Jewish Law Logo Jewish Law - Commentary/Opinion

Clearing Up Some Misunderstandings
Chaim Dovid Zwiebel

Clearing Up Some Misunderstandings

by Chaim Dovid Zwiebel

Pity poor Calvin Klein. The popular designer's intentions are pure and noble, but some people just don't seem to get it.

Mr. Klein's puzzling problem first surfaced a few years ago, when public outcry led him to discontinue an ad campaign for CK Calvin Klein Jeans that featured teen-agers in immodest poses. Hurt and bewildered, he took out a full-page ad in The New York Times explaining what should have been obvious to any intelligent person -- that the ads conveyed a "positive message" about "the spirit, independence and inner worth of today's young people" -- and bemoaning the fact that the message "has been misunderstood by some."

And now, further misunderstandings have prompted the designer once again to change his ad campaign. As recently reported in the Times, out are the dark CK ads that look as if they were photographed in the admitting room at the local drug rehab center; in are new cheerful ads featuring healthy looking people actually wearing smiles on their faces. "Clearly people were upset by 'heroin chic'," Mr. Klein explained. "We thought it was creative, but it was perceived as drug addicts and messy. People don't want that now."

Misunderstanding piled upon misunderstanding -- the muddled masses keep missing the message!

At Least the Courts Understand

Happily, though, the news is not all bad for Calvin Klein. Without spending a penny on lawyers' fees -- zacha, m'lachto na'asis al y'dei acheirim -- he won a major legal victory earlier this year that should give him some solace amidst all the misunderstanding.

It appeared, for a while, that Mr. Klein would face yet another roadblock in his estimable efforts to deliver positive messages about today's youth: the decision this past fall by the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority no longer to accept certain types of bus, subway and billboard ads, including those that "a significant segment of the public" would find "patently offensive, improper or in bad taste." How's that again -- "a significant segment of the public"?! Those are the very same dunderheads who are unable to appreciate the creative genius of heroin chic! Horrors!

But fear not, noble Calvin, this is the land of the free and the home of the brave, sweet land of liberty, where free speech is the first constitutional freedom enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Indeed, it did not take long for a court to undermine the legal foundation upon which the MTA's new policy was predicated.

Thus, when the MTA sought to reject a satirical bus ad placed by New York Magazine shortly after the agency had adopted its new guidelines, the magazine filed a federal lawsuit and obtained a judicial injunction requiring placement of the ad. By a vote of 2-1 (and against the position of Agudath Israel of America, which had submitted a "friend of the court" brief in support of the MTA), the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in January 1998 that the side of a bus is a "public forum" for First Amendment free speech purposes -- making it extremely difficult for a quasi-governmental agency like the MTA to reject ads based on their content.

Admittedly, the MTA's "patently offensive" standard remains on the books, and the agency may still choose to enforce that standard the next time an advertiser seeks to hawk its wares in ways the broad public seems likely to misunderstand. But the Court of Appeals ruling will surely give the MTA substantial pause before doing so. Creative juices are not so easily stilled.

Who Says We're Intolerant?

Mr. Klein can also take comfort from another source: the cash register. The public may be missing the message of his advertisements, but they're buying his goods anyway. In the All-American spirit of tolerance, the masses are not about to let a little misunderstanding harm their relationship with their favorite designer.

It is especially touching that this tolerant spirit pervades even communities like ours. The heart warms at the publication in recent editions of periodicals geared towards the charedi community of an advertisement for a "men's boutique" (Aargh!) in the heart of an Orthodox neighborhood featuring Calvin Klein and several other of the "world's finest designers." The eyes mist over at the sight of Calvin Klein designer eyeglass frames being sold by opticians who cater virtually exclusively to an Orthodox clientele. The chest swells with pride at the appearance of yarmulke/shaitel-bedecked Jews wearing "T-shirts" -- long-sleeved for the women, of course -- emblazoned with the CK logo.

One might have thought, after all, with all the misperception surrounding Calvin Klein's ads, that he might find a less hospitable reception in communities like ours. One might have worried, perhaps, that someone who has been assaulted by one of Mr. Klein's creative expressions while walking alongside a city bus might find it incongruous to recite kadosh, kadosh, kadosh while dressed in his clothing, or to dry his hands with a designer CK towel upon blessing Hashem who has sanctified us with His mitzvos.

One might have expected that Orthodox Jews aware (but not understanding) of Mr. Klein's ad campaigns might take steps to alert their brethren to the mockery this man has made of the most elementary standards of human decency, and the terrible harm he has inflicted upon every Jew who has been exposed to his filth. One might have anticipated that some individuals, and perhaps even organized groups, might choose to boycott Calvin Klein products.

But no, none of this has happened. By all appearances, Calvin Klein is doing quite well in our community -- proof positive that all those stories about Orthodox Jews being intolerant are nothing but myths and vicious lies. Like Calvin Klein, you see, we're just terribly misunderstood.


Jewish Law Home Page

Copyright © 1997-2008 by Ira Kasdan. All rights reserved.
DISCLAIMER