Home

The Senate Chamber at Whig Hall on the campus of Princeton University is home to the college's debate society, the oldest in the nation, founded in the mid-18th century by James Madison. On Feb. 16, this esteemed hall hosted a debate that has been fiercely argued by Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, and distinguished academics on college campuses from coast to coast for over six decades: the Latke-Hamantaschen Debate.

The satirical debate, where the relative value of these two staples of Jewish cuisine is vigorously contested, was first held at the University of Chicago in 1946 and has since spread to college campuses throughout the country. Over the years, the likes of economist Milton Friedman, philosopher Allan Bloom, and law professor Alan Dershowitz have participated.

At Princeton's annual Latke-Hamantaschen Debate, the two sides are each composed of a professor-student team. Each debater is given the opportunity to present a five-minute presentation, followed by a short rebuttal, and questions from the audience.

On the latke side were Esther Robbins, a lecturer in Hebrew, and senior Yoni Friedman. Taking the pro-hamantaschen position were Paul Raushenbush, associate dean of religious life, and sophomore Rivka Cohen.

Robbins argued for the superiority of the latke based on its ancient origins. The Hebrew word for latke, leviva, is related to the word for heart, found in the Book of Samuel and the Song of Songs, she said. The hamantaschen, in contrast, represents Haman's ears, Robbins said.

The latke's shape, which Robbins characterized as "a unified whole," reflects the 10 Sephirot (enumerations), a mystical concept of God espoused by the Kaballah.

"I'm sure that Madonna came to be interested in Kaballah through the latke," she said.

Raushenbush argued in favor of hamantaschen, a food, he said, that is a better symbol of religious pluralism.

"While we are in search of common ground, we still need to preserve the distinctiveness of our own cultures and traditions," he said.

Hamantaschen, Raushenbush said, "encourages internal cohesion," whereas the latke is "divisive as well as embarrassing."

The latke, he argued, inhibits religious pluralism as it has "only two options -- sour cream or apple sauce."

Raushenbush argued moreover that there was nothing intrinsically Jewish about the latke.

"There is zero about a latke that is distinctly Jewish," he said, noting that one can just as easily find a potato pancake with sour cream on a Swiss airline.

"Try finding a potato in the Bible, try to find a profound religious teaching in a squashed tater tot," he said.

Friedman, speaking next, acknowledged that the prospect of participating in this debate made him quite anxious.

"I had something to calm my nerves before," he said, "and it rhymes with 'potato latke'."

The superiority of the latke, Friedman suggested, stems from the fact that the latke, associated with Hanukkah, is tied to the land of Israel, whereas the story of Purim takes place in what is today Iran. Friedman, employing a PowerPoint presentation, then showed a picture of the current leader of Iran, labeled " Mahmoud AhmaHamantashenejad".

Turning to economics, Friedman argued that hamantaschen were inherently Marxist, pointing out "the exploitive relationship" between the cookie's core and the periphery as opposed to the latke, which represented an "integrated whole."

"Each strand of potato supports the whole potato patty as an equal part," he said.

Furthermore, hamantaschen are a racist pastry, Friedman argued, displaying on the overhead the resemblance between a hamentasch and a Ku Klux Klan hood.

"Notice how the light and dark sections are segregated," Friedman said of the prune-filled hamantasch.

Cohen, in her presentation, dismissed Robbins' criticism of the hamantasch as a depiction of Haman's ears.

"With regards to it being Haman's ears we're eating -- I don't know what other body part we'd be eating," Cohen said. "So on that note, I think that the ears were a pretty safe bet."

The rebuttal round presented an opportunity for the two sides to confront the other side directly.

"It's also consistent in that it looks the same before you eat it as after you eat it," Friedman said of the latke.

"I think that's a point on our side," Raushenbush interjected.

During the audience-question portion of the debate, sophomore Dave Mazor asked about the defensive capabilities of the two foods, which inevitably led to him being pelted with a hamantash, followed by a latke, in the face.

"The crowd deserved to know if they were ever placed in such a dangerous situation and were only armed with a hamantasch or a latke," Mazor said after the debate. "It was only fair to ask that question, and I think the audience benefited."

After a voice vote and a short deliberation by a panel of student judges, the latke came out victorious.

"It was hilarious," Dana Hoffman, a sophomore, said of the debate. "I was a big fan of the PowerPoint presentation of the latke side. It touched my heart."

Hannah Kaplan, also a sophomore, agreed.

"Latkes' discussion of communism really did it for me," she said, after which she took a bite of her hamantasch.