editorials
The Birthright Imperative
I t’s hard to think of today’s Jewish world without
Birthright Israel.

Sending groups of young Jews to Israel for
10 days at no cost to them and letting the
country work its magic on their Jewish iden-
tities seems like such a no-brainer that it can
be a surprise to learn that Birthright has only
been around since 1999. The consensus, and
we share it, is that Birthright Israel is one of
the most successful Jewish innovations of our
time. One way to judge how central Birthright
has become to our North American Jewish
core is by the howls that went up when it was
learned that the Adelson Family Foundation
was cutting back on its annual contribution.

Since 2007, the Adelson Foundation has been
the largest donor to Birthright, having contributed
nearly $500 million over the past 15 years. The
announcement that the foundation would reduce
its annual gift to $20 million this year and to $10
million next year was quickly followed by the
announcement that Birthright was scaling back its
operations by up to a third. Before the pandemic,
Birthright was taking 45,000 participants to Israel
every year. Next year, only 23,000 participants are
projected. Birthright officials acknowledge that the reduc-
tion in the Adelson Foundation gift is not a sur-
prise. It has been in the works since 2016. Yet for
whatever reason, Birthright has not been able to
secure supplemental funding to make up for the
shortfall they knew was coming. Instead, they
cut back on the program. That is unfortunate. But
perhaps this is the wake-up call needed to remind
us of the importance of the program and to make
clear why no one should take it for granted.

Last month, researchers at the Cohen Center
for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University
reported that in comparing Jews who had taken
a Birthright trip with Jews who had never been
to Israel, Birthright participants were 85% more
likely to be “somewhat/very” attached to Israel
and 160% more likely to have a spouse who is
Jewish. Those statistics are compelling.

We urge efforts to expand communal and
institutional support for Birthright. To be sure,
despite the widespread belief that Birthright is
funded by a few very wealthy Jews, the Birthright
Foundation currently has nearly 40,000 annual
donors. The Israeli government provides a large
portion of Birthright’s estimated $150 million
annual budget. And according to the 2018
annual report — the most recent available — 17
donors gave $1 million or more.

We recognize that there are aspects of the
Birthright program that give some donors pause.

For example, critics aren’t happy with how the
program deals with the Israeli-Palestinian con-
flict. Still, even with its warts, Birthright is doing
exactly what it was created to do and what the
Jewish world has come to expect. Indeed, because
of its success, Birthright has become an essential
Jewish rite of passage almost on par with bar and
bat mitzvahs.

Birthright deserves meaningfully expanded com-
munal support. JE
I t began with a noble purpose. Some solution
needed to be found to address the effects of too
many years of discrimination against minorities in
the college admissions process, as well as for those
seeking employment.

Among the approaches developed was a
race-conscious college-admission policy that
allowed for consideration of a student’s race as
one of many factors in the admissions process.

That approach, called “affirmative action,” was
promoted as a means to address historic discrimi-
nation against Black applicants and to help create
a diverse student body at participating universities.

It was further argued that the inclusive educational
environment fostered by affirmative action would
enrich the educational experiences of all students
at participating universities.

The affirmative action program has prompted
decades of court battles over its legality. For the
past 50 years, affirmative action has been part of
American life and was repeatedly upheld by the
U.S. Supreme Court. But with today’s 6-3 conserva-
tive majority on the court, that is likely to change.

In late October, the Supreme Court heard argu-
12 DECEMBER 8, 2022 | JEWISHEXPONENT.COM
ment in a pair of lawsuits — one against Harvard
University and the other against the University of
North Carolina — on whether colleges and univer-
sities can consider race when they decide which
applicants to admit. Most court watchers agree that
the court will almost certainly rule that affirmative
action in college admissions is illegal, probably
because the practice violates the Constitution’s
guarantee of equal protection of the laws and the
1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of racial discrim-
ination by recipients of federal funding.

The reasoning is straightforward: Notwithstanding
whatever positive motivations may be driving the
process, discrimination on the basis of race should
not be used as the means to correct past discrim-
ination on the basis of race. In other words, two
wrongs don’t make a right.

But if universities can’t use affirmative action,
then how can they work to level the playing field
for minority and disadvantaged applicants, and con-
tinue their commitment to creating a diverse cam-
pus community? At least two suggested approaches
have been advanced — both of which will likely test
the sincerity of a university’s embrace of diversity
over fundamental financial concerns.

First, universities can increase their efforts to
promote the admission of economically disadvan-
taged students, irrespective of their race or any
other prohibited, discriminatory factor. Given the
wealth gap that separates Black and white house-
holds, an increase in the recruitment of economi-
cally disadvantaged students will almost certainly
help boost campus diversity. Similarly, doing away
with “legacy” preferences in university admissions
for children of alumni and significant donors will
also open more spaces for Black applicants and
further add to each university’s diversity pool.

The problem is that most bottom-line-conscious
universities are not willing to give up the financial
bounty of legacy student tuitions and historical
donor gifts. And given tight budgets and increasing
costs, most universities are reluctant to increase
allocations for financial assistance in order to
achieve desired diversity. But if the court rules as
expected, universities are going to have to find
some race-neutral solution to their admissions
challenges, and they may have to put some of their
money where they say their values are. JE
flickr.com / HRYMX
Alternatives to Affirmative Action