In the last decade before the First World War, ethnic segregation in the realm of charitable work seemed increasingly to be the rule in Kiev. This is not a surprising development given the growth of nationalism and antisemitism in the Russian Empire in these years, and specifically in Kiev—where Russian nationalists were particularly strong—expressed in the 1905 pogrom and the Beilis Affair (1911-13). A fascinating case is the Kiev Branch of the Russian Society for the Protection of Women (Rossiiskoe obshchestvo zashchity zhenshchin), under whose auspices a special division for the care of Jewish women and girls was established in 1914.53 The scant documents relating to this organization seem to indicate that the Jewish chapter was initiated by outside activists in conjunction with the Kiev branch of the OPE. The 1912 annual report revealed that only 5 women of the 562 housed at the organization's shelter were Jewish, while for most of the year there were no Jews at all among the students at its evening and Sunday classes—a circumstance that the report declared troubling. The report called the phenomenon "inexplicable" in view of the "attitude of the teachers (among whom there have always been Jews), which is wholly benevolent and impartial toward all nationalities." The report's authors speculated that Jewish women had only begun to sign up for the society's classes later in the year owing to the very recent closure by the authorities of educational organizations in Kiev.54 One possibility that was not considered was that many working Jewish women, having taken Saturday as a day of rest, could not afford to lose precious working hours on Sunday, when classes were held from 11 am to 2 pm. Similarly, only 3 percent of women seeking legal assistance at the society were Jewish, as were less than 1 percent of those being housed in the society's shelter for migrants.55
The history of the society's Division for Care of Jewish Girls and Women (Otdel popecheniia ob evreiskikh devushkakh i zhenshchinakh g. Kieva), as related in its first annual report, reveals a few more interesting details about the assumptions shared by Jews and Christians with regard to their integration (or lack thereof) in charitable organizations. The history recounts that a Mrs. K. L. Geller initiated the founding of the branch, mooting the proposal to the board members of the Kiev branch of the OPE; it was only after she had gotten their enthusiastic promise to assist in the matter that Geller approached the board of the Kiev branch of the Society for the Protection of Women and began to negotiate with them about the establishment of a Jewish branch. The history noted specifically Geller's justification of the new institution in pointing to "the great cultural significance" that such a branch would possess, perhaps suggesting that by caring for Jewish women and girls in need, the branch would help to raise the cultural level of the Jewish community and of society in general (cultural here being used in the sense of Bild-ung, denoting a certain level of civilization, propriety, and education).56 In response to the initiators' petition, the national board of the Society for the Protection of Women wrote from St. Petersburg that it did not find necessary an autonomous Jewish division in Kiev, but that a shelter and other institutions "especially for Jewish women" could be set up under the auspices of the existing Kiev branch of the society. Why the Petersburg board decided that a Jewish division was unsuitable for the Kiev branch of the society when such a division already existed in the capital was unclear.57 The board stipulated that funding for these institutions "could be provided by Jewish donors" on the condition that the board of the society's Kiev branch would have the final say on their internal structure and governance. Neither the initiators nor the board of the Kiev branch were happy with this suggestion, and wavered over whether it was even worth going ahead under such circumstances. The resolution of the impasse came through the intervention of the society's copresident Princess Elena Al’tenburgskaia (probably at the prompting of Baron Gintsburg, another of the society's patrons, or perhaps by Baroness anna Gintsburg, who moved in the highest circles in Petersburg and had close ties with the al’tenburgskii family), at whose recommendation an autonomous Jewish division was swiftly agreed to.
Parsing this episode carefully, we can learn a good deal about the assumptions of the individuals involved, likely shared by many members of society. First, Jewish women were apparently unwilling to take advantage of the services offered by a non-Jewish organization, even when it declared itself "impartial" to the ethnic origins of its clients and was clearly, at least in theory, dedicated to serving all segments of society.58 The low numbers of Jewish clients described by the 1912 report may well have been a product not only of worsening conditions for Jews within the Russian Empire but specifically of the Beilis Affair; with tensions mounting between Jews and Christians, it is not surprising that Jews tended to steer clear even of those Christians who professed a desire to help them.59 Second, the group of Jewish women who initiated the Jewish division originally intended it to operate autonomously: within the general framework of the Society for the Protection of Women, but not as a constituent part of the Kiev branch. The activists of the Kiev branch shared this vision. Perhaps here they had in mind that only an organization with a specifically Jewish character would attract the very women it aimed to serve—the question of the language of instruction may have been an issue here, as well—but whatever the reason, all the individuals involved in the founding of the Jewish division apparently assumed the necessity of separate services for Jews. Moreover, even when the division was established as an integral part of the society, the society's governors were clearly not interested in providing the necessary funding for it. Thus, it seems that even when the need was demonstrated for similar services to Jewish women as were being provided to Christian women, the assumption was that the Jewish community needed to step forward to make them available; Christians could not be expected to support a Jewish institution.
World History
