Jewish Studies & the academic teaching of religion. (Featured Topic).

IN THE PAST THIRTY YEARS, Jewish Studies has experienced remarkable growth in universities across the United States. While the study of Judaism has been part of the university curriculum practically since its inception, the recognition of Jewish Studies as a formal discipline dates back to the 1960's. It was in that era that the civil rights movement and the flowering of ethnic pride in America began to have an impact on the university--most notably, with the establishment of programs in African-American Studies. Jews, who had long had strong ties with institutions of higher learning in America, were swept along by the same currents and thus began to advocate for the establishment of Jewish Studies programs as well.

Another important factor inspiring the development of Jewish Studies was the increasing alarm that Jews felt over the rates of intermarriage and assimilation within their community, rates that began to increase dramatically in the 1960s and threatened the long-term survival of America Jewry. Jews pressed for the establishment of Jewish Studies programs with the hope that higher education could help shore up Jewish identity among their youth.

Since that time, these programs have grown in size and number, and even in the present day, universities continue to announce the establishment of new positions every year. Funding for those positions has come primarily from the universities themselves, though substantial financial support has also been provided by philanthropists and donors from the Jewish community itself. In universities across the United States, there are at present somewhere between 800 and 1,000 positions in Jewish Studies, approximately 150 endowed chairs, and around 600 courses in Jewish Studies.

Variety of programs

Jewish Studies programs are highly variable in size and character. Most have only a handful of faculty, but many are larger, with some boasting as many as twenty faculty members or more. Some programs are full-fledged departments in their own right; others consist only of a major. In the latter model, specialists in various sub-disciplines in Jewish Studies are scattered among different departments, such as history, religion, comparative literature, and political science. Many Jewish Studies academics prefer this arrangement since it offers greater integration into the university.

My sense is that on average Jewish Studies courses are well attended, but the size and composition of the student body varies considerably from place to place. In universities where a high percentage of the student population is Jewish, the Jewish Studies courses are, not surprisingly, well attended, and a high percentage of the students are Jews. But there are many Jewish Studies programs that have arisen in places where there are relatively few Jews--a common scenario when an alumnus of a particular institution or a local Jewish donor earmarks funds for the development of such a program. In these places, enrollments are often lower and many of the students are not Jewish.

The study of Jewish religion

The study of Jewish religion is only one component of Jewish Studies programs, but it is obviously a central one, given the degree to which Jewish culture has been defined by its religious ideas and practices. It is also that aspect of Jewish Studies which is most relevant to the work of Cherry, De Berg, and Porter-field in Religion on Campus, excerpts of which appear as the lead article in this issue of Liberal Education. I would like to offer a series of observations regarding the teaching of Jewish religion courses on campus. I should point out that what I report here is drawn mainly from my own personal experience--though many of my observations have found confirmation in discussions I have had over the years with colleagues and students at other institutions.

Professors

Let me begin with the professors. In their study, Cherry, DeBerg, and Porterfield make an important distinction between professors whose teaching in religion courses is defined by advocacy for religion and those who strive to teach with objectivity and maintain a distance from their subject. I would venture to guess that most professors of Jewish religion courses are in the latter category since Jews generally have an antipathy toward religious missionizing of any kind. That antipathy is in part rooted in Judaism itself which does not encourage conversion to its faith (though Jews are often unaware that this has not always been the case in Jewish history). Even more important, Jews have suffered terribly throughout history on account of the missionizing of others and are therefore sensitive to its dangers. Thus, my sense is that that Jewish Studies professors, the vast majority of whom are Jewish, lean toward objectivity in the study of religion.

The question of objectivity

Objectivity in the academic teaching of Judaism, however, is not always a simple matter. Many Jewish donors support Jewish Studies programs on the assumption that they will strengthen Jewish identity in America, and they are sometimes disappointed to find out that the professors have no such mission in mind. Generally, the universities do not allow donors to interfere with how courses are taught. However, donors may exert an influence on Jewish Studies programs in other ways--influence that is often unstated. For instance, a university attempting to establish a program in Jewish Studies may shy away from hiring faculty whose views are too controversial for the mainstream Jewish community for fear of discouraging donors. Thus, even if universities keep donors from interfering with what professors teach, the actual hiring of professors and the structuring of a program may very well be subject to outside pressures. But in all fairness, the same problem exists in other areas in the university when funding for spe cific programs comes from outside sources.

Students in the programs

A good portion of the excerpts from the study of Cherry, DeBerg, and Porterfield deal with the students and their relationship to the academic study of religion. I would like to address this issue as refracted through the lens of Jewish Studies.

My own experience confirms the assessment of Cherry, DeBerg, and Porterfield that, regardless of whether professors of religion teach from the standpoint of advocacy or objectivity, the students often see their courses in religion as a way of exploring their own religious identity. Most of my students are Jewish, and the majority of them fit a certain mold. They are neither seriously committed to Jewish practice, nor are they completely cut off from it. They typically come from homes where Jewish identity is important but not the central passion. Most have received a Jewish education in after-school Hebrew schools which consist of several hours one or two days a week, usually up to the age of Bar or Bat Mitzvah (13 for boys, 12 for girls). Most express how much they disliked Hebrew school, that they attended only because of parental coercion, and were only too happy to be free of it after their Bar or Bat Mitzvah. By the time they come to college, their connection to the Jewish community is tenuous at best. N onetheless, they continue to feel a tie to Judaism and sense that there may be more to Judaism than what they learned in Hebrew school. Consequently, they look to a course or two in Judaism to help give them direction.

That these students experience a revival of interest in religion in college should come as no surprise. After all, it is at this point of their development that students often go through numerous personal transformations as they respond to the challenges of campus life both inside and outside the classroom. The search for religious identity is but one more challenge to confront, and often a very important one.

Some of these students experience initial difficulty with the academic study of Judaism because it is far more rigorous and demanding than anything they have encountered in Hebrew school. Sometimes they are also jarred by an academic methodology that frequently challenges or overturns many of their cherished beliefs and assumptions. But I find that most not only learn to adjust to the new way of thinking, they end up deriving a great deal of satisfaction and benefit from it.

In fact, one of the most interesting and surprising lessons I have learned as a professor is the degree to which the academic study of Judaism can positively affect Jewish students in their religious development. Just the fact that they are studying Judaism on a serious intellectual level can have a powerful impact on them. No longer is religion the collection of quaint rituals and simplistic ideas that they have thought it to be. They are amazed to discover how sophisticated it is. The Bible is not just a series of charming stories, but a complex and subtle literature. Students are also introduced to aspects of Judaism that are generally not taught in Hebrew schools, such as Talmud and Jewish mysticism. In short, it is something of a revelation to them (no pun intended) that religion can be studied every bit as seriously as any other subject in college.

Value to students

What I find most intriguing is that the stress I place on objectivity in the study of religion is, ironically, what makes that study so valuable to students from a personal standpoint. These are students who are searching for religious meaning, yet they want to make decisions for themselves about which direction to pursue. Most are too insecure to consult a rabbi or join a religious community. Thus, a college course offers a perfect environment for them to explore their religious identity. It is safe from religious pressures, and there are no expectations other than intellectual ones. One does not have to be religious to take such a course; in fact, one does not have to like religion at all. The classroom offers students the opportunity to explore their feelings about religion both positive and negative--without offending anyone.

Now, one might argue that such an environment is as likely to turn students off religion as it is to turn them on to it, given that an honest academic exploration may lead students to realize that religion is not for them. I have certainly seen this happen. But I have found, remarkably, that on the whole students come away from religion courses taking religion more seriously than before and energized in their own religious commitments.

I certainly do not want to exaggerate the role that the academic study of religion plays in the personal lives of my students. Not all the students I teach come to my courses for religious enlightenment. Some of them just want to know more about their heritage and have no intention of applying what they have learned to their personal lives. One must also keep in mind that Judaism has never been defined just by religion, but by culture, ethnicity, and nationality as well, and therefore Jews do not easily separate these components of their identity. Consequently, when I say that my Jewish students come away from a course more committed to "Judaism," that commitment may be much more complex than a commitment to religion alone.

I should also mention that as many as 30 percent of my students are not Jewish. What is most striking about them is that they are consistently my best. That is because they take courses without the baggage that comes with a Jewish background. Thus, they come to the subject with a fresh attitude, and they are able to pick up the academic methodology more easily than the Jewish students. Even in this group there are a number searching for religious meaning who take a course in Judaism in order to gain insight into their own faith. But most of these students do not attend such a course for personal religious development. They are there for any number of reasons, such as curiosity, to fulfill a requirement, or because they are Middle Eastern Studies majors seeking a better understanding of the role religion plays in the Arab-Israel conflict.

Nonetheless, the observations of Cherry, DeBerg, and Porterfield ring true. Religion courses on campus play an important role for many students in their search for religious meaning. Moreover, an approach in teaching which stresses objectivity is no less effective in inspiring students to think seriously about religion than one based on advocacy--and may even be more so. In our day and age, students generally want to be empowered to make choices for themselves when it comes to religion, as they do with other aspects of their lives. The approach which emphasizes objectivity gives them the knowledge and the tools to do just that.

ROBERT ELSEN is associate professor of religion and Judaic studies at George Washington University.