[The following was posted as a comment to Robbie Gringras’s recent post, “8 Cities, 11 Flights, 4 Questions.” We felt it deserved wider attention.]
By Andi Meiseles
Robbie, your excellent piece prompts me to share with you and this forum something that has been troubling me professionally and personally for several years: the unintended consequences of the success of Birthright.
This is not a “knock” against Birthright, but the articulation of a concern I’ve long held and which, as your article points out, we are now seeing realized. Birthright has done a wonderful job of engaging young Jews who might never have visited Israel or shown any interest in their Jewish heritage. There are serious educators and professionals involved in the endeavor, many of whom I know personally and respect deeply. It is a great first experience and has spurred many participants to return to Israel or to become more involved in Jewish life. However, a 10-day trip should not be the accepted standard in our community for engagement with Israel.
If anything, my issue is with a community which has allowed Birthright to become its default “Israel experience.” The success of Birthright has come at the expense of programs which offer a longer experience and cultivate a deeper relationship with Israel. In so doing it has affected the profile of much of the leadership cadre of the American Jewish community. What was once a rite of passage, the summer “teen” tour, has been diminished to a fraction of what it was, thereby reducing its role as a feeder to longer term programs. Numbers of Jewish students in university semester (much less year) programs have dropped dramatically in the last decade. Fewer and fewer young Jews are spending significant periods of time in Israel, which means that fewer young, Jewish professionals have had the opportunity to build a deep knowledge base about Israel and Israelis. Once upon a time, it was hard to find a leader in the Jewish communal or educational world who had not spent a year or semester in Israel. As you note, this is not the case today. This void is most apparent in times of crisis for Israel, as you witnessed on your “grand tour.”
Although I’ve had a long career in Jewish and Israel education, both in the US and in Israel, I became aware of this shift and its potential impact on the community from sources outside of it. When I began my current position (as the North American representative for international academic affairs for Ben-Gurion University of the Negev) I learned of the reach of Birthright from directors of study abroad at universities across the continent. These seasoned and savvy professionals in international education (largely non-Jews, by the way) know their work, their field and the trends. It is from them that I learned that “…this program called Birthright, which is free…” was drawing students away from long-term study in Israel. They noted the sharp decline in numbers to Israel since its inception and pointed out to me that the main issue was not necessarily security. While these professionals have seen many cycles of security-related highs and lows over the years, they also tend to view Israel as one of the safest places to study due to the outstanding security protocols that the country has in place. Rather, they attribute the decline in numbers to the “been there, done that” effect.
As my staff and I sit at study abroad fairs at universities and colleges, we experience the same scenario time and time again: An excited and enthusiastic student will approach us and the following dialogue will ensue: Student: “I LOVE Israel! I just did Birthright. ” University Rep: “Wonderful! I’m so glad you had such a great time. How about coming back and spending more time, really getting to know the country?” Student: “Been there, done that.” Literally. In those words. They can check Israel off on their list and are now off to Spain, or Kenya or Laos or any number of other exotic study abroad destinations. They have “done” Israel.
I worried about this phenomenon before this summer in Gaza, and I worry more now. With limited exposure to Israel, without the time to really understand the layers and complications that you have so beautifully articulated, and which take time to sort out (actually, it is impossible to sort them all out; it takes time just to identify and wrestle with these layers) students and, as you more importantly point out, dedicated Jewish communal professionals do not have the vocabulary, the personal experience, or the knowledge to grapple with all of this at a time when their voices are desperately needed on campuses.
However, it is not only about grappling; as you note, conflict is not attractive. It is about the fact that most young Jews are missing out on the rich and beautiful experience of truly knowing Israel and her people. Real relationships take time to develop. An investment of time reaps tremendous rewards, as any graduate of a gap year or other long term program in Israel can tell you. It’s not only about what we need for them to know, it’s about what we don’t want them to miss knowing and experiencing.
Do we want our next generation to have a “been there, done that” relationship with Israel? Can we afford for them to have a relationship that is a mile wide but an inch deep? I think not.
I look to our community for thoughts, collaborations, solutions and suggestions.
Andi Meiseles is the North American representative for international academic affairs at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
Top
How can this be true when MASA keeps claiming that their numbers for long term programs are growing? Someone isn’t telling the truth (and I don’t think it is the author of this article)
You are right Andi. Birthright should not be the default program. We need the overwhelming majority of first time visitors to come for longer than 10 days and in their teens. Only then will the Jewish people reap the full benefits of the Israel experience.
Up until this past year, this situation was made worse by the Birthright policy that anyone who had gone on a longer summer program to Israel was not eligible for Birthright. Given the choice of pay now or go for free later, many chose to wait for the later Birthright trip.
I am a fan of Birthright but another unintended consequence with this program as well as many others has been to give the impression that Jewish experience should be free. I know many Jewish leaders who have lamented the difficulty in getting people in their 20s to pay for Jewish programming–even when the cost is reasonable.
I know the idea of Birthright is that people will go and fall in love with Israel and feel a connection but why are we so fearful of expecting anything from attendees, whether it is a commitment to investigate something within the local community, donate if they are able or give back to the community in some way. It bothers me that there is such a concern that if we ask anything, people will get turned off.
One solution may be that for people who go on Birthright, offer an extended version for those who want to stay in Israel longer or charge minimally for Birthright and then discount them that amount when they do any kind of future program or trip.
The unequivocally apparent resolution to the author’s stated dilemma of Birthright Israel’s success and its negative impact on long-term Israel experiences is at hand. The Jewish world has an opportunity to reverse the declining interest in Israel amongst young Jewish adults by getting more teens to Israel en masse before they go to college. The most effective way to accomplish this is for Birthright Israel to lower its age of eligibility to 16. Not only will the Israel experience before college prepare Jewish students to effectively deal with the rise of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish activities in academia, it will become a rite of passage for Jewish teens, igniting their desire to return to Israel during their college years, and even earlier, for a gap year between high school and college.
For the overwhelming majority of underserved American Jewish teens, up to 80%, who are not involved in an intensive Jewish experience such as Jewish day school, overnight camp, or youth group, the 10-12 day Israel experience is the perfect length of time to introduce teens to Israel. We make this claim based on our experience of more than 40 years running our Youth to Israel Adventure (Y2I) for Jewish teens, ages 16 and 17, and based on a recent research study of our Y2I alumni, conducted by Professor Steven M. Cohen and Dr. Ezra Kopelowitz. Seventy-two percent of alumni of Y2I who were surveyed, married someone Jewish, and 90% who have children, are raising them Jewish.
Additionally, teens in Y2I return from Israel eager to return on longer programs, and primed to learn Israel advocacy skills, which serve them well during the college years and throughout life. Birthright Israel for teens has the capacity to build an army of Israel advocates on college campuses, helping Israel fight for her survival in the battlefield of world opinion, and to strengthen long-term Israel programs, by introducing Israel to students at a stage in their lives that is more likely to include a longer, follow-up Israel experience.
As the saying goes, timing is everything. Birthright Israel can become bigger and better by being the pipeline to longer-term Israel programs before and during college, while training Israel advocates. The Jewish world needs Birthright Israel to expand the reach of it success by lowering its age of eligibility to 16.
Robert Israel Lappin, President
Deborah L. Coltin, Executive Director
Lappin Foundation
Salem, MA
http://www.lappinfoundation.org
The success of birthright is that it reaches and influences the fringes of the Jewish community. At least they won’t hate Israel (hopefully). At least (maybe) they will marry a Jew or get some kind of conversion out of their significant other. These are not the kind of Jews that are going to invest their time or money in long-term Israel experiences.
Is this more important than strengthening the core? Unfortunately in a donor-driven Jewish world we don’t have the luxury to ask those questions.
As a former Jewish educator who studied adolescent development and the educational impact of Zionist youth movements, I always presumed the following principles: (1) as “prime time” for (Jewish) identify development is adolescence, it is critical that Jewish adolescents be exposed to Israel, and (2) that a critical goal of any short-term Israel program – as well as any other educational program like youth movements, summer camps, day schools, Hebrew high schools, etc. – is to encourage teens to participate in a long term Israel program, whether that be a year-long gap program or a college semester program. As noted by others, the original purpose of Birthright was to provide an Israel experience for those Jewish youth who, for one reason or another, had missed the adolescent Jewish educational experience. To that end, Birthright has been amazingly successful. However, it is very troubling that its success is now undermining the traditional Jewish experience by encouraging adolescents to delay and shorten their Israel experience. While a short-term Israel experience (be it a Birthright trip or a family vacation) may positively impact Jewish identity, it is insufficient to create a sophisticated, long-term, deep connection to Israel that is able to withstand the challenges and complexity that such a relationship now demands. To echo the sentiments of others, the Jewish community would be far better served if Birthright understood that, while a short-term Israel experience is certainly better than no experience, it is NOT a substitute for a long-term program. Not only should eligibility be extended to those younger, but all such programs should be connected to long-term programs both educationally and financially. Birthright short-term programs should essentially become “feeder” programs to organizations and universities who sponsor year-long and semester programs. Funding efforts should shift to providing a free or well-subsidized long-term program experience – at a minimum, Birthright participants should be given the option of a long-term program subsidy. Bottom line, if Birthright really wants to create a revolution in Jewish/Israel education, it should fund or significantly subsidize long-term programs for Jewish youth under 25 in addition to – or even INSTEAD of – short-term programs (which should still be offered for those 25+). And, if that’s not possible, then, at the very least, it should work cooperatively and pro-actively to promote long-term programs to its short-term participants.
Thanks Andi for the thoughtful response, and to other commenters on this important issue. A coupla thoughts:
1. As we know: More is more. Trips prior to Birthright, following Birthright, longer than Birthright, without Birthright – all are good, and more are better.
2. Most research is telling us that the idea (or age) of adolescence needs to be recalibrated. What with the “odyssey years”, the fixing down of identity is coming much later in life than we were accustomed. It may well be that 16 yrs is no longer the age at which the most lasting imprint is made. Some suggest it now comes as late at mid-20s.
3. Others are more expert at guaging the effect of institutional incentives or discouragements, but I personally wouldn’t necessarily “blame” Birthright for any perceived reduction in numbers of those committing to longer stays in Israel. What I would say is that Birthright – or any short-term visit to Israel – no longer is the catalytic experience that splashes back into a community’s super-saturated solution of Zionist understandings and orientations. If Israel lives at in one’s Jewish life at home, and not only in Israel itself, then the effects even of a short trip to Israel will lead to “give me more” rather than “been there done that”. Those who love Birthright talk of how being in Israel “made sense” to them. That it “all fitted together”. They need to be able to have the same experience on their return from Israel – their post-Israel energy needs to easily plug into a parallel system. There are 4 questions the Jewish People need to be asking everywhere, and a trip to Israel is to experience one of the Jewish People’s ongoing answers to these questions. Their home environment needs to keep asking the questions when they return.
The longest running Israel experiences for North American Jewish youth are those run by the Zionist Youth movements. I attended Young Judaea’s Year Course; one of my children recently completed Habonim’s Workshop; both are gap-year programs for high school graduates. These movements also run shorter summer trips for high school youth. And all of these programs have been disadvantaged by the heavily subsidized Birthright programs. If Israel programs are the goal–then the subsidy should be used to support these longstanding programs equally with the newer Birthright versions.