. I don’t think it’s about a veto. Rather, it’s about helping people who are seeking guidance from within a religious tradition. … It’s clearly a feature of our times that people want to control all aspects of their life and health. The spiritual position is that sometimes you can’t. The contribution of spiritual and religious leaders is to help them deal with areas over which they aren’t able to exert control.

In a statement released by the filmmaker, he says that, surprisingly, the lessons he learned from making the documentary have more to do with living than with dying. What does an issue like this — and, more generally, the idea of death — teach us about life?

One of the lessons is that we don’t live this life as isolated individuals. We live this life as part of a family, as part of a community. We want to live out a sense of values not only for ourselves, but for our families and communities, and impart [our values] to the ones who come after us.

Doctoring Photos for Religious Reasons

The whole media storm over the doctored photo of the National Security Team in the Situation Room (being briefed with the president and vice president on the Osama Bin Laden raid) has raised many questions and additional controversy.

Yesterday, I took part in an ad hoc Facebook forum moderated by journalist Steven I. Weiss that centered on the ethics of altering photographs. The interesting discussion touched on several aspects of the story including whether it is ever ethical to alter a photo. In my opinion, this is a "gut decision." That is to say, touching up a photo to improve the lighting or to remove a few blemishes from a person's face is acceptable. However, airbrushing an ex-girlfriend out of a group photo might feel good, but it alters the record of reality.

One of the most iconic photos of the 20th century is from the Kent State shootings. The photo was altered by removing a post that otherwise would have seemed to be emanating from the screaming woman's head. This didn't change the historical record of the event.

In conversations about the two Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) newspapers that airbrushed Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason from the now famous photo, I tried to shift the focus from the Jewish religious issues of modesty to the question of photographic integrity. Many people thought I was intentionally throwing mud at the ultra-right wing of the Jewish world, when in fact I was drawing attention to the problem of doctored photographs. The two examples I've raised have been the doctored photos of Oprah Winfrey on the cover TV Guide and Katie Couric's magical weight loss thanks to Photoshop. (The photo of Oprah is actually her face on Ann Margaret's 1979 body.) Both of these photos are misleading to the public.

I fully believe that these ultra-Orthodox newspapers have the right to determine which photographs they use to accompany their articles. I disagree, of course, that photos of women and girls are too immodest to be shown, but these papers do have this right. However, altering photos as they often do is unethical. And it's not only a policy on photographs. In 2008, when Tzipi Livni was close to becoming Israel’s first female prime minister since Golda Meir, ultra-Orthodox newspapers not only refused to print photos of her, they also wouldn't print her full name. "We might write 'Mrs. T. Livni' or just 'Mrs. Livni,' but the name Tzipi is too familiar. It is not acceptable to address a woman using her first name, especially when she goes by a nickname," a senior editor at Hamodia said.

For many Haredi Jews these newspapers are the only form of news they receive. They don't have televisions in their homes and Internet use is forbidden. To these communities, the papers become the historical record. The iconic of photo in the Situation Room for the Bin Laden briefing will be around forever in millions of formats. However, photos that are only printed in these Haredi newspapers really will become historical documents and records of past events. Doctoring them will forever change how future generations will recall their community's history and this misrepresentation of reality is deceitful.

This is a delicate issue and it's important to know the facts. There have been many examples of misinformation surrounding this story. I've received irate phone calls from people who actually think that I was the one who removed Hillary Clinton from the photo. The Jewish Week, where I originally wrote about this, has been accused of being the newspaper that doctored the photo. Some people have even accused me of being a self-hating Jew (I'm not) for breaking the story (I didn't) simply to criticize the Orthodox. While I don't agree with the way women are perceived or treated in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish world, I don't occupy my time criticizing them. However, I also don't believe that I must remain silent about my feelings based on the principle that any critique of other Jews is damaging to the entire faith.

Here are some other examples of how the ultra-Orthodox have doctored images based on their interpretation of the laws of modesty, including replacing a woman with a gnome in an Independence Day billboard recently. As always, leave a comment to join me in this interesting conversation.

The Theology of LeBron James

Just because LeBron James started meeting with a rabbi this summer doesn't mean he's ready to be dispensing theological statements.

I've been thinking a lot about LeBron's statement via his Twitter feed last week about the Cleveland Cavaliers' huge upset to the Lakers. In what has become known as the "Karma Tweet," LeBron tweeted the following during the final minutes of his former team's 55-point loss to the Los Angeles Lakers: "Crazy. Karma is a b****.. Gets you every time. Its not good to wish bad on anybody. God sees everything."

There are many unknowns when it comes to theology. Aside from dealing with the conundrums of evil and suffering in the world, we really don't know whether God is omniscient. Apparently, LeBron James is certain of God's omniscience ("God sees everything"). Not only that, but it seems that LeBron's God metes out justice on those who "wish bad on anybody." Now, I'm not going to judge LeBron for his theological certainty or even for his brashness in tweeting these words. I am, however, going to call him out for the senselessness of tweeting about divine karma this way.

That tweet couldn't possibly have been received well no matter what happened. LeBron handled his separation from the Cavaliers in the worst way imaginable, so criticizing owner Dan Gilbert or the Cavaliers for wishing ill on him is ridiculous at best. Second, LeBron's "Karma Tweet" sets him up for ridicule should the karma now fly the other way, which is exactly what has happened. Since LeBron decided to wax theological on Twitter, his team -- the Miami Heat -- has lost three consecutive games on the road and has seen the three superstars all get injured (twisted ankles for LeBron and Chris Bosh, and a hurt knee for Dwayne Wade).

This only proves that if you believe in the divine karma LeBron believes in, well, it can cut both ways. And if you ever sense that, thanks to karma, bad things are being levied on those who wished ill on you, be smart about it and keep your mouth shut. And in this day and age, that means stay away from Twitter!

Is the Death Penalty an Ethical Option According to Jewish Values?

In the past couple weeks there have been a couple of high profile death penalty decisions in our country. These rulings were not handed down by a judge or jury, but by a former presidential candidate and a cable news talking head.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was caught on video at a book signing in California earlier this month saying that the person that leaked the documents to WikiLeaks should be executed. "Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason," Huckabee said. "I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty." Newt Gingrich even suggested that WikiLeak's founder Julian Assange deserves to be hunted and executed Sunday by calling him an "enemy combatant."

Political commentator Tucker Carlson, filling in for Fox News host Sean Hannity this past Tuesday, told a news panel that he believes football player Michael Vick, who was given a second chance after being convicted on dog fighting charges, deserves to die for his crimes. The panel had been discussing President Barack Obama's praise of the Philadelphia Eagles for giving Vick a second chance to start at quarterback. Apparently, Tucker Carlson disagrees with Obama because not only does he disagree with giving Vick a second chance, he believes he deserves the death penalty. He said, "Michael Vick killed dogs... And I think, personally, he should've been executed for that."

Admittedly, for many years I never gave much thought to the death penalty. Yes, it is a very serious and divisive topic, but it was not one of the hot button issues of most concern to me. The first time I researched the topic was in 2003 when I took a group of Jewish teens to Washington D.C. for the Panim program and I had to prepare them to debate the moral issues of capital punishment.

I had a cursory understanding of the basic ethical issues and knew the textual sources from the Torah about capital punishment, but it was not a core issue for me. In 2007, I led a family mission to Israel and the abolishment of capital punishment was the bailiwick of one of the adult participants. Before we left for Israel, someone told me that Abe Bonowitz was an abolishionist. I thought, "He's against slavery? Aren't we all?" But it turns out that there is a vast and strong death penalty abolishionist movement in this country. And as you can imagine, they weren't very fond of President George W. Bush's views on capital punishment.

The more I listened to Bonowitz's views on capital punishment, the more I was convinced that it cannot possibly be an ethical option for punishment in the 21st century. I'm not sure if Huckabee or Carlson were really serious about executing the Wikileaks source or Michael Vick or if they were speaking in hyperbole like most politicians and political commentators do today. However, it piqued my interest in the ethical issues of capital punishment and my teacher's thoughtful commentary on the subject came at the perfect time.

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield of Clal published "The Jewish Precedent for a Moral Death Penalty" on his Beliefnet blog and on The Huffington Post. He wrote,

The rabbis teach that a unanimous court cannot impose the death penalty. Contrary to the law in Illinois and the safety we seek in unanimity, Jewish tradition teaches that the only court absolutely prohibited from carrying out a death sentence is the one most of us assume should -- i.e., one in which all judges agree that it's the right thing to do.

The rabbis accept that there may be times when it has to happen, but they cannot accept that any decision so momentous and complex should be seen the same way by everybody. If that happens, the rabbis tell us, we must be missing something and therefore cannot execute the offender.

Some of that thinking is what created the lengthy and hugely expensive process demanded by a system which still entertains the death penalty even if it rarely imposes it. That system would end with passage of SB 3539, making the world a better place by redirecting funds earmarked for death penalty litigation to murder victims' families and enhanced law enforcement.

Ultimately, Jewish tradition values the idea of the death penalty as a moral statement, but hates its imposition on ethical grounds. Interestingly, that is where it seems many Americans stand when it comes to the issue as well. Perhaps now is the time to go back to the future when it comes to thinking about the death penalty.

The past president of my synagogue, Harold Gurewitz, is an experienced and well respected criminal defense attorney here in Michigan. This summer in a highly publicized federal death penalty case he successfully kept his client, Timothy O'Reilly, from being executed (Michigan banned capital punishment in the 1800s, but a death sentence is still possible for certain federal crimes.). Gurewitz spoke to our congregation about his experiences in the months-long trial. He explained that capital punishment in Jewish law requires the prosecutors to advocate for the taking of another life. The evidence offered to support the penalty – as distinguished from the decision of guilt– proved lingering or residual doubts about the defendant’s personal role in the specific acts causing death. It required the judge and/or jury to engage in a very personal decision-making process and to individually agree that another human being should be put to death.

When considering capital punishment in the Torah, it must be viewed in its historical context, Gurewitz explained. There are fundamental values in Jewish sources, the Bible and commentaries that provide meaningful references for how we should view capital punishment today.

While the Torah lists numerous transgressions for which the death penalty is prescribed, Hirschfield points out that there is only actually "one instance in the Five Books of Moses in which someone is executed by the court. In fact, later rabbinic tradition teaches that if the death penalty is imposed once in 70 years, the court which imposes it is called a terrorist court. While having the death penalty on the books has merit as a moral statement, actually imposing it seems to be quite to the contrary."

Stoning, pushing the convict off a ledge to a stone floor, burning, strangulation, and decapitation are all forms of capital punishment in the Torah and Talmud. However, these were intended to represent an advancement over the cruelty and lack of restraint in earlier times and by other cultures. Gurewitz said that, "According to an Amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States by a prominent lawyer, Nathan Lewin, supporting an argument against the use of electrocution as capital punishment in Florida should be banned as a violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, these practices exemplified respect for 'human dignity' in the means by which the penalty was to be carried out and restraint in its use."

Judge Jack B. Weinstein, a United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of New York, spoke at Temple Emanuel of Great Neck in New York. He noted that "Conditions change. Our view of what is required of a humane and caring people should change with the times. What was required and permitted in biblical times is not necessarily what decent people should approve of today. The argument that “ the Torah says it, therefore its is right for us: is no excuse for unnecessary cruelty and inhumanity. We can and should reject capital punishment."

Gurewitz quoted Judge Weinstein, but explained that what the judge did not explicitly mention was that when we focus on the “values” that obviously informed the “humane practices” of capital punishment, they support the view that it should not be practiced at all.

In Israel, capital punishment is only used for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against the Jewish people and treason in wartime. The only execution in Israel has been Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann by hanging.

Capital punishment is as nuanced and complex as an ethical issue can be. Perhaps that is why Mike Huckabee's and Tucker Carlson's rhetoric calling for execution makes headlines. There might have been a time generations ago when capital punishment was accepted, however, in today's world it is clearly not an ethical option for punishment.

NJ Jewish Standard & Carl Paladino

While last week's decision by the New Jersey Jewish Standard to apologize for the inclusion of a gay wedding announcement and then retract the apology made big news, I didn't have a chance to weigh in on it. But now, that New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino has essentially done the same thing regarding the anti-gay comments he made to a group of Hasidic Jews, I thought I'd comment on both matters.

Newspapers, and especially Jewish newspapers, will never be able to please everyone. Stating that the newspaper is for the entire community is actually a shortsighted mission statement because every Jewish community will have its factions that neither read nor care about what is published in certain Jewish newspapers. Whether it is the decision to run advertisements for non-kosher restaurants or print interfaith wedding announcements, the Orthodox community will boycott the paper. And a Jewish newspaper that has a bias toward the Orthodox won't be of much concern to a progressive audience.

Ultimately, what happened at the NJ Jewish Standard was neglect. The paper's editorial board and staff neglected to have a thoughtful process about whether to publish gay wedding (and engagement) announcements in the first place. And when there was backlash from the Orthodox, they should have debriefed on the matter, gathered information, and sought counsel from local rabbis and Jewish leaders before issuing an apology. The quick decision to apologize for publishing the engagement of Avi Smolen and Justin Rosen (who, by the way, seem like a very nice couple and will be married by my colleague Rabbi Josh Gruenberg) and then making the statement that the paper will never again run such an announcement turned into a public relations nightmare. It took days until James Janoff, the publisher, issued a retraction of the editor's statement which said, "The Jewish Standard has always striven to draw the community together, rather than drive its many segments apart. We have decided, therefore, since this is such a divisive issue, not to run such announcements in the future."

The engagement announcement of former Camp Ramah in Nyack staffers
Avi Smolen & Justin Rosen, who will be married this month.

In a statement posted to the paper's website, Janoff said the New Jersey Jewish Standard probably should not have reversed its policy so quickly, "responding only to one segment of the community." He said he is now holding meetings with local rabbis and community leaders, and will be printing many of the letters "that have been pouring in" on the issue. Without saying that the paper will print same-sex marriage announcements in the future, my sense is that in time they will.

Now on to Carl Paladino, who I'm convinced is a wish that was granted to Jon Stewart for his last birthday. Today's New York Times reports that the alliance between Republican Carl Paladino and Yehuda Levin, an Orthodox rabbi from Brooklyn, has fallen apart, with the rabbi denouncing Paladino on Wednesday for his apology over remarks he had made about homosexuality on Sunday. It turns out that Rabbi Levin wrote Paladino's anti-gay speech, so he was obviously angered when Paladino did a 180 and apologized for his "poorly chosen words" and said he would "fight for all gay New Yorkers’ rights" if elected governor.

I'm not really sure how Paladino could be so naive to think that, in the 24-hour news cycle era, his offensive anti-gay remarks wouldn't be broadcast all over the country within hours. During a meeting with a small Orthodox congregation that was arranged by Rabbi Levin, Paladino said that children should not be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality was acceptable, and then he criticized his Democratic opponent, Andrew Cuomo, for marching with his daughters in New York City’s gay pride parade. While his comments obviously went over well with the Hasidic group, they didn't play very well for the rest of the world.

There are some pretty funny lines in the NY Times story including Rabbi Levin explaining where he was and what he was doing when he learned of Paladino's apology (emphasis is mine):

Rabbi Levin said he was especially upset that Mr. Paladino gave him no notice that he planned to back away from the comments. "I was in the middle of eating a kosher pastrami sandwich," Rabbi Levin said. "While I was eating it, they come running and they say, 'Paladino became gay!' I said, 'What?' And then they showed me the statement. I almost choked on the kosher salami."

So, was it a kosher pastrami or kosher salami sandwich, Rabbi Levin? And I love how he had to mention that it was "kosher." Did he think that folks would question whether he was eating a non-kosher sandwich?

The Times then had to clarify that Paladino hadn't actually become gay (of course):

Mr. Paladino, of course, had not become gay, but had announced that he wanted to clarify that he embraced gay rights and opposed discrimination. In explaining his views, Mr. Paladino and his aides noted that he had a gay nephew who worked for the campaign.

So, what did Rabbi Levin have to say about Paladino's gay nephew?

"He discovered now he has a gay nephew?" the rabbi said. "Mazel tov! We’ll make a coming-out party!"

So, my question is: If the Hasidic Rabbi Yehuda Levin makes a coming-out party for Carl Paladino's gay nephew, will the New Jersey Jewish Standard announce it in their paper? You just couldn't make this stuff up!

Technology's Limits - After Tyler Clementi's Death, a Rabbi Warns of Technology without Ethics

Cross-posted to Jewish Techs

The tragic death of Tyler Clementi, the Rutgers University student who took his own life after being filmed having sex with a man, has led some to voice concern over young people's misuse of technology.

Rabbi Andy Bachman, the founder of BrooklynJews, wrote an open letter to young people in the community on his blog. The letter was reposted on the Forward's Web site.

In his open letter, Bachman begins by reaching out as a rabbi to the young generation of his community be they gay or straight to let them know they were created in the image of God. He then goes on to address the use of technology to invade the privacy of Clementi and lead him to take his own life.

Bachman writes, "...[Clementi's] peers, besides reflecting a disgusting prejudice, also worshiped their technology. Young people live in a world of too much access to too much instantaneous entertainment. And with a webcam and a laptop and an Internet connection, college students at Rutgers created their own bizarre “reality TV,” without thinking about the moral and ethical and criminal implications of what they were doing to another human being. A click and a laugh — and now someone with so much potential is dead. And that, plain and simple, is wrong. Technology can save lives but it can also be a tool for evil. So take stock next time you’re ready to click so quickly. Think and feel before you act."

I teach a weekly high school class about Judaism and technology at a large Reform congregation in Metro Detroit. On the first day of class, we discussed the pros and cons of technology. I asked the teens to describe how new forms of technology can be used for good and how they can be used for evil.

The NY Times reports that the news about Clementi's suicide came on the same day that Rutgers kicked off a two-year, campuswide project to teach the importance of civility, with special attention to the use and abuse of new technology.

We are still learning how best to use these new technologies, from social networking to video streaming. The ability to broadcast realty television is now possible for millions of people with a camera and an Internet connection. The question is whether our society has the ethics necessary to guide us in the appropriate use of these media. As we see from the case of Tyler Clementi, the misuse of technology can be fatal.