There is a Mandel Fellow list-serve. He explained what it was and how to
get registered for it.
I have been teaching a unit on the Holocaust at Bradley-Bourbonnais Community High School in Bradley, Illinois for the past 13 years. Originally delivering only a small amount of information in the context of our World and United States History courses, in the latter half of the 1990’s my interest in the subject began to expand. Our department, under the guidance of my colleagues Ruth Brady and Sarah Graden, delivered what we somewhat jokingly called the “cross-curricular extravaganza” to our freshmen world history students. Teachers from other departments were kind enough to prepare Holocaust-related lessons and deliver them to our students during an in-house field trip to the school’s auditorium. The lessons were sandwiched around a presentation of the film “Schindler’s List”. This was an incredibly powerful day for our kids; however, like many projects of this scope, the logistics of taking two days to handle 500 students in a setting designed for about 300 took its toll. We ended the “extravaganza” after two years.
With media coverage concerning Steven Spielberg’s project through the Shoah Foundation, a goal to record survivor testimony from every living survivor of the Holocaust, as well as my interest in Art Spiegelman’s graphic novel Maus, I decided to expand my own classroom offering and give my students a much broader view of the events of 1933-45. Also having an acute interest in world religions, I found the opportunity to expand my instruction on Judaism and Christianity. The general response from my students was fantastic. Teenagers often struggle to find something to care about; that was not the case here. While only owning a class set of Maus (both volumes), we would have to pace the reading; I had students who would go on their own to local bookstores or libraries to read ahead in a book they were hating to put down!
Late in 2000, I decided that if I could get this kind of feedback from a three-week unit, what would a semester unit do? I approached our principal, Bill Gamble, about the chances of adding a semester long course on the Holocaust to our curriculum. He advised that we would probably have a better chance of pushing it through the curriculum committee and school board if we added a few other topics to it. He came up with the name “Social Injustices”, I created an introductory unit that involved the ideas of Kohlberg and Maslow, as well as units on worldwide slavery and the removal of Native Americans, and we gained approval for the 2001-02 school year.
In preparation for the inaugural classes of Social Injustices, I enrolled in a course called Encountering the Holocaust at Spertus College. Taught by Dr. Elliot Lefkovitz via videotaped lectures, I was immediately drawn in to not only the scope of the subject, but also the minutia of details available to support the major themes. Dr. Lefkovitz’s passion for the subject and the reading assignments prescribed greatly prepared me for the journey on which I was about to embark. In fact, it is my notes from the course that form the backbone of the material I deliver to my students.
Everything I’d hoped for from my students (mostly seniors) and the new course was realized. We engaged in passionate discussion, I saw anger in their eyes, and a wanting to make some sense not only of what happened, but why similar genocides are allowed to occur today. In short, these kids were thinking and working through issues they’ll face in the real world as voters, taxpayers, church members, and parents. The Holocaust, in a much more detailed form, had become real to them. The stories of carnage from the Middle Ages, survivor testimony, archival footage on videotape, propaganda caricatures, bystander issues – all of these melded to form a mosaic of hatred and the consequences of apathy that I hope has moved these kids toward lives as responsible adults in a morally declining world.
This book is a reflection statement on the impact my Mandel Fellowship year has had not only on myself, but on the students enrolled in Social Injustices in the academic year 2002-03. I hope it will not only serve to validate the impact of the good work the people in Washington are doing in training a corps of teachers to go out and deliver the messages of the Shoah to our youth, but will also help to guide those who may be contemplating teaching an expanded, comprehensive unit on the Holocaust to secondary students.
Thanks go to several people: From the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Mandel Fellowship Selection Committee as well as Dan Napolitano, Stephen Feinberg, and Warren Marcus for their leadership, guidance, and vision. From Spertus College, Dr. Dean Bell and Dr. Elliot Lefkovitz for their instruction and encouragement in this assignment. From Bradley-Bourbonnais Community High School, Bill Gamble, the Board of Education, and the Social Sciences department, as well as the student body for their support of my pursuits and goals. And most of all, my family – Kelli, Zach, and Nate for their support when I was away or just busy hammering on the computer keyboard. Thanks to all!
The following literature is my journal of days spent in Washington DC at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum as a participant in the 2002 Mandel Fellowship Program. I have taken the care to give my opinions of the institute’s syllabus, as well as to include my notes from the various presentations.
All travel arrangements were made by Jill Cohen, assistant to the director of the Mandel Fellowship Program. That was a great way to start this journey, knowing we didn’t have to handle any of those concerns whilst trying to prepare to leave. My wife and I spent the night near Midway airport so it would be easier for me to catch my 7:10 am flight to Washington. Wondering what the security would be like, I decided to phone the desk at ATA Airlines and see what time I should arrive. The receptionist said 5:30 ought to do it. So we got up around 4:30 to get ready. I arrived at the ATA counter right on the recommended time; let’s just say I was a little less-than-impressed with post-9/11 “security”. I was at the gate by 5:50 am! Boarding the plane was not a problem, either – no carry-on check, no shoe inspection…
Everything went smoothly, as we lifted off and touched down right on time. The flight was good; I wasn’t too sure, since I hadn’t flown in 22 years! Ironically, that was my 8th grade trip to Washington DC. I caught an expensive cab to Dupont Circle, where I checked into the Jurys Washington Hotel. Nice accommodations! This was my first tangible hint that the Mandel program was first class.
Around 1:15 I shared a cab over to the United States Holocaust Museum with a couple of ladies in the program. We had a nice little tour of the Washington sights, and some small talk on the way over. We passed through the security checkpoint at the museum entrance and headed downstairs to Classroom B – they had both been to a Belfer Teaching Conference and knew their way around. Upon entering the classroom I met Jill Cohen, who I’d only known via online contacts to set up the Fellowship travel arrangements. She was much younger than I’d anticipated; very friendly and welcoming. I also met Dan Napolitano, the Mandel director. I was also somewhat surprised that he seemed about the same age as myself. The other teachers in attendance were a nice cross-section of young and old, male and female. In this Class of 2002 we have two ladies from Argentina and a gentleman who teaches at an American school in the Czech Republic. Throughout the week, they would provide insights that many of us had not considered.
Our first session kicked off promptly at 2:00 pm. We learned right away that Dan is many things, but ON TIME is his specialty! From this day to the last, he would never fail to begin and end a session on the published times. We got an overview of the week from Dan, Stephen Feinberg (Director of National Outreach), Sarah Ogilvie (Director of Education), and Alice Greenwald (Associate Director of the USHMM). Very pleasant people, all. Basically it was laid down that we all belonged at Mandel; it was an honor to have been chosen, but we were chosen due to our credentials and recommendations. Our class of 27 brings the total number of Fellows to over 150 since the programs inception in 1996.
At 3:30 we began an architectural tour of the museum. Tim Kaiser, a museum educator, led my group. We began outside and looked at various techniques, including materials, angles, etc. After, we moved inside to the main hall, where he pointed out the mismatched lines on the ceiling, and different effects involving windows with no openings and so forth. He gave us several things to think about as we toured the Permanent Exhibit. I thought the Hall of Remembrance was particularly moving. The small tea light candles, some flaming, others burned out, were a poignant model of the lives snuffed out by the Nazis and their collaborators.
Around 5:00 we left the museum to return to the hotel for dinner and our evening program. The food all week at the hotel was outstanding. Dan led the evening session in one of the banquet rooms. During that time he further spelled out what it means to be a Mandel Fellow and the future expectations of us all. In brief, he asked us to consider our outreach projects, which are to be completed during the 2002-03 academic year. He also informed us that henceforth we would be considered part of the Museum “family”, with benefits and obligations as said members. One of the things he mentioned was their expectation that we would be open-minded to speaking at Museum conferences and workshops in our geographic areas. We also did a few mixer activities to get to know each other better.
The day concluded at 9:00 pm, promptly.
Today I learned to ride the Metro in Washington! I found out that many of the Fellows had either been to DC many times, or had been to other Museum programming. My tutors were many, and appreciated – I can get turned around when I know where I’m going, so the train switching proved to be somewhat of a challenge for me all week.
Our day began with a gathering outside the back of the Museum, with entrance through the security checkpoint at 8:53. For whatever reason, that came to be our time to meet Dan. Dan began the first session, which was an introduction to the day’s activities and assignments. At 9:30 we were released for individual tours of the permanent exhibit.
Not having been to the USHMM before, I had no idea what to expect from the permanent exhibit. After entering the elevator to head to the fourth floor, I made the assumption that what I would see would not only be very emotionally charged, but done first class. In these regards, I was not disappointed. From the moment I stepped off the elevator and was greeted with the grisly image on the mural until the time I exited on the first floor, I was held at full attention. I found every exhibit area to be not only full of information, but powerfully displayed. From the miniature school desk with the Poison Mushroom primer to the plaster model of the crematorium at Auschwitz to the video testimony of survivors the permanent exhibit was spellbinding. On this day that I went through they released us just prior to the public’s admission. Having the exhibit to ourselves, in near complete silence, was especially powerful. On later excursions, when the public was present, I found that the background noise detracted somewhat. I also was dismayed at the number of people who had small children with them. I thought that much of the exhibit, and the very nature of what happened in the Holocaust, is not for the consumption of people aged less than 7th or 8th grade. Taking the poor judgment of these parents into account, I thought the exhibit planners had carried out extreme foresight in placing four-foot high concrete barriers around some of the more sensitive videos.
After lunch, we reconvened at 1:00 for a discussion, led by Dan, of the USHMM’s Guidelines For Teaching About the Holocaust (see Appendix A). I had previously been exposed to the Museum’s guidelines both through their literature as well as the aforementioned workshop in Chicago back in 2000. Dan went over them briefly and told us that as Fellows, it was our responsibility to not only follow the guidelines, but to disseminate that information. Fellows in the English and reading fields noted the relevance of the guidelines not only for the Holocaust and history in general, but for their areas of concentration as well.
Our main activity for this time slot was to break down into groups, each of us partnered with another Fellow at random. Each tandem was given one of the guidelines and was assigned to head back to the permanent exhibit and find examples that could be used to demonstrate or explain the rationale for the guideline. My partner and I were assigned Guideline #3: “Avoid simple answers to complex questions”. Upon conclusion of our research, we designed a poster, sort of an advertisement for our guideline’s principles.
I found that one of the early displays on the fourth floor about children and indoctrination through the public school system as well as youth organizations like the Hitler Youth was useful here. A huge photograph of a large youth rally shows thousands of children exuberantly giving the Hitler salute. An assumption could be made that all of these children were a) from Nazi-supporting families, or b) supported the Nazis themselves. One could err here on either account. A rudimentary knowledge of sociology would explain crowd behavior; research into bystander mentality would reveal more. These children, while some may have been “on board”, were more likely than not caught up in the heat of the moment, in belonging to the masses. It is more convenient to go along while maintaining one’s sense of normalcy than it would be to stand out and apart from the public.
The other exhibit that represented Guideline #3 well was the plaster model of Auschwitz. While excellently rendered and graphically depicting the process of execution replete with human reaction in the disrobing area as well as the gas chamber, the model simply cannot fully convey the emotion of the participants. What goes through the mind of a guard as he urges his dogs to attack the Jewish victims? We see the people undress, but does the casual observer know of the Jewish prohibitions concerning nudity (Donin 140)? The term “death factory” is often applied to the killing centers; this takes the human element out of the equation. What of the sonderkommando? How would we react when faced with a similar choiceless choice?
The Fellows represented the Guidelines quite well; the posters were well done and very thought provoking. This was a great way to get us back into the permanent exhibit, but with a focus to seek out specific information.
After a break, we resumed our afternoon activities with a lecture from Dr. Alan Steinweis from the University of Nebraska. His topic was The Purge of the Jews from the Arts in Nazi Germany, based on research from his book, Art, Ideology, and Economics in Nazi Germany. My notes on his discussion are included in Appendix B.
Overall, this was an informative lecture, yet one that most Fellows felt would be difficult to incorporate into our curricula. The major issue certainly is not relevance – we all have students that are in some way involved in the arts. The major issue is time. Whether teaching history or the humanities, there is such a limited amount of time for an issue of the scope of the Holocaust. Steinweis’ studies would fit well with a college course; for the average high school teacher, it seems it would be a struggle to fit it into our regular material.
After dinner at the Jurys, we had a lecture that I was perhaps most looking forward to. As preparation for the Mandel institute, Dan had recommended we read a book by one of our featured speakers: Dr. Steinweis, Dr. Robert Jan van Pelt, and Dr. Henry Friedlander. I chose to read Friedlander’s book, The Origins of Nazi Genocide. I have always had a fascination with the T-4 phase of Holocaust killing – the idea that the groundwork for mass murder was meted out against German citizens first.
I found Dr. Friedlander’s book to be a quick and involving read. The bystander stories enrich this tale of intrigue at the highest governmental and bureaucratical levels. That so many nurses, orderlies, and other support staff, both at institutions as well as hospitals would have this knowledge and do nothing with it in not only inexcusable, but unfathomable. A parallel profession, while not always turning over Germans for death, was teaching. In Horst Biesold’s Crying Hands, the author interviews several German adults who had attended boarding schools for the hearing impaired as youth. Biesold gives many examples of teachers and school administrators identifying and at times turning over their own students for forced sterilization. Depending on the age of the victim, for some it might be years until they fully understood what had happened to them.
Dr. Friedlander’s lecture was a summary of the basics of his book. My notes on his lecture appear in Appendix C. He was in a bit of a feisty mood that evening, and at times seemed to go out of his way to be controversial. He at times lambasted other scholars, most notably Yehuda Bauer; one of the Fellows took particular exception to this, as he had spent the previous summer studying with Bauer. We also had the privilege of having a survivor join one of the Fellows for the lecture. She asked Dr. Friedlander what he felt about resistance. His answer took most of us aback, as he stated that in his opinion, there had been no resistance. When pressed he qualified his statement as no armed resistance to speak of. Someone asked him about spiritual resistance, and smuggling; about the Warsaw ghetto uprising. He stated that those things were futile, that the former merely kept people alive so the Nazis could have the victory of death by their own hands; the latter was doomed from the start due to the mismatch in armaments between the rebels and the Wehrmacht. I felt many in the room were uncomfortable with Dr. Friedlander’s combativeness, and left with a bad taste in their mouths. I took his opinions for just that – his opinions. While I recognized that I didn’t get exactly what I’d anticipated, the lecture was not without its high points both for scholarship as well as a few instances of humor. It was still an honor to hear a noted scholar speak on his life’s passion.
The day began as what would become usual: Short walk to the Metro, switch trains, then a short walk past the Department of Agriculture, stand in awe of the Washington Monument, then cross the street to the Holocaust Museum. A short wait, then Dan would let us in at 8:53. Smile at the security guards, see if you could get away with not emptying your change from your pockets as you walked through the scanner…
Our first session of the day was by the Museum’s Committee on Conscience, and their topic was The Holocaust and Modern Genocide. Their discussion was very interesting (see my notes in Appendix D). However, toward the end of the session, when the topic was on the upgrade of the alert for genocide in Sudan, a question was raised by one of the Fellows as to what the administration (of President Bush) was going to do about it. After some awkward silence, we basically got a “no comment”. A follow-up question, equally awkward but one I thought begged to be asked, was what exactly the weight of the Committee was, and why was nothing done in Rwanda?
Neither question was presented in a rude fashion, and I felt bad that our presenters were put on the spot, but let’s face it: they couldn’t answer two very important questions. If there was one bit of knowledge I picked up, it’s that a federally-funded program or institution like the USHMM must still toe a party line, and when official Washington policy is at question, you eat a little crow…
After a break, Alexandra Zapruder gave a review of her new book, Salvaged Pages. The Museum was kind enough to purchase copies for all of the Fellows, which Alex had signed prior to our arrival. Her book expands the genre that most people only know through the writings of Anne Frank – the use of diaries and journals as historical resources. Salvaged Pages contains the work of youthful authors (aged 12-22) in the period 1933-45. Some of the diaries were written while the author and/or their family was hiding; that is, while they were concealed from the outside world, whether in an attic, a bunker, or the forests around their community. Others were written by those who were passing; that is living in the open, yet protected by false papers. The interesting issue here was the necessity of moral compromise – parents many times had to force their children to lie.
Miss Zapruder’s discussion was very well received; she answered questions in detail and to the questioner’s satisfaction. She explained her research methods, of her hiring translators for these diaries, even when versions already existed. She elucidated the pitfalls of relying on the translator’s interpretation. Above all, she cautioned the tendency of young people to over-identify with these diaries. Because today’s American young have no reference point for the horrors of the Holocaust, we as teachers need to use these diaries in context and keep them there. One of the worst assignments, according to her, would be to have students write a journal as if they were in the Holocaust…
After lunch we were allowed access to the fifth floor library and photo archives for use in our research assignment. I have chosen bystanders as my topic for my Mandel project, to be delivered and modified during the 2002-03 academic year and delivered to the Fellows in May 2003. I was quite honestly awed at the resources available to us, and spent most of the time allotment “surfing” the various catalogs, as well as the Wexner Learning Center.
Our final session for this day was a presentation by Stephen Feinberg, Director of National Outreach in the Education Division of the USHMM. His topic was “The State of Holocaust Education in the United States”. Steve informed us that America really didn’t show a public interest in the Holocaust until the airing of the Eichmann trial in 1962. After that initial flaring, concern faded until the 1978 television mini-series Holocaust. Shortly after that New Jersey became the first state to require Holocaust education.
Presently, only six states require teaching of the Holocaust at the secondary school level. They are California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, New Jersey, and New York. Most other states recommend said teaching, but do not necessarily provide guidance in the implementation of such lessons.
Tuesday night was the only night we had free in the week.
After a whirlwind two days, most people took the opportunity to enjoy dinner
with new friends and get a head start on some of the paperwork we were required
to fill-out before our departure Friday.
The first meeting of the day was a presentation by Steve on the use of technology in teaching the Holocaust. Technology was defined as any electronic means of getting information to our students, be it the Internet, CD-ROMS, videotapes, DVD, films, filmstrips, television, radio, or slides. Fellows had the opportunity to use the Internet in the classroom. Steve provided us with a list of some websites that he knew to be useful. He also did an excellent job showcasing the USHMM website and the various resources obtainable there. He also gave us some good information on public domain/copyrights, explaining that not everything we see in the permanent exhibit is available on the website. I can tell you firsthand that a photo I referred to in Monday’s entry was not available for inclusion in this paper due to copyright laws. Dan was nice enough to speedily answer an inquiry I sent him confirming my suspicions. During this session we also had additional time to tour the permanent exhibit or make use of the Wexner Learning Center and the library. Included in Appendix E are my sketch notes from my tour of the permanent exhibit, with a focus on finding information for use in my bystanders project.
After lunch, we again had a nice block of time in which to study/explore. During these times, Fellows met with Dan on an individual basis to discuss ideas we had for our Mandel projects. Dan was very open-minded, yet guiding with all of the Fellows I talked to. He gave sage advice, but encouragement as well. The Museum is very serious about the teachers they’ve trained as Mandel Fellows; we have a mission to carry the lessons of the Holocaust not only to our students, but to various adult groups as well.
At 2:30 we reconvened for a showing of a video the Film and Video Department of the USHMM is putting together. We got to see a rough cut, and were asked to give our opinions. The project is an overview of the events of the Holocaust, but is to contain footage not previously available in a mass-market film. Raye Farr, Director of this department, ran the session and was extremely cordial in not only answering our questions, but in encouraging our criticisms.
A short break ensued. During these breaks, many Fellows perused options in the bookstore for the consumption of the generous gift certificates the Mandel administration lavished on us. In addition to the freebies we were given, the gift money was like getting cash in a birthday card – you could hardly wait to spend it! By the way, Dan had advised us to bring an empty bag for the transportation of all of the books we would acquire. That might have been the best advice we received in pre-institute communication…
Our pre-dinner workshop was not only the highlight of the day, but perhaps the entire week. Nesse Godin, a survivor and Museum volunteer, shared her story with us. Her biography from the USHMM website, as well as my notes on her talk, appear in Appendix F. What a spirited lady! She is so full of life; I cannot imagine that after all that she has seen and gone through that she could be such a positive person. She is proof that we can all make a difference, despite our circumstances. At the conclusion of her speech, one of the Fellows who had actually met Nesse at an earlier Belfer Conference and had invited her to Wisconsin to speak presented Nesse with a quilt made by her students. It was an emotional time for all in the room, but the bond that was displayed by these two women, and even the kids half a country away who had been impacted by Nesse’s story, was incredible.
After a return to the hotel and another very good dinner, Dr. Steinweis made another presentation. His topic this evening was actually based on some preliminary research he’s doing for another book. The title of his lecture was “Nazi Scholarly Research About Jews and Judaism”. Presently in a Master of Science in Jewish Studies program, I thought this would prove to be one of the more interesting topics of the week. However, I didn’t get exactly what I wanted out of it. Dr. Steinweis seemed like he was in the preliminary-preliminary stages of research. At times he was very unsure of himself; it took him about 20 minutes to even get into what he wanted to say. I wanted information on what his title said: after the Nazis engaged in anthropological, sociological, and historical research concerning the “Jewish question”, what did they learn? Or, what did they think? Instead, I felt we just got a rehash of Nazi antisemitic ideology. My notes for Dr. Steinweis’ presentation can be found in Appendix G.
The lecture adjourned, and the day finished, at 9:00 pm as advertised.
After a brief introduction to the day’s work/presentations, we heard a workshop headed by Warren Marcus, Director of Teacher Workshops, whom many of us knew either from the Belfer Conferences or from other Museum workshops. I had met him in Chicago at Spertus College a few years ago, at a workshop entitled “Teaching the Holocaust”. His topic today was “Insights Into Workshops and Pedagogical Issues”.
Warren’s session was very good (my notes appear in Appendix H). As one of our responsibilities to the Museum upon the completion of our Mandel year will be speaking at Museum or other functions, I found this to be a very worthwhile time. Warren has an ease at delivering information, and our past familiarity with him made this a good meeting. After his remarks, we were broken into groups to discuss some issues we already face in our classrooms, or out in public (for those who have already been speaking on the topic of the Holocaust). This was a favorite time in the week for many, because although we knew we were going to get copies of each other’s book reviews and lesson plans (which we’d prepared prior to coming to Washington), it was good to sit and really discuss some classroom issues with people from different disciplines (English/history), different age levels, and different parts of the country (or world, depending on who was in the group). Warren’s ideas for a successful (and minimally stressful) workshop presentation were very good, and elicited some good conversation.
At 11:00 we reconvened to hear a presentation by Barry van Driel, Director of International Education at the Anne Frank House in the Netherlands. Notes I took during Barry’s discussion are found in Appendix I. I am not involved in the use of The Diary of a Young Girl in my classroom; that is handled through our English department at my high school. Therefore, I probably wasn’t as “up” on the story or the Anne Frank House as were some of my comrades. Nonetheless, I found Barry to be very warm, and his presentation was outstanding. The Anne Frank House goes far beyond just being a museum of the Frank’s hiding place; it is an international watchdog for racism and other forms of intolerance; Barry provided some interesting insight to the resurgence of antisemitism in northern Europe.
After a one-hour lunch break, we had what turned out to be the most emotional workshop for many of the Fellows. Travis Roxlau, Director of the Collections Department, and Jane Klinger, Chief Conservator, from the collections and conservation departments of the USHMM addressed us with a display of true passion for their work. My notes on their information are found in Appendix J. After they each spoke, we split into two groups and were taken to the basement where their work is done. Any artifacts that come into the Museum come through their offices/conservation area first. While there, we got to see a letter that was being cleaned; the primary goal of that particular specimen was the removal of tape residue. The part of the tour that hit me the hardest was a camp uniform that had only recently been unpacked from Majdanek. To stand only a few feet away from this, to know that it didn’t just date to the period, but was actually worn by a prisoner, was a most humbling feeling. I found myself reflecting on my life, and on the situations my students find themselves in. Quite bluntly, we have no reference point with which to try to grasp the meaning of that jacket. The jacket pictured below is similar to the one we saw, and could almost touch. The jacket on the work table in front of us, though, was the more traditional gray/royal blue striped version.
Dan had built in a 30-minute break following the conservation session. I can tell you that it was much needed. Most of us took the time to debrief with each other. Walking through the Permanent Exhibit is a very moving experience, but to see those artifacts up close enough to touch was at another level. I valued this time to share my feelings, and to just quietly reflect.
After the break, our pre-dinner meeting was a presentation by Dr. Patricia Heberer, Historian from the Senior Historian’s Office of the USHMM. The title of her presentation was “Persecution Of the Disabled”. After reading Dr. Friedlander’s book, I was eager for this session. However, after she began, I decided that Dr. Friedlander must have written the last word on the subject, because her information did not stray too far from what I’d read only a few weeks ago. That is not to say that it was a waste of time; I’m sure several Fellows found it to be fascinating. But for those of us who’d read the book, there wasn’t much new. The highlight for me was a film that I’d not seen in many years; actually, I don’t think it was the same film (“Selling Murder”), but it was the same idea. It contained not only footage from mental institutions around Germany, but propaganda films against the handicapped as well. My notes on this presentation can be located in Appendix K.
At 5:30 we hit the Metro and headed back to the Jurys Hotel for a little clean up before dinner. Dinner always provided us an opportunity to sit by someone different, to get to know people and their views from different parts of the country. I enjoyed these times – there really weren’t any Fellows who formed cliques; most were very open to each other.
Our final evening session of the institute was a fascinating presentation by Dr. Robert Jan van Pelt from the University of Waterloo in Ontario. He was the key witness in the Irving/Lipstadt trial of 1998. The pre-trial brief that he, as the architectural expert on Auschwitz, was to submit to the judge was published as a 700+ page book entitled The Case For Auschwitz. Dr. van Pelt has just recently co-authored a book entitled Holocaust: A History that is to serve as a college text, or comprehensive introduction for the layman. It became available on the mass market at the end of September 2002.
At the trial, Dr. van Pelt, was to be the expert on the architectural designs of the Auschwitz killing center in Osweicim, Poland. Since the Nazis had destroyed the camp’s gas chambers and crematoria as the war neared its end, van Pelt had to gain access to the blueprints of the camp. Using modern science and theory, his role in the trial came down to whether or not the elevators in the crematoria could transport the amount of bodies that were allegedly gassed and burned at the camp. The frequency of elevator trips with the weight of the bodies was weighed against an already-accepted assertion by the plaintiff that it was possible to both execute and dispose of the amount of bodies history has claimed were “manufactured” by Auschwitz. Dr. van Pelt explained to us that he was taken aback by the request to prove, on the stand in front of the gallery (which included many survivors), this problem. He asked the judge if he did not himself think that to be an obscene request given the circumstances. The judge told him he had to answer the question. So, given a pencil, a calculator, and the back of an envelope, van Pelt worked out the numbers, and proved to all that yes – the elevators could have done the job.
My notes on the first half of Dr. van Pelt’s presentation
appear in Appendix L. I was so spellbound by his testimony that I really didn’t
record much of what he said in the latter half of the presentation.
Our final day in Washington began at 10:00. The additional hour was given for those of us who needed to pack and finish our paperwork (expense sheets for reimbursement of travel and meals, as well as the institute evaluation). Upon arrival at the Museum, we were given another opportunity to take advantage of the resources found there. I took this time to take one more walk through the Permanent Exhibit – I believe I spent a total of around eight hours in the exhibit throughout the week – and to do a little more research on bystanders in the library.
At 11:00, Dan met with us for the final time to sum up the week and to tell us what to expect during the 2002-03 academic year. He also previewed our May institute, which will be from the 4th-6th. Some of the points he made were:
There is a Mandel Fellow list-serve. He explained what it was and how to
get registered for it.
We would receive a list of all Mandels, past and present.
The group photo that was taken, which is currently on the USHMM website,
will be mailed to us in January.
Any time we have questions, they should be sent to Dan and he will
forward them to the appropriate contact people. I thought the best thing he
said was that if we have questions concerning content that arise during the day,
we can contact him and on a good day we should have an answer from the research
people by the time our afternoon classes roll around.
All receipts will be processed after September 1, and we should look for
a check from the Treasury Dept. around 60 days after.
Quarterly reports on our projects will be due in November, January, and
March.
In May we will be expected to give 10-15 minute reports on our projects.
We will also have the opportunity to explore any additional funding we might
need.
Any thank-you notes to the Mandel Foundation should be sent to Dan and he
will deliver them.
In May, all travel arrangements will be made as they were for the August
institute.
2003 is the 10th Anniversary of the United States Holocaust
Museum.
People started to leave around 1:00 pm. I finally wandered out around 1:30 and did a little sightseeing. I went over to the Washington Monument and walked around the outside, taking in the views on all four sides. After, I walked over to the Smithsonian’s Museum of Natural History and viewed an exhibit on the Mongols. At 2:30 I headed back to the hotel, then to the airport.
Security was again nothing to write home about. My flight was on time and thankfully uneventful. The skies were clear and I had a beautiful view all the way home – Indiana sure is flat!! My wife and two sons were there to greet me at Midway, and we had a treat of Krispy Kreme donuts on the way home. The next day or so was spent greeting well-wishers on the phone, and just generally debriefing with my wife. It was good to be home, yet I am eager to start on my research.