This page includes, in addition to news about historians, news about political scientists, economists, law professors, and others who write about history. For a comprehensive list of historians' obituaries, go here.
SOURCE: Star Tribune, Minneapolis (3-6-08)
Suddenly he was at a loss for words. He was taken to Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis, where he later died. He was 64.
An international outpouring of grief has greeted the death of the world-renowned historian of genocide studies.
"Stephen Feinstein was involved in preserving the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust," Nobel laureate and concentration camp survivor Elie Weisel said in a statement. "All those who knew him will miss him."
Feinstein was the director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies and adjunct professor of history at the University of Minnesota.
"His classes on the history of the Holocaust had record student enrollments year after year," said center outreach coordinator Ellen Kennedy....
Professor known for his good humor dies at 65
SOURCE: Stanford (3-5-08)
Bruce Schulman of Boston University will deliver the keynote address, "David Kennedy and the Meaning of America." Kennedy's former doctoral students from around the United States will be speaking at the five conference panels.
Kennedy has taught courses in 20th-century U.S. history, American political and social thought, American foreign policy, American literature and the comparative development of democracy in Europe and America.
He won the Pulitzer Prize in 2000 for his book Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945. He was a Pulitzer finalist in 1981 for Over Here: The First World War and American Society.
All panel sessions will be held in the Cypress Lounge of Tresidder Memorial Union. All sessions are free and open to the public.
The program schedule is online at http://history.stanford.edu.
SOURCE: Bill Moyers Journal (2-29-08)
And today -- Well, that's what I want to put to Nell painter, one of our country's distinguished historians. Her grassroots history of the populist and progressive era in American life - STANDING AT ARMAGEDDON -- will soon be out in a second edition. It's a sweeping account of America's shift from a rural and agrarian society to an urban and industrial one, when regular people had to fight for their place in the new order. Nell Painter has retired from Princeton University where she was long one of the most popular teachers, but she's active on many fronts, and serves as President of the Organization of American Historians.
Welcome to THE JOURNAL.
NELL PAINTER: Thank you.
BILL MOYERS: Everybody's throwing around the word populism. Do you think they know what they're talking about?
NELL PAINTER: It sounds as if people who are throwing it around are throwing it around as a dirty word. And if it is a dirty word, they don't know what they're talking about.
BILL MOYERS: Why do they think it's a dirty word?
NELL PAINTER: I think they think it's a dirty word, because it pits Americans against each other, as if we would all be hand in hand if it weren't for populist agitators.
BILL MOYERS: What are Hillary Clinton and Obama saying that makes people invoke the word populism?
NELL PAINTER: They're probably talking in very veiled terms about class issues. Class is the dirty little secret in the United States. We're so much happier talking about race. Black people are this. And white people are that. The unspoken is that white people are middle class and black people are poor. So, black people are kind of the proxy for poor people in much of our dialogue. So, when politicians get past that, and they talk about what's interesting or needed for working people, or heaven for bid, poor people even, remember working people, or heaven forbid, poor people are probably about three-quarters of our population, at least. But when you talk about that group of Americans as having interest that are different from the people who have a lot of money, then for many who are critics of populism, that's a bad thing to point out.
BILL MOYERS: Actually, you know, when John Edwards was still in the race, he was using talk that also calls the money class, the financial interest would describe him as a populist--
NELL PAINTER: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: --and his message is populism--
NELL PAINTER: Yes. And they--
BILL MOYERS: --and they kept--
NELL PAINTER: --they said he was so angry.
BILL MOYERS: Yes. Why?
NELL PAINTER: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: How do you explain that?
NELL PAINTER: I thought that his line was right on target. However I keep thinking back to the late 19th century when, in slightly different terms, the political rhetoric pitted identity of interest, in which all Americans found their place in an order, and some smart, rich people decided what to do and the rest of people went along with it, the workers and so forth.
That was one way of talking about the American polity, the American citizenry. But another way which came out of the People's Party, out of the Farmers' Alliances and the Grange and the Green-backers, all of these groups were saying, "Our interests are not the same. And the money power-- money power or later in the early 20th century, the plutocracy; that those people were acting in their own interests, not in ours."
And you see it even in what topics are considered interesting and important. So, on one side at the current moment, we have discussions of war, and terrorism and security. That is America's place in the world. And on the other side, you have discussions of hard times, of expenses, of getting from day to day, of putting food on the table and so forth. Those are much more domestic issues. And in a very general way, those ideas, those strands, those issues go back 100 years.
BILL MOYERS: You quote in the forward of the new edition of your book from William Jennings Bryan, who said, I may not get it exactly right, he said, in 1899-- "America can be a democracy-
NELL PAINTER: "A democracy-- --or an--
NELL PAINTER: --an empire." Yes.
BILL MOYERS: And he didn't quite answer that. How would you answer it today?
NELL PAINTER: Well, we have become an empire. That came in the 20th century. What's between us and the populist is the 20th century: the Spanish-American War, the First World War, the Second World War, the Vietnam War and the two Iraq wars, to name a few. Those are all the wars that made us an empire in various, different ways.
But along with that, we still had what people face day to day. And what people face day to day, except for when they have a child, or a husband, or a spouse, or a mother and father actually in the war zone, what they face day to day is a different set of issues that have to do with health care, that have to do with wages, that have to do with that kind of issues. Which is much closer to life.
BILL MOYERS: So, what do you think we should know about the original populist, the movement that grew up in the 1890's, 1880's and 1890's? What should we know today that's relevant about them for us?
NELL PAINTER: How much time do you have?
BILL MOYERS: This is television.
NELL PAINTER: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: It's like a classroom.
NELL PAINTER: Okay--
BILL MOYERS: You know? You have a fixed time--
NELL PAINTER: One thing-- one thing I would definitely like us to remember is that the ideas that the populists put forward in the 1890's were considered harebrained.
BILL MOYERS: Harebrained?
NELL PAINTER: Harebrained. Crank ideas. But by the early 20th century, they were the ideas that came into, even our U.S. Constitution. Because we had to have amendments to make it possible to have an income tax, or the direct election of senators. The whole regulatory state of the mid-20th century grows out of roots in the 90's with populism.
BILL MOYERS: They wanted--
NELL PAINTER: --are.
BILL MOYERS: --they-- they wanted the monopoly's control, right? They wanted government to step in and balance the power of the industrial giants--
NELL PAINTER: That's the very fundamental point that in a moment of what we call laissez-faire, that is to say that the government was not very involved, and certainly was not involved with every day people, that the populists were saying, "People control the government. And people should have the benefit of the power of the government." All of those were populist ideas saying that the power of the people through the government should serve the people, not just the corporations or the very wealthy.
BILL MOYERS: What do you see happening to ordinary people today?
People are waking up to what has happened to our country, not just in the last eight years, but probably almost since the end of the Cold War, maybe even before. That our interest as a security state, and as an empire are not necessarily our interest as citizens. We have become what my colleague Elizabeth Cohen calls, "A consumer republic." The populists talked about a producers republic. And our interest as consumers and our interest as citizens may be different. So I live in New Jersey, where the state of our infrastructure is very much in the forefront of our politics. Are we going to pay for infrastructure?
Pay for bridges, pay for roads and for intellectual infrastructure, pay for education, pay for colleges. These are not the kinds of things that Americans are going to go buy as consumers. But we need them as citizens of a polity. So many of the people who make the decisions, and finally, so many of us who vote those people in or out of office, so many of the people who are making the decisions don't need those services in the way many of us ordinary people need them. We need political leadership. And we voters need to vote for people who will provide that leadership. What I'm saying is that we need the engagement of citizens, of voters of ordinary people to push; to push back against the tremendous amount of money that goes into electing our representatives. It's not an accident that there's so much money in politics. And that politics tend to serves the needs of those who can pay....
SOURCE: http://www.infozine.com (3-4-08)
"Bill Tuttle is an outstanding scholar and teacher, and one of the major reasons I came to KU," said Jonathan Earle, interim director of the Dole Institute. "He's a historian's historian and seems to know every interesting person in our profession. I'm not surprised Professor Litwack agreed to honor him by delivering the inaugural Tuttle Lecture."
Tuttle's research interests include the civil rights movement and the social history of race in America. He is the author of several books, including "Daddy's Gone to War: The Second World War in the Lives of America's Children" (1993) and "Race Riot: Chicago in the Red Summer of 1919" (Second Ed., 1996) and co-author of "A People & A Nation" (Sixth Ed., 2001).
SOURCE: Mark N. Katz in the Middle East Journal (Vol. 62, #1, Winter 2008) (2-1-08)
Re: Foxbats over Dimona: The Soviets’ Nuclear Gamble in the Six-Day War, by Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez.
Ginor and Remez argue in this book that the Soviet Union played a much larger role in the June 1967 Arab-Israeli War than has been recognized previously. Far from seeking to avoid the outbreak of this war or being surprised by its occurrence, Ginor and Remez claim that Moscow deliberately provoked an Israeli attack on Egypt. Further, it did so in the expectation that Egyptian forces would be able to resist this Israeli attack and then (along with Syrian and Jordanian forces) launch an attack of their own that would either lead to a protracted conflict or overwhelm Israel. With the United States already bogged down in Vietnam, the Soviets calculated that Washington would do little to help an Israel that struck first — or to prevent Soviet forces from destroying Israeli nuclear facilities in and around Dimona (thus preventing Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons) and otherwise becoming directly involved in the conflict.
I was highly skeptical about these bold claims when I began reading this book. “Moscow made us do it” seemed to be too neat an explanation for Israel’s actions in 1967. Long before reaching the book’s end, though, I became convinced that Ginor and Remez have gotten it right. Their argument is based on, among other sources, a careful study of Soviet documents — many of which have only recently come to light — as well as interviews with former Soviet officials and servicemen who participated in the June 1967 events. Since the book’s publication in June 2007, many of these individuals have confirmed in the Russian press what they told Ginor and Remez....
SOURCE: Hugo Schwyzer at Cliopatria (HNN Blog) (3-4-08)
It's a strange case. Smith had been given a joint appointment in American Studies and Women's Studies at the Ann Arbor campus; 'twas the latter department that nixed her promotion while the former supported her tenure cause. She's also the director of the campus Native American Studies Center. Few of us are privy to the details of her file, and the Women's Studies department at Michigan has not commented on why it has denied Smith tenure. But to those of us familiar with Smith's published work, the decision is inexplicable. Her book Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide is a master-work of both advocacy and feminist scholarship, and is used in women's studies courses across the country. (It's on the short list of books I'm considering rotating in to my women's history syllabus).
At research universities, the proven ability to publish is a critical part of getting tenure. So many assistant professors struggle to get anything notable into print; Smith has already done so by producing a text that is not just interesting but fundamentally ground-breaking. She's got another book coming up: Native Americans and the Christian Right, which is available for pre-order.
Of course, being able to publish is not the only prerequisite for tenure. Teaching counts for something, even at mammoth state institutions. But the statement released by faculty and students at Michigan (available here, in PDF format) makes it clear that Andrea Smith has immense talents as a teacher and mentor. Her students and colleagues are asking that letters in support of her tenure case (which has been appealed) be sent to
* Teresa Sullivan, Provost and Executive VP for Academic Affairs, LSA, firstname.lastname@example.org
* Lester Monts, Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, LSA, email@example.com
* Mary Sue Coleman, President, PresOff@umich.edu
Anyone who reads the feminist blogosphere is aware that the most painful struggle of the past year, played out in so many places, is over the issue of the intersection of racism and sex. A number of prominent women of color have written, time and again, of feeling marginalized or ignored by white feminists. Whatever your feelings on the issue of race, gender, and intersectionality, it's disastrous PR to have the Smith denial come at the hands of the Michigan Women's Studies department. To a community of activist women of color, many of whom are already suspicious of the bona fides of white feminists, the Smith decision can only serve to increase a sense of cynicism about the prospects for real inclusion.
I've never met Andrea Smith or heard her lecture. I wouldn't recognize her on the street. But I've read her work and been galvanized by it. I've chatted with people who have worked with her and heard her speak at conferences. Anecodotally, everyone I've heard from says she's not merely a competent and inspiring teacher, she's an extraordinary one. Her more than one-dozen published, peer-reviewed essays, her edited anthologies, and above all, her first masterwork"Conquest", are building blocks of a tenure file that would put those of virtually any other junior scholar to shame. The Women's Studies department at Michigan surely has its reasons, but until it makes those reasons clear, the shock and anger and alienation generated by their denial of tenure to Andrea Smith will continue to spread. And that's bad news for all feminists.
And here's hoping that if Michigan doesn't come to its senses, someone else (are you listening, USC?) makes a nice offer. Soon.
SOURCE: Guardian (3-4-08)
agree with Noel Malcolm's rebuttal of Serb demonstrators' slogans stating that "Kosovo is Serbia" (Is Kosovo Serbia? We ask a historian, G2, February 26). However, I must also express reservations regarding some of his arguments. Malcolm does not explain that Kosovo has only existed as a political entity in its present-day borders since 1946, when it became an autonomous region within Serbia in the new, communist-governed Yugoslavia.
Prior to 1946, Kosovo had been a geographic area with no clear borders. In fact, the 1946 autonomous region was created by a merger of two geographic areas: Kosovo and Metohija (the original name for the autonomous region, later province, during the socialist period, and the name the Serbian government still insists upon).
An Ottoman vilayet (province) called Kosovo did exist in the 19th century, but it was an entirely different creation with different borders; there is even less connection between that Kosovo and present-day Kosovo than between medieval and modern Serbia, or the Byzantine empire and modern Greece, to use Dr Malcolm's analogies. So, to claim that Serbs "ruled Kosovo for about 250 years" in the middle ages "until the final Ottoman takeover" is disingenuous.
Although Malcolm is right in arguing that present-day Kosovo was not where the first Serbian states emerged, he should explain that it was a central part of medieval Serbia for most of its existence: eg Serbia's capital was in Prizren for a while, the Serbian patriarchate (seat of the church) was founded in Pec, and Serbia's major mining centre was in Novo Brdo - all three in present-day Kosovo.
Malcolm's argument that Kosovo did not become part of Serbia in 1912, but "remained occupied territory until some time after 1918", is again problematic: international peace treaties of London and Bucharest, which ended the first and second Balkan wars in May and July 1913, confirmed Serbia's new borders, which included the present-day Kosovo. This territory would indeed be occupied during the first world war, but by Serbia's enemies.
Malcolm is only partially right in claiming that Kosovo enjoyed a "dual status" in socialist Yugoslavia - as both a federal unit of Yugoslavia and as a highly autonomous province within Serbia. Kosovo was defined, both in the Yugoslav and the Serbian constitution, as one of two autonomous provinces of the Republic of Serbia (together with Vojvodina). The main difference between the status of provinces and republics - such as Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia - was precisely in the fact that the provinces had no right to secession. Kosovo Albanians revolted against this constitutional arrangement in 1981, a year after President Tito died and five years before Slobodan Milosevic emerged as the leader of the Serbian communists.
All this is not to disagree with Malcolm's rejection of Serb nationalist myths, but to point out that not all historians would agree with him either.
SOURCE: http://www.onenewsnow.com (4-3-08)
Dmitry Medvedev, 42, has been elected Russia's new president and will replace his protégé Vladimir Putin in May. Since 1991, the former lawyer has worked with Putin, who will now serve as prime minister.
Russian historian Yuri Felshtinsky is co-author of the book Blowing Up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror, which accuses Putin of using the Russian secret service to preserve his power and transform Russia back into an authoritarian state. He says there is one "great difference" between Putin and his hand-picked successor.
"Mr. Medvedev ... is not from the Russian secret service -- he never worked for the KGB, at least as far as we know," says Felshtinsky. "And it was widely expected that another person -- General Sergei Ivanov -- might be the next successor and the next president in Russia. [So] the fact that we are dealing with Medvedev is indeed good news."
Felshtinsky says although Medvedev will rule the same way Putin did, because he does not have a KGB background, there is a small possibility U.S.-Russian relations will improve. After all, he says, they cannot get much worse right now.
"After several statements concerning Iran and Kosovo and American weapons in Europe were made by the current administration, relations with the United States became not friendly," he offers, noting that Russia began flying strategic bombers again. "So I do not think that this would lead us to good relations with the old administration. Do we have the chance with the new administration? Yes, we do have the chance."...
SOURCE: http://www.bnd.com (3-2-08)
But Mary Todd Lincoln was the first lady of controversy.
In looking at Mrs. Lincoln, "people will see many similarities with things we take for granted today as being general characteristics of a modern woman," Schwartz said. "But at the time, they weren't accepted and provoked quite a bit of discussion and comment in private letters, in conversation and in the public media."
Schwartz recently offered a re-evaluation of Mary Todd Lincoln at a Lincoln Symposium in Pittsfield.
What Mary Todd Lincoln offered to her husband and the country during his presidency long has been a polarizing topic for historians.
"I don't think one needs to ignore her bad behavior at times, she could be a very good hater but it shouldn't blind us to those things she did to help advance her husband's career," Schwartz said. "There are many things about Lincoln that we give him credit for that we need to give her credit for, including the push to become president. She probably wanted it more than he did, not that he didn't have an inclination and an ambition himself."
It's much easier to talk about the Lincolns individually, but as a couple they went to Washington in 1860 where she found a White House in dire need of refurbishing that "reinforced all the negative attitudes the Europeans had about Americans and American democracy," Schwartz said.
She spent nearly $28,000 $8,000 more than the White House maintenance budget for Lincoln's first term on carpets, draperies, wallpaper, china and other items.
She wasn't shy about offering an opinion, writing to cabinet members to urge them to consider someone for a job or telling her husband when she thought his cabinet members were out of line.
"Historians in the past have always seen Mary as this embarrassment to avoid, so she's left out of the narrative. Only now are they beginning to realize she perhaps wielded more influence than others have been willing to give her," Schwartz said....
SOURCE: http://winnipegsun.com/Entertainment (3-1-08)
The historian and novelist breathes new life into the world of the Tudors in The Other Boleyn Girl, a massive bestseller that has become a movie starring Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman. The film, which is in theatres now, concerns the sibling rivalry between Anne and Mary Boleyn, both of whom want the King (Eric Bana) for herself. Sex, intrigue and competition inform life in Henry's court; toss in impressive period detail and fab costumes, and you've got a winner.
Dr. Gregory, 54, who did undergraduate work in history and a PhD in 18th Century literature at Edinburgh University, has had two bestseller runs with The Other Boleyn Girl -- first when it was published five years ago, and again right now.
Her other Tudor fictional biographies are The Queen's Fool, The Virgin's Lover, The Constant Princess and The Boleyn Inheritance. She's written a half-dozen other bestselling books and also writes for magazines and newspapers in England.
Some of Gregory's novels have already become TV movies, but The Other Boleyn Girl is the first feature film based on one of her books.
Gregory says she saw the movie version with a public audience of 2,000 in Berlin recently. "They went mad for it," she says, cheerfully. "We went up on stage, and all the flashbulbs were going, and there was Natalie and Scarlett and the director and Eric Bana and me -- and it was thrilling." She saw the movie again at the Royal premiere in London last week, too. So what's it like to see "Based on the novel by Philippa Gregory" splashed on the big screen?
"That's the best scene in the movie," she says, smiling.
SOURCE: Middle East Forum (3-3-08)
That article repeated a false allegation made by Tariq Ramadan that Daniel Pipes had lied to a conference hosted by London mayor Ken Livingstone in January 2007. (For details of what did occur, see the article by Mr. Pipes,"Is Tariq Ramadan Lying [about Magdi Allam]?")
Upon receipt of a libel complaint from Mr. Pipes, the Muslim Weekly accepted that Mr. Pipes spoke accurately at the conference and that he did not lie. The Muslim Weekly apologized to Mr. Pipes for the distress caused by the article. The Muslim Weekly's retraction, published both in print and online in the Feb. 29, 2008 issue, reads in full as follows:
On February 9, 2007, the Muslim Weekly published an article,"World civilisation conference: Professor Tariq Ramadan on Islamic Threat," under the byline of Dr. Mozammel Haque, concerning a speech given by Professor Ramadan on 20 January 2007. We reported that he accused Professor Daniel Pipes, an American specialist on the Middle East, of lying in his speech to the same conference about the religion of an Egyptian Muslim. We now understand that Professor Pipes spoke accurately and that he did not lie. We retract what we wrote about him and apologise to Professor Pipes for any distress caused by our article.
Reacting to this apology, Mr. Pipes said:"I am delighted that Muslim Weekly recognizes there is no truth whatsoever in Tariq Ramadan's allegations concerning my statement at the World Civilization Conference, and that it has forthrightly set the record straight."
SOURCE: Conrad Black in the NY Sun (3-3-08)
* * *
It is a terrible thing to be falsely accused, and wrongly convicted, even of a fraction of the original charges, and unjustly incarcerated. For persisting in seeking the recognition of my innocence of these charges, I have been portrayed as defiant, or at least in denial. I defy and deny unjust charges, not the practical difficulties I have faced for the last four years and am facing now. I would qualify in political terms as a reasonable member of the law-and-order section of the public. And as a conscientious and religious matter, I believe in the confession and repentance of misconduct, as well as in the punishment of crimes. If I had committed any of the offenses charged, I would have pleaded guilty and asked for a sentence that would enable me to atone for my crime and assuage my guilt and shame.
As my counsel said in closing remarks at trial, the U.S. government became a tool in what was and remains a factional struggle within what were formerly the splendid companies that the defendants in this case, and others, built. The U.S. government and the sponsors of the indictments, and their acolytes in Canada, have destroyed these companies. The Hollinger earth is scorched, the shareholders wiped out, many of the employees laid off, but the factional war continues to the Circuit Court of Appeal in Chicago.
There was no evidence to support two of the remaining convictions, and the only evidence, from the chief cooperating witness, was exculpatory. For the third count, the evidence was an uncorroborated allegation of a non-incriminating telephone conversation, which did not, in fact, take place.
On obstruction of justice it was in evidence that I completely complied with all document requests, that the boxes being moved as I vacated my office of 27 years contained nothing relevant to the case the SEC did not already possess. I had no knowledge of any further curiosity of theirs, nothing to do with selecting the contents of the boxes and knew nothing about their contents, and did not look at the boxes on the weekend they were in my home. I have never been accused of violating a Canadian court order, and did not do so, and ensured that I was recorded by security cameras I had had installed to assure that there could be no suggestion of my doing anything underhanded. We have a Toronto court to thank for the massive and completely misleading exposure that the grainy security film that caused me to appear furtive has caused. We have the same court to thank for a number of other unjust decisions.
SOURCE: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb (3-3-08)
Zelizer, who joined the University faculty in July as a professor of history and public affairs, utilizes a broad approach to studying political history, and coming to Princeton has provided him with an opportunity to further his interdisciplinary connections through his position in the Department of History and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
“I’m a true historian, but I never like to be confined by boundaries,” he said. “I’ve learned from social science, political science, social history. To do it right, it has to be done without any rigid disciplinary boundaries.”
Nolan McCarty, acting dean of the Wilson School and the Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs, said Zelizer is a clear leader among a new generation of historians revitalizing the field of political history by combining research on politics and policy with social and cultural studies.
“One of the reasons why Julian is an important addition to the Wilson School is that he is one of the very few political historians whose work is as well known and highly regarded among political scientists as it is among historians,” McCarty said.
Bruce Schulman, a professor of history at Boston University, credited Zelizer with helping to substantially reshape the study of 20th-century U.S. history.
“His research has proved influential in political science and sociology, as well as history,” said Schulman, who had Zelizer as a colleague at Boston University from 2004 to 2007. “It is no exaggeration to say that by having Julian Zelizer join the faculty, Princeton has immediately become the leading center in modern American political history.”
In addition to benefiting from interdisciplinary collaborations, coming to Princeton has enabled Zelizer to embrace his family roots by working at the same University as his mother, Viviana, the Lloyd Cotsen ’50 Professor of Sociology.
“It’s nice to teach at the same institution as a parent; it doesn’t happen very often,” said Zelizer, who believes he and his mom are the University’s first mother-son teaching pair. “Given how small Princeton is, we already have many connections of similar friends.”
Zelizer and his mother, Viviana, the Lloyd Cotsen ’50 Professor of Sociology, believe they are the University’s first mother-son teaching pair. Growing up, Zelizer said he learned about the “excitement and challenges” of working at a university through his mother and developed an equal love of study and scholarship through his father, Gerald, a rabbi.
Zelizer now lives near the New Jersey town where he was raised, Metuchen, and the synagogue where his father, Gerald, has been a rabbi for more than 30 years....