ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Commission on Synagogue delations of the Federa- tion of Jewish Philanthropies acknowledges with deep gratitude the splended contribution made by Mr. Edward Isaacs, Vice President of the Federation, and a group of his friends which made the Conference on Intermarriage possible. The Commission also wishes to express its profound gratitude to Moe and Louis Mark of the Supreme Printing Co., Inc. for their generous gift of printing this volume in memory of their beloved parents, HARRY MARK MAMIE MARK irrn 'nx n m ypD'a Our appreciation is extended to Mr. Jack J. Zurofsky for all his help during The Conference and in preparing the proceedings for publication. RAISBI DAVID I. GOLOVENSKY President, Commission on Synagogue Relations v TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION i Dr. Benjamin Z. Kreitman, Spiritual Leader, Brooklyn Jewish Center ACKNOWLEDGMENTS V TABLE OF CONTENTS vii INTERMARRIAGE FROM A RELIGIO-ETHNIC PERSPECTIVE .... 1 Speaker—Dr. Mordecai M. Kaplan, Founder of the Re- constructionist Movement Discussant—Rabbi Herschel Schacter, Spiritual Leader, Mosholu Jewish Center 10 Summary of Discussion 19 INTERMARRIAGE FROM A SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE 27 Speaker—Nathan Goldberg, Professor of Sociology, Yeshiva University Discussant—Bernard Resnikoff, Director, Ramah Com- mission, United Synagogue of America 59 Summary of Discussion 67 INTERMARRIAGE—THE CRUCIAL COLLEGE YEARS 77 Speaker—Dr. Alfred Jospe, Director, Program and Re- sources, B'nai B'rith Hillel Foundations Discussant—Dr. Morton Teicher, Dean of the Wurzweiler School of Social Work, Yeshiva University 100 Summary of Discussion 104 INTERMARRIAGE—FROM A CASEWORK PERSPECTIVE 115 Speaker—San ford Sherman, Associate Director, Jewish Family Service Discussant—Rabbi Bernard Kligfeld, Spiritual Leader, Temple Emanu-El of Long Beach 128 Summary of Discussion 134 PROPOSALS FOR ACTION 137 Dr. Robert Gordis, Spiritual Leader, Temple Beth El of Rockaway Park EPILOGUE: AN AGENDA FOR TOMORROW 159 Graenum Berger, Consultant on Community Centers and Camps, Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York vii INTERMARRIAGE—THE CRUCIAL COLLEGE YEARS By DR. ALFRED JOSPE Few issues in Jewish life have, in recent years, been discussed with the same intensity of concern and sense of crisis as has the problem of intermarriage and mixed marriage among American Jews today. As you know, several recent studies and articles have fanned this concern, among them especially Thomas Morgan's description of "The Vanishing American Jew," in which the author reported that new studies reveal a significant loss of Jewish identity and an increasing rate of intermarriage; that Judaism is losing 70% of the children born to mixed couples; that American Jews are scarcely reproducing themselves because of a low birth rate; and that we may therefore fade from 2.9% to 1.6% of the United States population by the year 2000. Morgan's primary roadmap on his hasty and superficial trip through the landscape of Jewish identity in America today was Dr. Erich Rosenthal's well-known analysis of various studies of Jewish intermarriage in the U. S. which had been published in the 1963 edition of the American Jewish Yearbook and in which Dr. Rosenthal makes three points which are relevant to our discussion today: first, the rate of intermarriage of Jews is far higher than has generally been assumed; second, a college education tends to increase this rate; and third, the level of intermarriage is bound to rise with increasing length of secular schooling. Indeed, in the third generation, college attendance seems to double the intermarriage rate. The claim that intermarriage may be on the increase especially among college students is also supported by the results of other studies, among them, for instance, Albert [77] 78 INTER MARRIAGE Gordon's recent book on Intermarriage, whose data suggest that there is an increasing readiness among college students to approve of any form of intermarriage except racial. I It is primarily this finding which has come as a severe shock to parents and educators. The suspicion is spreading that a university is a "faith-trap" which will weaken Jewish family life and corrode the survival loyalties of our young people. This fear has aroused not only deep con- cern but also anguished outcries about "the alienation of our Jewish college students," angry denunciations of uni- versity life as a whole and of the supposed failure of Jewish educational agencies on and off campus to "stem the tide of intermarriage among our students," and numerous well- intentioned but often also quite quixotic and far too sim- plicistic or publicity-seeking proposals designed to remedy the situation. This concern is of course understandable and justified, especially when we consider the enormous proportion of the Jewish college-age population that actually is in college today. In 1915, when the first though unhappily inadequate attempt was made to determine the number of Jewish college students, there were an estimated 7,300 Jewish college students in America. By 1919, their number had doubled and we had nearly 15,000 Jewish students in our colleges and universities. By 1935, their number had reached 105,000. It increased to 200,000 in 1950 and, at present, we have a Jewish college population of about 275,000 students — representing at least 70 and perhaps as many as 80% of the total Jewish population of college- age (18-24). If a college education creates a predisposition towards intermarriage, our losses can be overwhelming. Unfortunately, the issues are being discussed with far more heat than knowledge of the data or understanding of the complexity of the problem. The fact is that, despite the significant growth of pertinent research, our ignorance THE CRUCIAL, COLLEGE YEARS 79 concerning the essential data and trends continues to be encyclopedic. One reason is that there is still a vast array of unre- searched issues. Joseph Maier has outlined most of them in his helpful chapter in the symposium on Intermarriage and Jewish Life. We do not know how many American Jews marry outside their faith and what the factors are which affect the intermarriage rate. Nor do we know adequately in what social context intermarriage occurs, whether the size of the community or residential proximity make a difference or are variables themselves, what the influence of a youngster's education and early associations may be, how strong the Jewish identification of those who interdate or intermarry is, and whether such dating is limited to those who have no intense Jewish feelings or background or can be found also among Jewishly conscious young people, etc. As Maier said, whether you draw a reassuring or discouraging conclusion from the data depends on the studies you select. We have even less information about the extent to which intermarriage may occur on the campus. One can study the patterns of interdating on the campus but this tells us little about the extent of intermarriage on the campus. We simply do not know how many Jewish students marry or intermarry while they are at college. Despite our persistent efforts in Hillel and despite an unparalleled community- wide concern with college students, none of the frequently excellent community surveys which have been conducted in recent years incorporated questions which could have given us greater insight into the problems and behavior of this age group. Whatever evidence we have indicates that college students actually do not marry as frequently as seems to be assumed. In Albert Gordon's study of 5407 students— primarily undergraduates—at 40 colleges and universities he found that only 6% were married; and the Population Reference Bureau discovered that while 25% of all col- lege graduates this year were married, four out of every 80 INTER MARRIAGE five of these married students were men and that on the average a college career delays a girl's marriage by about four years. The Bureau therefore issued a hot tip for worried parents who hope their daughters will stop, look and listen before taking an impulsive teenage plunge into matrimony: Get her into college fast (or, to paraphrase Hamlet: Get thee to a college! Go!) In brief, college is the place where students meet and date, but not necessarily where they legally mate. Only a small number of students get married while they are in school. Nevertheless, their college experiences, may of course, be among the significant factors that contribute to their later choice of a partner. II What then do we know about the problem of intermar- riage on the campus ? Although the quality of our research data vary signifi- cantly, the consensus is that the rate of intermarriage among our young people or at least their proclivity to intermar- riage has been increasing steadily. Albert Gordon, in the study I have already mentioned, found a general readiness to approve of all forms of intermarriage except racial. While 91% of his respondents, would not favor marriage with a person of another color, only 50% would object to marriage with a person of another faith. By implication then, the remaining 50% would have no serious objections to a religious intermarriage. However, Gordon's data present some difficulties. First, he himself realizes that what he has tabulated is not an actual record of intermarriage but merely a survey of student opinion concerning intermarriage. Yet we know that there can be a vast gap between the verbal expression of a view and the action a person takes when he makes an important decision affecting his own life. Secondly, Gordon does not isolate the percentage of the Jewish stu- dents who said they are prepared to approve intermar- riage. Hence we do not know to what extent his data sub- stantiate his claim that the readiness of students to inter- marry has increased. THE CRUCIAL, COLLEGE YEARS 81 The impression that intermarriage on the campus, or at least a more open attitude to intermarriage, is on the increase is, however, supported by the experiences of Hil- lel directors in most parts of the country.