Other articles from this issue | Version in English | Version in French

Jewish Youth
Marc H. Tanenbaum

 

An evaluation of the current situation and future prospects of Jewish youth in the United States presupposes at the outset some understanding of demographic factors such as size, distribution, and composition, as well as religious, educational, sociological, and other factors affecting the growth and character of Jewish youth. The demographic structure of Jewish youth and of the American Jewish population as a whole, like that of American youth and the American population in general, has been undergoing continuous change under the impact of industrialization and urbanization. Such an evaluation of Jewish youth therefore requires an analysis of changes which are related to the total American experience, as well as those which may be unique to Jews. (For a comprehensive survey on which the findings in this article are based, see the excellent study « American Jewry, 1970: A Demographic Profile », by Prof. Sidney Goldstein of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, which appeared in the 1971 edition of the American Jewish Yearbook, published by the American Jewish Committee.)

At the beginning of the 1970's, the American Jewish community, numbering about 6 million, constitutes the largest concentration of Jews in the world, more than two-and-a-half times the number of Jews in Israel, and accounts for nearly half of world Jewry. The most striking compositional change characterizing American Jewry is the transition from a foreign-born, ethnic immigrant minority to a vibrant national American subsociety consisting mainly of native-born American Jews of the second and third generations. This « Americanization » of the Jewish population has had, and increasingly will have major consequences for the structure of the Jewish community and its youth population, especially in terms of preserving Jewish identity in the face of strong forces of assimilation.

Despite their small numbers relative to the general population, Jews hold generally high status as one of the « three major religions » in this country. (Catholics, Protestants, and Jews are regarded as « the triple melting pot » through which the American identity is realized. The shared ideals and values of the « Judeo-Christian civilization » constitute the background of the American « civil religion », symbolized by the fact that every major national occasion involves the participation of a priest, minister, and rabbi as eponyms of the American way of life.) Even though the percentage of the Jewish community is but 3 percent of the total population — a decrease from 3.7 percent as a result of a declining birth rate — Jews, both as a group and individually, have played, and will undoubtedly continue to play, significant roles in such spheres of American life as religion, education, cultural activities, and national urban politics.

That conclusion is supported by the fact that the Jewish community is unique in its high concentration among the more educated, high white collar (professions, executive positions, advanced technical skills) and high income groups. While the continuously rising educational levels among non-Jews is reducing the differentials not only in education but as well in occupations and income between non-Jews and Jews, it is evident that as of this writing the Jewish situation is in many ways unique, and deserves further elaboration, especially in terms of its meaning for Jewish youth.

Reflecting the great value placed by Jews on education, both on Torah as a way of life and on knowledge — the secular equivalent of Torah — as a means of social mobility, the Jews of America have compiled an extraordinary record of achievement in this area. The first-generation American Jews recognized the special importance of education as a key to occupational mobility and higher income — material security was understandably a major preoccupation with impoverished immigrants — and made considerable effort to provide their children with a good secular education. Most recent surveys clearly document the high educational achievement of the American Jewish population indicating the important effect of education on the social position of the Jews in the larger community, as well as its influence on the degree and nature of Jewish identification.

In 1970, the high proportion of persons aged 25 to 29 who had completed their college education and the fact that an estimated 80% of those in the college-age group were enrolled in college emphasize that a college education is becoming virtually universal for the youngersegments of the Jewish population. Within the Jewish community itself, the important educational differential will thus be between those who had only some college education and those who went on to post-graduate work. Today there are an estimated 400,000 Jewish students on the college scene which, in percentage terms, suggests that they are the largest religious-ethnic group in the field of higher education. There are also an estimated 50,000 men and women who are college and university faculty members of the Jewish faith, also a significantly high percentage (see « Jewish Academics in the United States: Their Achievements, Culture, and Politics », by Profs. S.M. Lipset and E.C. Ladd, 1971 edition of the American Jewish Yearbook).

To round out the education picture, the U.S. Bureau of the Census reported in 1970 that of the estimated 330,000 Jewish boys and girls aged 14 to 19 who were enrolled in elementary or secondary public or private schools, 86% planned to attend college, compared with 53% of the general student body. (Interestingly, the percentages differed strikingly between those teenagers who were receiving their education in schools with heavy Jewish populations and those in schools with less than 50% Jewish students. Among the former, 94% planned to attend college; among the latter, 80% did.)

Ironically, this notable educational achievement is posing a serious dilemma for Judaism and the Jewish community. In order to obtain a college education, particularly at the postgraduate level, a large proportion of young Jews must leave home to attend colleges in distant places. As a result, their ties to both family and community are weakening. A high proportion of these college-educated youths probably never return permanently to the communities in which their families live and in which they were raised. Thus education serves as an important catalyst for geographic mobility and eventually leads many individuals to take up residence in communities with small Jewish populations which have difficulty sustaining Jewish religious and communal institutions, to live in highly integrated neighborhoods, and to work and socialize in largely non-Jewish circles, raising the threat of losses through assimilation to the majority group.

Thus, Jews with higher education may have significantly higher rates of intermarriage and greater alienation from the Jewish community. This involves not only the possible impact of physical separation from home and the weakening of parental control over dating and courtship patterns, but also the general « liberalization » a college education may have on the religious values and Jewish identity of the individual. It would be ironic, as Prof. Goldstein has noted, if the very strong positive value that Jews traditionally have placed on education that now manifests itself in the very high proportion of Jewish youths attending college may eventually be an important factor in the general weakening of the individual's ties to the Jewish community.

These trends have led to a growing concern among Jewish leadership over the need for explicit development or reinforcement of Jewish « identity ». A series of « task force studies have been undertaken by such major Jewish institutions as the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and the American Jewish Committee, with a view toward precise diagnosis and prognosis for coming to grips with the issues raised by Jewish youth in particular. The latest task force research study is entitled « The Future of the American Jewish Community », conducted by a group of scholars, rabbis, and communal leaders convened by the American Jewish Committee.

In the latter report, the « Jewish identity » issue is analyzed from numerous perspectives, foremost among them, the role of the family, the Jewish educational system, the Synagogue, Jewish cultural institutions, and Israel and the American Jewish community. The study notesthat several factors account for this growing concern over Jewish identity. One is the tendency in the general American society to transfer to secondary agencies responsibility for many educational or social functions which were once carried out by the family — early childhood training is an example. A second factor may be insecurity about the ability of the Jewish community to assert Jewish continuity in the light of the increased freedom of expression and of choice of the young. Related to this is the anxiety and concern generated within the community by the prominence of young Jewish persons in the counter-culture and New Left.

There is significant evidence, the AJC study reports, that 10 to 15 percent of Jewish youth is involved in the counter-culture. This percentage is sufficiently large to account for the marked visibility of Jewish youth within this culture. The causes for the rise of youth culture are controversial, but most opinions include political, sociological, and psychological reasons. It would appear that on most of these counts Jewish youth is particularly vulnerable to involvement. Thus, to some extent radical youth culture appears as a developmental reaction to liberal attitudes of parents. This has particular significance for Jewish youth since the Jewish parent community is, on a comparative basis, overwhelmingly liberal. The socio-psychological factors usually correlated with New Left participation are relatively affluent economic status, protected family environment, and a tendency for a protracted educational term. This pattern fits Jewish groups in a statistically differential manner.

As the study indicates, the disturbing consequence is that participation in the counterculture delays the mature assumption of responsibility and often generates self-destructive tendencies. Jewish radical culture has been marked by a repudiation of parents. At its extreme, this results in the willingness of young Jews to be involved in fringe anti-Semitic and explicitly anti-Israel activity.

Most of the Jewish youth participating in New Left or counter-culture activities, -however, are ambivalent about Jewish loyalties. There is therefore a challenge placed upon Jewish institutions to communicate with these groups and to channel their possibly positive responses to Jewish life. (This has been done, usually, by involvement in support of Soviet Jewry's right to emigration or by direct experience of the Israel reality.)

The repudiation of the Jewish community by small but significant youth segments is presumably « age-specific ». Youth attitudes on this view change with the assumption of familial responsibility and with the resolution of maturation problems. Further, the phenomenon of deferred obedience subsequent to revolt suggests some of the latent strength of Jewish continuity.

One Jewish scholar estimates that only between 3 and 4 percent of Jewish youth are identifiable radicals on campus. What are the other 97 percent? Despite an abundance of printed material about « the Jewish youth culture » (see What We Know About Young American Jews, an annotated bibliography by Geraldine Rosenfield, 1971, American Jewish Committee), it is clear that we have a far from adequate knowledge about what is taking place on the campuses in all its diversity. Certainly a balanced account would have to give attention to what The National Observer (Aug. 5, 1971) has called « a genuine Jewish revival, a youthful American Jewish renaissance that emphasizes a joyous, affirmative declaration of Jewish identity that appears to be under way among Jewish youth in this country ».

The National Observer quotes Yehudah Rosenman, director of the AJC's Jewish Communal Affairs Department, who summarizes current youth trends in these words: « They are very active, Jewishly committed young men and women, on campuses and off, who are creating new forms of Jewish expression and Jewish life styles. They are the rebels. They are the oneswho are reproaching their parents for having given up on their Jewishness. »

He adds that they want participatory democracy in Jewish communal life. They think the institutions are too large and impersonal. They see this in the general society, and they see it in the Jewish community too. They are looking for small entities to develop fellowship for study and worship. And they are challenging Jewish institutions to change their priorities.

A major creative response to this need for community on a human scale has been the emergence of the havurah or fellowship movement. These are living-study-action community groups that combine aspects of a commune, a Jewishconsciousness-raising group, and a fraternity. On most Sabbaths hundreds of youngsters crowd into the havurah houses to sit in circles, sing, pray, and talk about what the Torah, Judaism's basic teachings and way of life, means to them today. There is now a « counter-culture » rabbinic seminary called Havurat Shalom (Fellowship for Peace) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. There are Jewish youth social action bodies (Fellowship for Action, Naaseh - «We Will Act »); a Jewishly-committed radical group (Jewish Liberation Project).

There has also been a growth in Jewish art festivals and free universities on some sixty campuses that involve Jewish faculty members, Hillel directors, and students in adult education courses on Jewish religion, culture, and history. A flourishing Jewish underground press which numbers more than fifty-five newspapers nationally seeks to be responsive to the new quest for Jewish identity.

The mood and rhetoric of the statements and articles in this student press express alienation and resentment toward the « Jewish establishment ». One Jewish student leader writes: « Institutions must be understood only as a means and not as ends, as vehicles for the realization of the ideas they serve. »

In Response, a new Jewish youth quarterly, a youth spokesman asserts in an article extolling the virtues of the Havurat Shalom Community Seminary: « The occasions are rare when one feels that he has become part of an institution to which he can faithfully dedicate himself, for what he wishes to accomplish is what the institution stands for. »

Criticizing Jewish educational institutions and their programs, a Jewish college youth writes: « Jewish youth is in a crisis that our leadership is unaware of. Legions of our young people are rejecting organized religion not because they have abandoned their souls, but precisely because they seek their souls. »

Beneath the florid rhetoric, there persist issues that are fundamental and pressing, namely, the crisis of identity, of selfhood in a society dominated by massive institutions, a system in which advancement is a sign of success and is frequently bought at the expense of personal fulfillment. It seems increasingly clear that there is a widespread belief among Jewish young people today that the values of the academic community and a high level of Jewish commitment are antithetical.

Given the present state of Jewish education, that conflict is virtually inevitable. Today, there are an estimated 544,468 children attending some 2,727 Jewish schools of various types in which they receive some form of Jewish education. The distribution of the current Jewish school population is 15.3% in the primary grades, 69.1% in elementary schools, and 15.3% in high-school departments. (More boys than girls are enrolled, 57% as compared with 43% — boys receive a more intensive education than girls.) Current attendance by type of school shows 13.4% in Jewish day schools (the equivalent of Catholic parochial schools); 42.2% are in one-day-a-week schools, and 44.4% are in midweek afternoon schools that are in session from two to five times a week. Over 90% of the children attend religiously oriented schools sponsored by congregations of either the Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform branches of Judaism.

Despite the recent clamor concerning the importance of Jewish education, writes Dr. Walter I. Ackerman (« Jewish Education », 1969 edition of the American Jewish Yearbook), two-thirds of the Jewish school-age children in the United States in 1966 were not in any kind of Jewish school. Jewish schools by and large are dealing with children of pre-school or elementary school age and, despite some encouraging advances, fail to attract or hold high-school students in significant numbers. The effect has become lopsided and deeply disturbing: while Jewish youth is receiving advanced higher education in secular studies, by and large they are limping along on a religious training that has been called « juvenile Judaism ».

In recent years two most significant developments in Jewish education have taken place that appear to hold some important corrective effects. One is the explosive growth of the Jewish day school movement which now sponsors more than 300 parochial schools that provide intensive Jewish education. The other is the rather dramatic growth of Jewish study programs on secular college and university campuses which now number some 200 chairs of Jewish Studies or lecture courses in Judaica. While it is still too early to tell, preliminary signs do indicate both the day school movement and the prestigious and substantively rich university Jewish programs are having decidedly positive impact in beginning to overcome Jewish ignorance and confused self-concepts.

More fundamental in identity formation than formal education, the AJC Task Force study noted, is that of family education. « Historically, the strong sense of Jewish identity », the report stated, « derived from involvement in family practices and a strong sense of family loyalties. Concern with strengthening of family structure and with healthy family ties is often connected with the development of a valid self-image as a Jewish person. »

The Task Force recommended that « a significant segment of Jewish work in family services be directed toward programs in Jewish family education ». The recognition of the deficiencies of the formal education system in healthy identity formation, as well as research on the fairly superficial impact of synagogue services on the family, suggests that programs in family education represent a promising approach for those concerned with the continuity of Jewish identity.

Informal education is also recommended, with proposals for educational and cultural activities ranging from nursery play groups, camping, Hillel college groups, choirs, to guided trips to Israel which comprise learning experiences outside the formal school system. Successful informal education usually involves creating a shared experience which is memorable.

The major institution of American Jewish affiliation is the synagogue. This reflects both the Jewish historical heritage and the social trends of the post-war years involving greater affiliation by all Americans with churches and synagogues in suburbia. There is no single archetype for the American synagogue. For many members, it serves as a kind of surrogate family. To a growing degree, the strongest expression of the content of such « religious » commitment and affiliation was support for the State of Israel, which became for many Jews the embodiment of the spiritual unity of the people of Israel (« God, Torah, and Israel are One »). For the community at large, it acts as a « service center » for the Jewish rites of passage.

The AJC Task Force on the Synagogue made several recommendations of special implication to the views of Jewish youth:
1. The Synagogue has a communal responsibility for the integration of neglected constituencies, especially the poor, into the framework of Jewish life. Membership in synagogues must not be restricted to a more affluent constituency.

2. Synagogues and Jewish communal agencies should collaborate in a variety of efforts to connect the synagogue with the large and important Jewish academic community.

3. A variety of experimental or innovative approaches to religious services and programs need to be adapted to the vitalization of Jewish religious worship.

4. One direction of synagogal innovation has been toward smallness, to the revival of the « participatory » community. The celebration of the neglected and, to some extent, lost vitalities of the synagogue — Simchat Torah dancing, or the Sabbath kiddush — is appropriate to small group frameworks. The revitalization of Jewish religious tradition is part of the search for community. It would seem, for example, that the Havdala (bidding farewell to the Sabbath) ceremony at the Brandeis Camp in California is meaningful in part to a number of young Jews who have no memory of the tradition because its shared experience offers the same kind of psychic restoration which other Californians seek in encounter or sensitivity groups. In the congregational sphere, the Seder or the Sukkah meal becomes a surrogate for an extended family group.

While not included in the Task Force reports, this writer has urged Jewish leadership to seek to incorporate in its concerns the following problems which trouble Jewish youth.
The Jewish community is over-organized to cope with old issues and under-organized to face new situations.

While some progress has been made in recent years, the Jewish community is still terribly under-organized for accomodating youth culture. It is also terribly under-organized for providing effective vehicles for serious Jewish participation in American society's domestic problems, and in the solution of world problems.

Preoccupation with valid claims of Jewish survival and defense has until now precluded the Jewish organizations' taking students' problems seriously. Some programs have been carried out by Jewish religious bodies, Hillel, and increasingly, other agencies, but apparently they are not very effective. As Prof. Leonard Fein of Brandeis University has noted:

We seek to convert the student to forms that have little to do with his positions and understanding. We •patronize the young because we don't have anything really to say to them. In patronizing the student we are wasting the richest potential resource, whose value to us might be precisely his ability to help define the present message of Judaism.

We need new movements, institutions and structures where students can participate in defining the message of Judaism, and where they can articulate and act out their values, experiment with methods for generating social and interpersonal concerns. Jewish education needs to raise its shallow educational goals. Training in character and in values for life in the present and the future must become the orientation of Jewish education rather than the teaching of words and texts alone which are primarily past-oriented. Jewish liturgy needs to be reconceptualized in order to enable it to yield its rich potentialities of aiding the worshiper to recover the sense of mystery and to transcend that which is more than the everyday, to experience prayer as a means for moral reassessment and recommitment.

It is a great tragedy that so many young people feel compelled to choose between Jewishness and concern for mankind. The basic moral principles of Judaism are relevant, and the moral insights and historical experience of Jewry can serve as a guide to some of the great issues of the day — Vietnam, Ireland, justice, anti-poverty efforts, apartheid, nuclear disarmament, economic development. Many of our young people arenot leaving Judaism; they are leaving the Jewish organizational scene which is still far too unreceptive to the young.

In the conviction that Judaism can make a contribution in the contemporary struggle to humanize life, a number of persons in the adult Jewish community, together with young Jewish leaders, have undertaken to explore the possible creation of several new structures which it is hoped will meet some of the needs we have just discussed. Among the models which are being studied are two of special interest. The first is a proposal by two British Jewish leaders, Prof. Raphael Loew of the University of London, and William Frankel, editor of the London Jewish Chronicle, which calls for the creation of a « Jewish World Service » based on the pattern of Church World Service and Caritas International. Following the positive experience of the American Jewish Emergency Effort for Nigerian-Biaf ran Relief, these two gentlemen have communicated with a number of Jewish leaders in the United States, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East and have received much encouragement.

The second involves a proposal to establish a central Jewish urban instrument on a national basis, which, in addition to serving such other purposes as aid to the Jewish poor, black Jews, and the poor and deprived of other communities, can become a vehicle for leadership training and community organization work for competent young Jewish activists.

We fervently hope that, in time, such programs will become the tangible expressions of the prophetic universalism of Judaism which is so alive, and often so anonymously alive, among our young.

---

Rabbi Tanenbaum is the National Director of Inter-religious Affairs of the American Jewish Committee. A religious historian and authority on Judaism and Jewish-Christian relations, he has written and lectured extensively.