Responding to Professor Cohen's comment

The first time I heard the word "kiruv" I was shocked that it was used in reference to Judaism. It seemed to me a bit like proselytizing, a fundamental element of Christianity and most likely the main reason it is one of the largest and most influential western religions, most notably in the USA. For as long as I can remember I have not considered the Jewish nation one who proselytizes but Professor Cohen, your facts and evidence shine light onto a Judaism of which I am not entirely familiar.

According to Merriam Webster's online dictionary, proselytize takes on two definitions:

1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith 2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause

In referencing both definitions above, I would not consider the Reform Movement's work to engage non-Jewish spouses of Jewish congregants an act of proselytization. I see how the Reform Movement’s stating outright that they are devoting themselves to this form of "kiruv" may be perceived as bold, but I cannot understand how the actual act is seen as bold, as you suggest. I shall present a narrative that any American (most likely any Western or even Israeli) Jew has heard at one point in his or her life. The son of Jewish parents is dating a non-Jew and expresses to his parents that he wants to marry her. They say they will not accept an engagement between their Jewish son and his girlfriend unless she converts. – Is this not “kiruv” in action? (I ask semi-rhetorically.) In response to your question "Which is 'traditional' [in American Judaism]: kiruv or not kiruv?” I would have to reply that this most basic level of outreach is absolutely a traditional cultural practice. It falls in line right next to the value of establishing and maintaining a strong and learned community.