Are Orthodox Jewish Practices Racist? The UK Supreme Court Will Decide
November 9, 2009 3 Comments
A 12 year old boy was denied admittance to a Jewish school in London on the basis that he was not Jewish.
Although the entire family practices Judaism, the fact that the mother was not born into the faith meant that the child was not Jewish.
A British court has called that decision racist.
The school, JFS (originally Jews’ Free School), is allowed under English law to favour the admission of Jewish students. Although the boy’s entire family are observant Jews, the fact that his mother converted in a progressive synagogue means that the school refuses to acknowledge her as Jewish, and by extension, him. The school defines Judaism “under the Orthodox definition set out by Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth.”
The family took the case to court and lost, before going to the Court of Appeal. There is was decided that basing someone’s Jewishness on the basis of the religion of the mother was discriminatory.
The school is allowed to select students on the basis of religion, but not ethnicity. The court concluded because the test was about what religion the mother was, and not about what religion the boy practiced, it was racist.
- “The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act,” the court said. It added that while it was fair that Jewish schools should give preference to Jewish children, the admissions criteria must depend not on family ties, but “on faith, however defined.”
- The same reasoning would apply to a Christian school that “refused to admit a child on the ground that, albeit practicing Christians, the child’s family were of Jewish origin,” the court said.
The decision has angered the Orthodox Jewish community who have used those criteria to determine whether someone was Jewish over 5000 years. The school has appealed to the Supreme Court and a decision is expected before the end of the year.
The court has ruled that the Orthodox determination of whether someone is Jewish is racist, and it’s application to the school admissions process is illegal. Strictly applying the law, it is the correct decision, although the British Supreme Court will likely overturn it for political reasons.
So what is the right decision?
If you are religious then the idea of bending the tenants of your faith to the whims of the legislative process seems crazy.
But if you are not religious, allowing a group of people to break the law is just as mad.
Should the strongly held beliefs of one group trump the rest of society?
As controversial as this may be, I think religious schools have the right to define who does and who does not belong to their religion and hence have access to their education.
The family would have known that the boy wasn’t “officially” Jewish, and with that knowledge should have either enrolled him in a less conservative school or opted for public school plus Sunday school with a Rabbi on the side.
It sucks for them, but if you want to belong to a religion you have to follow their rules. (Mack)
While I agree that if you want to belong to a religion you have to follow their rules, this case is about whether the school is allowed to adopt such strict admittance standards under the laws of the UK.
Why is the school allowed to break the law just because the students there learn about Judaism?
The fact is that the boy was not allowed into the school because who his mother was, and I agree with the courts that this is contrary to the law. It was his lineage, his ethnicity, that barred entry.
For example, some Imams preach the benefits of beating your wife to educate her and keep her in line. Whether or not you interpret the Qur’an this way, this is against the law. There are no exceptions made for Muslims. (Feminist in Arabia)
Mack, I agree that an openly religious school should be allowed to set reasonable entry requirements for its students.
But one, the UK doesn’t allow that by written law.
And two, the school is playing fast and loose with its interpretation of the law. It’s using the Chief Rabbi’s definition of one sect of Judaism, freely choosing to ignore his acceptance of a number of other Jewish communities.
If the school says they’re following the rules set by Lord Sacks, then they need to follow everything he says, not pick and choose the parts of his authority that are convenient to their position.
It’s not that much different from a big hospital in the centre of London only choosing to treat white people because they define the NHS’ responsibility as “UK citizens only” and “the only demonstrably English people are white”. If that happened, no doubt the hospital would be shut down within a matter of days, if not hours.
Since JFS takes government money, they should be held to a higher standard. As it is, they aren’t even meeting the basic legal requirements to fit through the rather large loophole the UK has given them.