Another day, another report on Jews and interfaith marriages. A comprehensive report: Millennial Children of Intermarriage: Touch points and Trajectories of Jewish Engagement. 58 pages of data and analysis from the inexhaustible team at Brandeis University’s Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies.
So what have we learned?
About half of America’s new generation of Jewish young adults are the product of intermarriage; more offspring of intermarriage identify as Jews than in the past; they are less likely than children of inmarriage to identify as Jewish by religion, observe Jewish practices, and feel connected to Israel. Nothing shocking. But the authors (Theodore Sasson, Leonard Saxe, Fern Chertok, Michelle Shain, Shahar Hecht, Graham Wright) back it all up with numbers. And along the way they discovered some small yet surprising Jewish connections such as: “Children of intermarriage were less likely to have close ties to Jewish grandparents than their counterparts who had two sets. They were, however, more likely to have ties to their Jewish than non-Jewish grandparents, and such ties predict a whole variety of attitudes and behaviors in young adulthood, including identifying as Jewish by religion, celebrating Jewish holidays, feeling a connection to Israel and the Jewish people, and wanting to marry someone Jewish.”
When there are new numbers – when good people think seriously about worthy topics – it is always interesting. So here are four takes on the report and the data (not necessarily on the numbers that will make the headlines).
A.
The headline of this post is an intentional provocation. Here is why:
When it comes to intermarriage, numbers are rarely neutral. For example: we learn from the study that most intermarried parents do not tell their children that they are “Jewish.” 41% do – and the authors call it a “plurality.” One might assume that a “plurality” is a description of a reasonably positive outcome (“positive” only as it relates to Jewish continuity – I do not intend to be the judge of other parents’ decisions, or the judge of other people’s religious\cultural\personal choices). But of course, it is not the only available description of the numbers presented in the survey. The 41% is a “plurality” only because the other group of offspring – that of children not being told that they are “exclusively Jewish” – is divided into sub groups: a group of 18% with no religion, a group of 18% of children told it is “their choice”, a group of 17% defined “Jewish and other religion”, a group of 5% of “other religion”, a group of 2% of children of couples who “disagreed.”
So you have a “plurality” of “exclusively Jewish” – but also a clear majority (of 60%) of children of intermarriage that were not told they were “Jewish.”
B.
It is not easy for the observer – nor is it easier for the researcher – to measure the findings’ significance. That is, because many of the conclusions one could draw from the numbers are value based.
Again – one example:
The study found that “celebrating Hanukkah was almost universal among both children of intermarriage and children of inmarriage. Attending a Passover seder was very common in both groups as well.” So that is positive. Of course, the picture is not as rosy when other Jewish practices are measured. Children of intermarriage don’t attend religious services like children of inmarriage, they don’t light shabbat candles, they don’t have shabbat dinner.
But there is one thing that they do a lot more than children of inmmariage. Naturally, “A substantial proportion of the children of intermarriage participated in Christian religious rituals and celebrations while growing up.” 86% of them celebrated Christmas “with a special meal or by decorating their home,” compared to just 18% of children of inmarriage.
There are really two things here that need to be dissected. The first one concerns the value of each of these items: Is it important to light shabbat candles? Is it significant that a Christmas tree is erected at home? Are these still valid measures of Jewishness and of the prospects of Jewish identity and Jewish continuity? The second one concerns the value of each item as we compare it to other items. We can put it somewhat bluntly by asking this: do we prefer a Jew who lights Hanukkah candles and participates in Christian religious rituals – or maybe it’s better if a Jew skips both Hanukkah and Christmas.
I know, the question sounds a little dumb, but thinking about it in such a way clarifies some issues in need of clarification. Are we more worried about the assimilation of the children of intermarriage (we want them, first of all, not to do Christian things) or about the indifference of the children of intermarriage (we want them, first of all, to do Jewish things)? Also, going back to my previous point: to what extent do we value exclusivity as a non-negotiable feature of Judaism? If that is our chief concern, our main goal would not be to increase the number of intermarried couples who light shabbat candles (18%), but rather to decrease the number of intermarried couples who have an Easter meal (47%). Of course, one could argue that the way to decrease the number of Easter meals is to increase the number of shabbat candle lightings.
C.
The report is about the children of intermarriage, but since the authors learn about them by comparing them to the children of inmarriage, we also get a glimpse of the product of inmarriage.
This study could have a misleading impact on our view of the children of inmarriage. Why? You can see why by thinking about what Prof. Daniel Kahneman called “anchoring” – our tendency to rely on the first piece of information offered as we asses a situation.
Thus, when we are told that there is a significant gap between children of intermarrige and children of inmarriage in “thinking it is important to marry someone Jewish” – we see the gap first. And the gap is favorable to children of inmarried (again – “favorable” is offered here as a description of the practical viewpoint of those who want to increase the likelihood of Jewish continuity – not as a value judgment). So the observer instinctively thinks about the state of the inmarried as good compared to that of the intermarried, which is bad.
But look at the actual numbers, not at the gap. Just 29% of the children of inmarried couples with no Jewish experience during college (no trips, membership in a Jewish group, taking Jewish courses, etc.) think it is “important to marry someone Jewish.” Yes, that is much more than the 6% of children of intermarriage with similar (no) experience. But it is really quite a small percentage.
Among inmarried Jews who had all the experience we want them to have in college – “group + course + Birthright” – it gets much better. 69% think it is important to have a Jewish spouse. Then again, if this is the group from which we expect the tightest connection to Judaism, is a two out of three outcome satisfactory?
D.
This study does not engage in slogans and sweeping conclusions. It does not tell us if there’s a crisis or a renaissance, if we are going down or up, if we should mourn or be hopeful, if intermarriage is going to ruin us or save us. Refreshingly, it says simple things: we need to lure young Jewish adults into the orbit of college experience, because we know this type of experience works.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.