Abstract
The focus on Jewish continuity has shifted in the last two decades, from concern with anti-semitism to anxiety over the threat of assimilation and, in particular, intermarriage. Scholars concur that the intermarriage rate has risen to about 50 percent but disagree about the significance of the phenomenon. Those in the outreach camp hold that little can be done to lower the rate of intermarriage and, instead, want the community to promote efforts to integrate non-Jewish spouses into the Jewish community. Those in the inreach camp, in contrast, hold that little can be done to increase the propensity of intermarried parents to raise Jewish children and instead promote efforts to encourage inmarriage and conversion. This paper examines the impact of Taglit-Birthright Israel (Taglit), a program that sends Diaspora Jewish young adults on fully subsidized educational tours of Israel, on intermarriage, conversion, and attitudes toward raising children as Jews. Drawing on several surveys of Taglit applicants, including participants and control groups of applicants who did not participate, the study isolates Taglit’s impact and compares Taglit’s influence to other educational interventions and background characteristics. Taglit has substantial impact on participants’ propensity to marry a Jew, increasing the odds ratio of a non-Orthodox participant being married to a Jew several fold. In addition, the program strongly increases participants’ regard for the value of raising Jewish children. The study concludes that both the intermarriage rate and the motivation of intermarried parents to raise Jewish children are highly tractable. The study points to the possibility of establishing common ground between advocates of inreach and outreach on the vital importance of Jewish education to the goal of Jewish demographic vitality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Note that for a given number of Jews, intermarriages create twice as many households as inmarriages (as each inmarriage takes two Jews and each intermarriage only one). Accordingly, if the rate at which intermarried households are raising Jewish children is below 50 percent, then intermarriage contributes to a net population loss; if the rate is above 50 percent, then intermarriage contributes to a net gain. These observations presume a sociological definition of “Jewishness,” i.e., self-definition, and not a halachic (Jewish legal) definition that defines Jewishness according to matrilineal descent or conversion (see DellaPergola 2002).
The program, now known as Taglit-Birthright Israel, was originally called “Taglit” (discovery) in Hebrew and “birthright israel” (lower case) in English.
One reason that “randomness” is part of the selection process is that applicants are offered a particular trip, on a specific date, only after they have applied. Thus, a key reason for turning down a trip was that the time was not convenient.
Winter trips were chosen because baseline data, from prior surveys, were available on many of these individuals. There were few differences between participants in summer and winter trips. Eligibility refers to the fact that only Taglit applicants who were eligible according to Taglit’s rules were included (e.g., not over 26 years of age, Jewish, and had not been on a peer trip to Israel). For 2001 trips, information on nonparticipants was not available, so only participants were included. For 2002–2004 trips, both participants and nonparticipants were included. Individuals for whom information on age or gender was lacking were excluded from the sample.
Applicants who went on a Taglit trip after 2004 do not qualify as “nonparticipants” and were not included in the control group. Moreover, because such individuals participated in a trip after 2004, they also cannot contribute to an accurate picture of Taglit’s long-term impact; they therefore do not qualify as “participants” either.
Ineligibility resulted, for example, when an individual that was identified in the database as a nonparticipant turned out to have gone on a later Taglit trip or was erroneously identified as eligible to participate (e.g., was not Jewish, had studied in a yeshiva in Israel).
Response rates were calculated using the American Association for Public Opinion Research definitions (AAPOR 2009). The response rate is defined as the number of complete interviews with reporting units divided by the number of eligible reporting units in the sample.
In addition, for 289 of those who could not be interviewed, researchers were able to interview a parent or other close relative to ask basic questions about the individual’s Jewish affiliation and marital status. Including these cases, the response rate (RR4) was 72.4 percent for participants and 55.8 percent for nonparticipants; overall, the rate was 66.7 percent.
Additional analyses examined participant-nonparticipant differences, taking into account information gathered from relatives of respondents who could not be interviewed and including individuals who were engaged to be married. In both cases, similar findings were obtained.
This was calculated as: \( {\frac{{\exp \left({\beta_{0} + \beta_{1} + \beta_{2} {{\hat{x}}}_{2} + \beta_{12} {{\hat{x}}}_{2}} \right)}}{{\exp \left({\beta_{0} + \beta_{2} {{\hat{x}}}_{2}} \right)}}} \) where β 0 is the intercept, β 1 is the coefficient for participation (x 1) in Taglit, β 2 is the coefficient for parental intermarriage (x 2, which is held at its mean of 21 percent, hence \( {{\hat{x}}}_{2} \)), and β 12 is the coefficient of the interaction between parental intermarriage and program participation (x 12, held at its mean of 21 percent, hence \( {{\hat{x}}}_{12} \)). Alternately, the increase in the odds of inmarriage, holding the rate of parental intermarriage at its mean, can be calculated as: \( {\frac{{{\hbox{Pr}}\left({y = 1|x_{1} = 1,x_{2} = \hat{x}_{2},x_{12} = \hat{x}_{2}} \right)/{\hbox{Pr}}\left({y =0|x_{1} = 1,x_{2} = {{\hat{x}}}_{2},x_{12} = {{\hat{x}}}_{2}}\right)}}{{{\hbox{Pr}}\left({y = 1|x_{1} = 0,x_{2} = \hat{x}_{2},x_{12} = 0} \right)/{\hbox{Pr}}\left({y = 0|x_{1} = 0,x_{2} =\hat{x}_{2},x_{12} = 0} \right)}}}. \) Both arrive at an estimate of 2.98, meaning that the odds of intermarriage are 298 percent as great for participants as for nonparticipants or the odds are 198 percent greater for participants than nonparticipants.
Calculated as \( {{\exp \left({\beta_{0} + \beta_{1} + \beta_{2} + \beta_{12}} \right)} \mathord{\left/{\vphantom {{\exp \left({\beta_{0} + \beta_{1} + \beta_{2} + \beta_{12}} \right)} {\exp \left({\beta_{0} + \beta_{2}} \right)}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\exp \left({\beta_{0} + \beta_{2}} \right)}}. \)
Calculated as \( {{\exp \left({\beta_{0} + \beta_{1}} \right)} \mathord{\left/{\vphantom {{\exp \left({\beta_{0} + \beta_{1}} \right)} {\exp \left({\beta_{0}} \right)}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\exp \left({\beta_{0}} \right)}}. \)
At the time of survey. Age was calculated from the date of birth provided on the Taglit registration form.
Following the logic of the analysis of items in the survey of 2001–2004 applicants, participation in Taglit was the sole predictor included in the model, as only variables that were associated with differences between participants and nonparticipants (not the case here) or interacted with Taglit participation (not the case here) were eligible for inclusion as predictors.
Calculated as \( {{\exp \left({\beta_{0} + \beta_{1}} \right)} \mathord{\left/{\vphantom {{\exp \left({\beta_{0} + \beta_{1}} \right)} {\exp \left({\beta_{0}} \right)}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\exp \left({\beta_{0}} \right)}}, \) where \( \beta_{0} \) is the intercept and \( \beta_{1} \) is the coefficient for Taglit participation.
Calculations are carried out in the form \( \delta = {{\beta_{1}} \mathord{\left/{\vphantom {{\beta_{1}} {\beta_{x}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\beta_{x}}} \) where \( \beta_{x} \) is the coefficient associated with a mode of Jewish education and \( \beta_{1} \) is the coefficient associated with program participation.
Liebler (2007) “utter[ed] words of repentance” and revoked his earlier (1999) criticism.
Notwithstanding this evidence, inreach advocates may raise an additional concern: The denominations are divided over the Jewish status of the children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers. The Orthodox and Conservative movements do not recognize such individuals as Jewish. Reform and Reconstructionist movements do, so long as they have been raised as Jewish. A majority of American Jews, according to NJPS 2000–01, subscribe to a liberal position that recognizes both matrilineal and patrilineal descent.
References
AAPOR. 2009. Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Lenexa, KS: American Association for Public Opinion Research.
Bayme, Steven. 2006. Intermarriage and Jewish Leadership in the United States. Monthly bulletin, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, No. 7, April 16. http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=4&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=623&PID=0&IID=755&TTL=Intermarriage_and_Jewish_Leadership_in_the_United_States. Accessed 2 May 2010.
Beilin, Yossi. 2009. Taglit Hayyiy. Tel Aviv, Israel: HaKibutz HaMeyuchad.
Berman, Lila Corwin. 2008. Sociology, Jews, and intermarriage in twentieth-century America. Jewish Social Studies 14: 32–60.
Bronfman, Adam R., and Jack Wertheimer. 2009. Straight talk about assimilation: An exchange. Forward, October 21. http://www.forward.com/articles/114911/. Accessed 2 May 2010.
Chazan, Barry. 2002. The world of the Israel experience. In The Israel experience: Studies in Jewish identity and youth culture, ed. Barry Chazan, 5–20. Jerusalem: Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies.
Chertok, Fern, Benjamin Phillips, and Leonard Saxe. 2008. It’s not just who stands under the chuppah: Intermarriage and engagement. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Cohen, Erik H. 2009. Particularistic education, endogamy, and educational tourism to homeland: An exploratory multi-dimensional analysis of Jewish diaspora social indicators. Contemporary Jewry 29: 169–189.
Cohen, Steven M. 1994. Why intermarriage may not threaten Jewish continuity. Moment 19(6): 54.
Cohen, Steven M. 1995. The impact of varieties of Jewish education upon Jewish identity: An intergenerational perspective. Contemporary Jewry 16: 68–96.
Cohen, Steven M. 2006. A tale of two Jewries: The ‘inconvenient truth’ for American Jews. New York: Jewish Life Network.
DellaPergola, Sergio. 2002. Demography. In The Oxford handbook of Jewish Studies, ed. Martin Goodman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dorff, E., and Kerry M. Olitzky. 2007. Like Abraham and Sarah, Jewish world should welcome all into a “big tent.” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, October 9. http://www.jta.org/news/article/2007/10/08/104526/bigtentjudaism. Accessed 2 May 2010.
Fishman, Sylvia Barack. 2004. Double or nothing: Jewish families and mixed marriage. Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press/University Press of New England.
Fishman, Sylvia Barack, and Alice Goldstein. 1993. When they are grown they will not depart: Jewish education and the Jewish behavior of American adults. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Guttman, Louis. 1950. The basis for scalogram analysis. In Studies in social psychology in World War II: Measurement & prediction, ed. S.A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E.A. Suchman, P.F. Lazarsfeld, S.A. Star, and J.A. Clausen, 60–90. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kadushin, C., Benjamin Phillips, and Leonard Saxe. 2005. National Jewish Population Survey: Guide for the perplexed. Contemporary Jewry 25: 1–32.
Kelner, Shaul. 2010. Tours that bind: Diaspora, pilgrimage and Israeli Birthright tourism. New York: New York University Press.
Kosmin, Barry A., Sidney Goldstein, Joseph Waksberg, Nava Lerer, Ariela Keysar, and Jeffrey Scheckner. 1991. Highlights of the CJF 1990 National Jewish Population Survey. New York: Council of Jewish Federations.
Lazerwitz, Bernard, J.A. Winter, Arnold Dashefsky, and Ephraim Tabory. 1998. Jewish choices: American Jewish denominationalism. New York: SUNY Press.
Liebler, Isi. 1999. Only in America! Jerusalem Post, November 8, p. 6.
Liebler, Isi. 2007. Birthright Israel…on second thought. Jerusalem Post, February 27.
Loevinger, Jane. 1948. The technic of homogenous tests compared with some aspects of scale analysis and factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin 45: 507–529.
Long, J.Scott. 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Massarik, Fred, and Alvin Chenkin. 1973. United States national Jewish population study: A first report. In American Jewish Yearbook, 246–306. New York: American Jewish Committee.
Mayer, Egon. 1991. American-Jewish intermarriage in the 1990s and beyond: The coming revolution in Jewish demography and communal policy. In The imperatives of Jewish outreach: Responding to intermarriage in the 1990s and beyond, ed. Egon Mayer, 37–62. New York: Jewish Outreach Institute & the Center for Jewish Studies of the Graduate School of the City University of New York.
McGinity, Keren R. 2009. Still Jewish: A history of women and intermarriage in America. New York: New York University Press.
Medding, Peter Y., Gary A. Tobin, Sylvia Barack Fishman, and Mordechai Rimor. 1992. Jewish identity in conversionary and mixed marriages. In American Jewish Year Book, vol. 92, ed. David Singer, 3–76. New York: American Jewish Committee.
Mittelberg, David. 1994. The Israel visit and Jewish identification. The Institute on American Jewish Israeli Relations, Issue Series No. 4. New York: American Jewish Committee.
Mittelberg, David. 1999. The Israel connection and American Jews. London: Praeger.
Phillips, Benjamin, and Fern Chertok. 2004. Jewish Identity among the adult children of intermarriage. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Jewish Studies, Chicago, IL.
Phillips, Benjamin, and Sylvia Barack Fishman. 2006. Ethnic capital and intermarriage: A case study of American Jews. Sociology of Religion 64: 487–505.
Phillips, Bruce A. 1997. Re-examining intermarriage: Trends, textures & strategies. Los Angeles: Susan and David Wilstein Institute of Jewish Policy Studies: American Jewish Committee, William Petschek National Jewish Family Center.
Raff, Lauren B. 1998. 1996 Jewish population study of greater Cleveland. Cleveland, OH: Jewish Community Federation of Greater Cleveland.
Rosenfeld, Michael J. 2008. Racial, educational, and religious endogamy in the United States: A comparative historical perspective. Social Forces 87: 1–31.
Rosenthal, Erich. 1963. Studies of Jewish intermarriage in the United States. In American Jewish Year Book, vol. 54, ed. M. Fine, and M. Himmelfarb, 3–56. New York: American Jewish Committee.
Sasson, Theodore, David Mittelberg, Shahar Hecht, and Leonard Saxe. 2008. Encountering the other, finding oneself: The Birthright Israel mifgash. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Sasson, Theodore, David Mittelberg, Shahar Hecht, and Leonard Saxe. In press. Guest-host encounters in Diaspora heritage tourism. Diaspora, Indigenous and Minority Education.
Saxe, Leonard, and Barry Chazan. 2008. Ten days of Birthright Israel: A journey in young adult identity. Lebanon, NH: Brandeis University Press/University Press of New England.
Saxe, Leonard, Charles Kadushin, Shahar Hecht, Mark I. Rosen, Benjamin Phillips, and Shaul Kelner. 2004. Evaluating Birthright Israel: Long-term impact and recent findings. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Saxe, Leonard, Charles Kadushin, Shaul Kelner, Mark I. Rosen, and Erez Yereslove. 2002. A mega-experiment in Jewish education: The impact of birthright israel. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Saxe, Leonard, Benjamin Phillips, Charles Kadushin, Graham Wright, and Daniel Parmer. 2006a. The 2005 Boston Jewish Community Study: Preliminary findings. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Saxe, Leonard, Benjamin Phillips, Theodore Sasson, Shahar Hecht, Michelle Shain, Graham Wright, and Charles Kadushin. 2009a. Generation Birthright Israel: The impact of an Israel experience on Jewish identity and choices—Technical appendices. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Saxe, Leonard, Benjamin Phillips, Graham Wright, Matthew Boxer, Shahar Hecht, and Theodore Sasson. 2009b. Taglit-Birthright Israel evaluation: 2007–2008 North American cohorts. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Saxe, Leonard, Theodore Sasson, and Shahar Hecht. 2006b. Taglit-Birthright Israel: Impact on Jewish identity, peoplehood, and connection to Israel. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Saxe, Leonard, Theodore Sasson, Benjamin Phillips, Shahar Hecht, and Graham Wright. 2007. Taglit-Birthright Israel evaluation: 2007 North American cohorts. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Shoshani, Shimshon. 2008. We make a difference: Taglit-Birthright Israel CEO report. Jerusalem, Israel: Taglit-Birthright Israel.
Sklare, Marshal. 1964. Intermarriage and the Jewish future. Commentary 37(4): 46–52.
Tobin, Gary A. 1995. Jewish Federation of St. Louis: Community study, 1995. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
United Jewish Communities. 2003. National Jewish Population Survey, 2000–01. New York, NY: United Jewish Communities [producer]. Storrs, CT: North American Jewish Data Bank [distributor].
Wertheimer, Jack. 2001. Surrendering to intermarriage. Commentary 111(3): 25–32.
Wertheimer, Jack. 2005. Jews and the Jewish birthrate. Commentary 120(3): 39–44.
Wertheimer, Jack, and Steven Bayme. 2005. Intermarriage and Jewish leadership in the United States. Forward, September 9, p. 11.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Saxe, L., Phillips, B., Sasson, T. et al. Intermarriage: The Impact and Lessons of Taglit-Birthright Israel. Cont Jewry 31, 151–172 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-010-9058-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-010-9058-z