This is a continuation from the previous post. (Click here to read "Chasing the Big Idea: Part One.")
Rabbi Elliot Dorff (University of Judaism) was the first one up, noting that in terms of Jewish education, "you can't educate someone who's not there," a comment which launched a proposal that involved having more babies. With the fertility rate at 1.7, "we're not even replacing ourselves," he noted, sharing scary statistics about age-related infertility in both men and women, and calling for three things to happen. Firstly, that we encourage high school kids to apply to colleges with a lot of other Jews. Secondly, that we let them know that grad school age is not too early to marry and have children. And thirdly, that those of us beyond childbearing years create affordable day care and tuition. "Only if we do this," he concluded, "do we have a Jewish future."
Next was Rabbi Yitz Greenberg (Jewish Life Network/Steinhardt Foundation), who mentioned the idea of "common Judaism," that a core Jewish idea has affected the world and is embedded in the narrative that has the Jewish people playing a role and speaks to Jews across lines of denomination and affiliation. We need to find the ideas that speak to everyone and articulate them in a way that will speak to everyone. He suggested an equivalent of birthright israel for young couples--an educational gift that will expose them to teachers of a high caliber and provide them with the chance to experience core ideas and values, and the fundamentals of Jewish living. The course would be given at an adult level and topped off with a guide of how to connect with the comunity resources needed to pursue the next level of education.
Dr. Bethamie Horowitz (Mandel Foundation ) talked about trendspotting, and noted that Jews are better integrated into society than we were when CAJE was founded. More than 40 percent of college students in 2000 had taken a Jewish studies class. "In many parts of America," she said, "having a Jewish life doesn't mean being cloistered from society. Integration is changing Jews and changing America. We are particular but not necessarily parochial," she clarified. "Jewish is an upscale brand. Many people have intermarried but "not to become part of a larger world, so they're not necessarily disappearing." She cited the new study from Boston that claims 60 percent of children from intermarried families are being raised Jewish. She suggested that we focus on "Marketplace Judaism," on the interest in Jewishness in the larger marketplace (as example, Nextbook's partnership with the American Library Association on a great Jewish literature series). She urged us to create partnerships with excellent Jewish content and offer our civilzation and culture to Jews and other people who are interested.
Rabbi Jan Katzew (URJ/HUC-JIR) noted that Jews come from a tradition of mishpat (retributive justice) and tzedakah (distributive justice). "We create programs for volunteers and professionals, exacerbating the gap between the haves and the have-nots. We need to provide all Jews with whatever they need. Everyone who wants to learn can learn. We should be devoting ten percent to our poorest institutions and stop exacerbating the educational, cultural and Jewish gap. As Rav Kook said, 'All your children shall be taught and there shall be peace.'"
Cyd B. Weissman (RE-IMAGINE Project/HUC-JIR) talked about a "wall-less oneness," how we can innovate experiences that bring down the walls between Jewish professionals, to create shared time and space to learn and create a leadership of oneness. This extends, she added, to the leadership of teachers to have shared values and common goals. How do we re-understand the relationship, have a shared language. If there's a few extra million, let's look at the architecture that separates and fragments education.
Each of the panelists was then given a chance to react to the opinions presented. In addition to encouraging young Jews to marry younger, Dorff qualified, we need to be sensitive to singles who haven't found a spouse yet. (This caused him to utter the most horrifying sentence: "Thank God for JDate") and be sensitive to those who cannot have children. Greenberg noted that the community should not write off intermarried families. Horowitz didn't think that addressing infertility was going to solve the numbers problem, and that perhaps we should be asking not "why be Jewish" but "why not be Jewish?" Katzew urged expansiveness in reading "fertility," to include adoption. We don't have justice, globally or personally, he said and we need to figure out what to do as a community. Horowitz added that we need more places, portals for interested people. Katzew said we needed to do better, that we're not functioning as a coalition. Greenberg said that if we were really serious, there'd be a tax--"from womb to tomb"--that would fund education. We need to invest in a higher level of education--raising our game on the financial, intellectual and spiritual level.
Then the question was opened to the floor. Which of these issues should we tackle as a community??
My group was four people: me, Ariel Beery, and two people in their fifties who had been involved with CAJE since it began 30 years ago. It shouldn't be any big surprise that none of the ideas presented emerged as a clear frontrunner . We couldn't come to any sort of consensus other than to agree that although CAJE may have started as a counterculture educational alternative, it's become more mainstream now, and as such may not be in touch with the most contemporary of educational needs.
We were talking about the Jewish future, so where were the youth voices? For Ariel and myself, as part of the PresenTense/new Jewish voices revolution, this is not the first time we've had this complaint. But there were other voices who agreed. "If we're talking about the Jewish future, then one or all of the panelists should be under 40," one woman said.
So here's the problem. We trust the people who have made names for themselves, names they come by honestly and deservedly. While they might have presented opinions--at this particular day of learning or on any normal day--that have some viability, when it comes to revolutionary ideas that will ultimately shape the future, there has to be more consideration of how things are on the ground.
There may not be one big idea that can be applied across the board that will solve all of our problems, from outreach to the intermarried to funding community education projects, from declining fertility rates to the case for Israel on campus. But in any such presentation of ideas for a new generation, the input, involvement and buy-in from the people of the generation in question should be a primary ingredient. Whatever the future will be, it will be ours. And at least speaking for myself, I know I'd like to be involved in how things develop.
And when Jewish organizations commit ideologically and financially to implementing change itself, not just the idea of change, maybe then we'll really see some big ideas.
Work on book proposal. Work on other book proposal.
