American Jews are one of the most studied groups around. The Berman Archive collects a lot of this research, and there’s quite a range in methodology and rigor in these reports. One researcher who has been applying peer reviewed social science techniques to the study of American Jews has been Len Saxe at Brandeis. He’s been investigating this community for over 30 years. We interviewed him this month to get his take on how this research is done, what he has learned, and what he’s working on.
Berman Archive: You have been one of the leading researchers of American Jewry for more than three decades, and now you are stepping down from your leadership of the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis. What are you looking forward to working on next?
Len Saxe: I am looking forward to spending more time synthesizing my programs of research and translating findings into policy. Most importantly, I want to focus on what we have learned from more than two decades of study about the impact of Birthright Israel. The program is extraordinary in scope and its impact, both on diaspora Jewry as well as Israel. It is appreciated, but it’s not fully understood.
Although it’s a separate program of research, I am also going to continue working on antisemitism. My focus is on how to address the problem, not just call it out. That antisemitism has become a central focus of government efforts to reshape higher education is extraordinary. We don’t, however, have an evidentiary base to guide policy and my goal is to try to provide data and analyses to do so. Although it may seem like a separate focus from Birthright, given the central role that Israel is playing in the current expression of antisemitism, they are connected. One specific connection is that COVID, financial issues, and the war have made it less likely that young adult Jews have traveled to Israel/have intimate relationships with Israelis. Our program of research on Birthright makes the empirical case for the importance of Birthright Israel for educating and engaging young Jews.
Berman Archive: How have you seen the field of social scientific research change over the course of your career? What do you think lies on the horizon for emerging researchers in the field?
Len Saxe: I have had a long career and there have been many changes to social science research, but what strikes me today is how the social scientific study of Jewry has changed. When I entered the Jewish social research field, it was mired in controversy over demographic studies (some of which I provoked) and intermarriage was like a Sword of Damocles hanging over the Jewish community. In the 21st century, the study of Jewry has become a lot more sophisticated, both with respect to qualitative and quantitative research. But we face a new set of challenges with AI and big data. However, the greatest challenge may be the changing views of science, the politicalization of academic work, and the way in which Jews and Israel are in the center of a social conflict. For emerging researchers, being rigorous and relevant is going to be a challenge. They need Jewish community leaders who appreciate scholarship and support an evidence-based approach to policy. It’s going to be very difficult to attract the “best and brightest” to engage in study of the Jewry if the present trajectory is not altered.
For emerging researchers, being rigorous and relevant is going to be a challenge. They need Jewish community leaders who appreciate scholarship and support an evidence-based approach to policy. It’s going to be very difficult the attract the ‘best and brightest’ to engage in study of the Jewry if the present trajectory is not altered.
Berman Archive: What studies do you think have had the biggest impact on American Jewish communal life?
Len Saxe: To simplify my answer, I will frame it in terms of my own work. I view my most influential work as my efforts to create new ways to study the demography of US Jewry and my work on Birthright. They are related. First, in both cases we applied sophisticated design and analysis strategies to understand Jewish life. In the case of demographic studies, we developed modeling techniques that enabled us to synthesize data from thousands of studies to estimate the Jewish population (see here). With respect to Birthright Israel, we used complex quasi-experimental designs to conduct rigorous outcome studies (see here), including a longitudinal panel study that has enabled us to isolate the impact of the program across two decades.
More substantively, each of the studies were narrative changing. On the demographic front, we offered an alternative to the lachrymose view of American Jewish life. Eventually (with the help of the Pew studies on which I served as an advisor) we showed that intermarriage, contrary to what nearly everyone expected, was not the death knell for American Jewry. What changed is that the majority of children of intermarried parents were identifying as Jews when they became adults (see here). The Birthright research helped to explain why this happened: Jewish young adults, including those who had never had formal Jewish education, were offered a meaningful Jewish educational experience. It, too, challenged a long-held belief that Jewish education could only be effective if it were life-long, beginning in childhood.
Since I framed this in terms of my work, I should make clear that I didn’t do it alone. Over the years, I’ve had the benefit of wonderful collaborators, in particular, Charles Kadushin, z’l, Ted Sasson, and Elizabeth Tighe, along with many doctoral students who became colleagues, including Janet Aronson, Matt Boxer, Matt Brookner, Shaul Kelner, Raquel Magidin de Kramer, Daniel Parmer, Amy Sales and Graham Wright. I have also had an extraordinary team at the Cohen Center, including Shahar Hecht, Masha Lokshin, Nicole Samuels, and Deborah Grant. There are many others who have made the work that I do possible. Doing social science is a team sport. This list is not only a partial list of those who have worked with me at the Cohen Center/Steinhardt Institute but also neglects the colleagues around the world and philanthropists who have supported our efforts.
Berman Archive: What are some books or articles you’d recommended to people trying to better understand the American Jewish experience today?
Len Saxe: There’s so much available about the current experience – in blogs, podcasts, articles in scholarly and non-scholarly journals – that it’s hard to recommend specifics pieces. That said, we all need help navigating the tsunami of information that courses across our screens. I wish I had a way to identify what’s worthwhile and what isn’t. Regarding books, among those I have read this year, I have some favorites. They are by authors I know well and have worked with for many years. One book is Shaul Kelner’s fascinating account of how a small group of Jewish activists created the Free Soviet Jewry movement (A Cold War Exodus). Another is Jehuda Reinharz and Motti Golani’s masterful work, Chaim Weizman: A Biography. Another wonderful and important book is Ilan Troen’s Israel/Palestine in World Religions: Whose Land Is it? In each case, I drew insights that informed my work on the contemporary Jewish experience.
Berman Archive: The Cohen Center has published a number of studies about antisemitism in higher education, including a recent study of faculty attitudes about Israel and Jews. What do you think college and university administrators should take away from the study? What do you think off-campus partners should learn from it?
Len Saxe: With my colleague, Graham Wright, we recently published an op-ed based on the study (see here). We argue that faculty should be regarded as allies in efforts to address antisemitism on campus. Although most of the attention has been focused on a small number of faculty who abuse their authority, overwhelmingly faculty do not have antisemitic views of Jews or Israel. With all due respect to university presidents, provosts, and deans, the antisemitism problem isn’t going to be addressed unless faculty are engaged. Most faculty want to be good scholars and teachers. They don’t necessarily want to address controversial social issues and, in particular, don’t feel well informed about the Israeli situation. My research aids efforts to draw a clear line between what’s acceptable and not. I hope to find ways to engage colleagues in discussion of how we, as educators, can address the problem of antisemitism. It threatens both Jews and the system of higher education.
Berman Archive: What advice would you give to emerging researchers of American Jewry who wish to have their work speak to questions of practice in Jewish communal organizations?
Len Saxe: Obviously, they need to answer relevant questions. At the same time, they need to be cognizant of their “expert” role. If they cut corners on the work and/or bend their findings to satisfy the client, they won’t be helping the organizations or themselves.
Berman Archive: How do archives broadly play a role in your work? How about the Berman Archive specifically?
Len Saxe: I am “here and now” researcher. I study how individuals perceive their world. I read history (biographies in particular), but rather than being a “Jewish Studies Professor,” I’m a professor who studies Jews. I recognize that you’ll be disappointed in my response, but I don’t use the Berman Archive very much. The internet provides too many other options. For me, the key issue is being able to access high quality research. Too much of what is available is unsophisticated, methodologically and conceptually. Unfortunately, the peer review system is crumbling and the financial model for sharing information is broken as well. We have a system that privileges the unreviewed work and puts much of the high-quality work behind paywalls. Most of us at universities have ways to access the peer reviewed literature, while those outside of the academy have much greater difficulty.
Leonard Saxe is Klutznick Professor of Contemporary Jewish Studies and Social Policy at Brandeis University. For more than two decades, he served as Director of Brandeis’ Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies and Steinhardt Social Research Institute; as well, he was served two terms as Director of the Hornstein Jewish Professional Leadership Program.
