RSS Feed
London - Jewish School Racial Discrimination Case Goes to Supreme Court |
|
| |
News Source: guardian
Text Size
|
|
London - Jewish Free School will argue it is reasonable to give priority to children of Jewish faith when places are limited.
Britain's most successful Jewish school will tomorrow tell the supreme court it is not guilty of racial discrimination.
A court of appeal said earlier this year that the admissions criteria for the Jewish Free School (JFS), in north-west London, was unlawful because it prioritised applications from children with Jewish mothers.
The landmark legal decision, that this amounted to racial discrimination, has divided communities, pitted religious leaders against one another and forced schools to introduce religious practice tests.
During the next three days the JFS will argue that, in the event of oversubscription and a limited number of places, it is reasonable to give priority to children of the Jewish faith.
Rabbi Danny Rich, head of Liberal Judaism, said his organisation was the only one to have welcomed the July ruling even though it had reservations about the state defining who was Jewish.
"Throughout these proceedings Liberal Judaism has continued to advocate its position of Jewishness by identity, and has strongly opposed the politically motivated criteria of admission to the Jewish Free School."
Tomorrow's supreme court appearance is the result of a case brought on behalf of a boy, known as M, who was refused admission to the JFS because his mother converted to Judaism in a procedure not recognised by the office of the chief rabbi.
It eventually led to the introduction of a points system in schools such as the JFS.
Since 1 September, attending synagogue twice a month in addition to festivals earns a child three points. Formal Jewish education – in a synagogue or with a tutor – is worth one point. Voluntary work in a charity or welfare organisation is worth one point.
Autumn is one of the busiest periods in the Jewish calendar, with three high holy days, and synagogues have seen a spike in attendance as parents rush to earn their points before the admission deadline expires.
The religious practice certificate warns that in the event that "it is discovered that a parent has submitted information above which is later found to be incorrect, this may result in the refusal of the school to offer a place to the child. If a place has already been offered on the basis of incorrect information, the school may withdraw the offer."
Tony Bayfield, head of the Jewish Reform movement, said the chief rabbi's stance on who was Jewish denied the authority of rabbis outside the Modern Orthodox and the status of their converts.
Bayfield said: "Though I cannot possibly condone the discrimination which inflicts unimaginable pain on people who know they are Jewish but are told they are not – discrimination which, ultimately, denies my rabbinic authority – I still find the JFS case an unwelcome distraction.
"The real issue is how we develop faith schools in this country."
More of today's headlines
“New York - Andrew Cuomo has secretly notified Rudy Giuliani that he will run for governor next year, The Post has learned. The confidential message, conveyed through...”
New York - Report: Cuomo Tells Giuliani He'll Run for Governor
Bennington, VT - Prominent NY Orthodox Doctor Killed In Small Plane Crash [video]
Total19
Read Comments (19) — Post Yours »
1
Oct 26, 2009 at 02:33 PM Authentic Londoner Says:
It may well be reasonable to prioritize children who are halachically Jewish to a Jewish School. It is however clearly in breach of the Race Relations Act 1965 and is obviously unlawful. The school has no chance of success.
2
Oct 26, 2009 at 01:59 PM Anonymous Says:
"Throughout these proceedings Liberal Judaism has continued to advocate its position of Jewishness by identity, and has strongly opposed the politically motivated criteria of admission to the Jewish Free School."
Really? Isnt it obvious that this "convert" is upset because Orthodoxy does NOT consider her Jewish by Torah standards? If she wants her son to go to an Orthodox school then she would convert according to halacha. Instead she wants to tear down the fence our sages put around the Torah. This is an obvious attack on Klal Yisroel by Amalek! The Vilna Goan taught that Amalek will seek to attach itself to us before messiach.
3
Oct 26, 2009 at 03:49 PM Anonymous Says:
This isn't about Halacha. Especially since the school is funded by UK taxpayers, its entirely reasonable for the state to interpret the race discrimination act as requiring a non-discriminatory admissions policy in terms of which conversions are or aren't acceptable -- especially given the arbitrary and capricious nature in its conversion rulings of the London Bet Din. (Remember, these are dayonim that while they are supposed to rule for the modern orthodox denomination that pays their salaries, they actually promote an extreme right-wing agenda that routinely rejects even Israeli Charedi conversions!).
4
Oct 26, 2009 at 03:22 PM arguement Says:
Hmmmm... I think the arguement I would make on behalf of the school would be based on the fact that Orthodox Judaism is NOT the same religion as liberal Judaism ( ie:reform ) If a private catholic school doesnt have to legally allow a non catholic then why should we have to allow someone who isnt Orthodox Jewish?
5
Oct 26, 2009 at 03:21 PM Groningen Says:
JEWISH Free School, where does it say "Orthodox", #2?
Faith seems a legal reason to discriminate, halachic status of the mother not. Quite simple. I lke the idea of the points system.
6
Oct 26, 2009 at 04:15 PM Authentic Londoner Says:
The former admission criteria that the JFS used was whether the child was halachically Jewish. It did not matter whether or not the parents were completely unobservant because these children are still entitled to chinuch in the hope that they will become observant. The JFS welcomed the children of reform parents if they were halachically Jewish. This policy though admirable in Jewish eyes was considered in breach of the Race Relations Act 1965 since a criteria based on descent alone is clearly racist. The court held that religious practice rather than mere descent must be the criteria. This contradicts the schools policy (which is supported by halacah) that the mere fact that a child is a halachically Jewish means we must be mekariv him even if he is unobservant
7
Oct 26, 2009 at 05:56 PM londoner Says:
The results here is very interesting for me to follow as i'm personally aquainted with someone who i work with and she sends her child to this school, however she is jewish but does not keep shabbos nor kosher. suprised they admitted her child to JFS.
8
Oct 26, 2009 at 05:20 PM Loshon Hora Says:
Having lived in London,I knew JFS as the most unorthodox yet Jewish school few if any getting on the bus at Camden Town would cover their heads, most would sit next to a girl freind. That said: yet most would ended up marrying schoolmates and the school gets koodos for preventing assimilation.
I am not sure where it stands today.
However it always required students to have an authentic Jewish mother, it did not require shmiras Shabboss torah etc. I think they did daven in school & mincha was in classrooms with an intercom system, I guees there was a minyan somewhere & the others im hatzibur, again all that is just loshon hora, I was never inside to know.
It was set up and run by Jews belonging to the United Synagogue which is affilaited & has always been observant.{Although many members all Jewish may not be so observant themselves}
Liberal Jews are in many cases not Jews it is similar to Reform, overt here knowen as liberal & progressive,They do have some type of prayer halls, but few if any schools some Suinday schools maybe.
If they are so adament about getting into Jewish schools have they ever thought of making their own?
9
Oct 26, 2009 at 08:56 PM Toras Moshe Emess Says:
“ JEWISH Free School, where does it say "Orthodox", #2?
Faith seems a legal reason to discriminate, halachic status of the mother not. Quite simple. I lke the idea of the points system.
”
You miss the entire point. As the former policy stood, ANY Jew, regardless of level of observance, could be admitted to the school. A goy, no matter how strongly they "believe," "feel" or "identify" as Jewish, is still a goy. The goyim understand religion as something you personally "feel" or "identify" with; or as you put it, "faith." We have a different set of criteria: a Jew is a Jew, regardless of whether or not he/she bellieves in the religion. The question is who gets to say who is a Jew: the goyim or Jews. I find it quite disturbing that you seem to think the goyishe understanding is preferable. I hope I misunderstand you. Otherwise you would have to concede that a large part of the Jewish population of Israel isn't REALLY Jewish given that the so called "chilunim" do not "believe" in Judaism.
10
Oct 26, 2009 at 07:49 PM Milhouse Says:
“ This isn't about Halacha. Especially since the school is funded by UK taxpayers, its entirely reasonable for the state to interpret the race discrimination act as requiring a non-discriminatory admissions policy in terms of which conversions are or aren't acceptable -- especially given the arbitrary and capricious nature in its conversion rulings of the London Bet Din. (Remember, these are dayonim that while they are supposed to rule for the modern orthodox denomination that pays their salaries, they actually promote an extreme right-wing agenda that routinely rejects even Israeli Charedi conversions!).
”
Garbage. It's got nothing to do with taxpayer funding. The Racial Discrimination act applies to everybody, regardless of whether they get money from the government. And no, it is NOT reasonable for the government to demand that a Jewish school admit children who are NOT JEWISH. It is outrageous for a court to decide for itself that a sheigetz is Jewish, and impose that opinion on the Jews. The court's decision is a chilul Hashem and it must not stand.
11
Oct 26, 2009 at 07:51 PM Milhouse Says:
“ It may well be reasonable to prioritize children who are halachically Jewish to a Jewish School. It is however clearly in breach of the Race Relations Act 1965 and is obviously unlawful. The school has no chance of success. ”
It is nothing of the sort. The Act explicitly permits religious schools to discriminate by religion; the problem is that the court decided to throw out the halacha that Jewish status is inherited from the mother. The court decided that this sheigetzl is Jewish even though his mother is not, and therefore that the school has to admit him.
12
Oct 26, 2009 at 07:55 PM Milhouse Says:
“ JEWISH Free School, where does it say "Orthodox", #2?
Faith seems a legal reason to discriminate, halachic status of the mother not. Quite simple. I lke the idea of the points system.
”
Why should it say "Orthodox"? It says "Jewish". The deviant sects identify themselves by labels; plain vanilla Judaism has no need to do so. Just as UK stamps do not identify the country of issue, because the UK invented stamps, so orthodox Judaism doesn't need any qualifiers. JFS sticks to the original brand of Judaism, with no qualifiers.
13
Oct 26, 2009 at 10:19 PM Anonymous Says:
I think its not so clear this geyrusjust not up to par for that beis din. was unhalachich to begin with, or everyone is being a little quick to judge that aspect of the issue, maybe dont call a young child a goy and a sheygets if you dont know the particulars of the case
14
Oct 27, 2009 at 04:17 PM Groningen Says:
“ You miss the entire point. As the former policy stood, ANY Jew, regardless of level of observance, could be admitted to the school. A goy, no matter how strongly they "believe," "feel" or "identify" as Jewish, is still a goy. The goyim understand religion as something you personally "feel" or "identify" with; or as you put it, "faith." We have a different set of criteria: a Jew is a Jew, regardless of whether or not he/she bellieves in the religion. The question is who gets to say who is a Jew: the goyim or Jews. I find it quite disturbing that you seem to think the goyishe understanding is preferable. I hope I misunderstand you. Otherwise you would have to concede that a large part of the Jewish population of Israel isn't REALLY Jewish given that the so called "chilunim" do not "believe" in Judaism. ”
The question is not who gets to say who is a Jew. The question is not who is a Jew.
Interesting questions, we do not seem to disagree about much, by the way. What we do disagree about is the question.
The question is in my opinion: Who is entitled to a (partially) tax-funded Jewish education. As England (or the UK) is paying, and it is happening there, I see no reason why their their laws should not rule supreme. Not because they would be superior or preferable, or more sensible (don't let me laugh), but because they are the laws of the nation.
"Faith seems a legal reason to discriminate, halachic status of the mother not.", was a description of my understanding of relevant English law, not of my preferences. And though I like the idea of a points system to work around the issue, the actual ones thought up seem to be disasters...
15
Oct 27, 2009 at 07:52 PM Milhouse Says:
“ The question is not who gets to say who is a Jew. The question is not who is a Jew.
Interesting questions, we do not seem to disagree about much, by the way. What we do disagree about is the question.
The question is in my opinion: Who is entitled to a (partially) tax-funded Jewish education. As England (or the UK) is paying, and it is happening there, I see no reason why their their laws should not rule supreme. Not because they would be superior or preferable, or more sensible (don't let me laugh), but because they are the laws of the nation.
"Faith seems a legal reason to discriminate, halachic status of the mother not.", was a description of my understanding of relevant English law, not of my preferences. And though I like the idea of a points system to work around the issue, the actual ones thought up seem to be disasters...
”
Stop pretending that this has something to do with who funds the school. The case would play out exactly the same way no matter where the funds came from.
16
Oct 27, 2009 at 07:51 PM Milhouse Says:
“ I think its not so clear this geyrusjust not up to par for that beis din. was unhalachich to begin with, or everyone is being a little quick to judge that aspect of the issue, maybe dont call a young child a goy and a sheygets if you dont know the particulars of the case ”
It is very clear. THERE WAS NO GERUS. This is a case of a complete shiktzeh who married a Jew, does not keep any mitzvos, but insists on sending her little sheigetzl to a Jewish school. It's not a matter of this beis din or that one; there is no competent beis din in the world who would call the sheigetz a Jew.
17
Oct 27, 2009 at 08:26 PM Anonymous Says:
There actually was a geirus, but not one acceptable, rightly so, by the OCR.
18
Oct 28, 2009 at 03:47 AM Groningen Says:
“ Stop pretending that this has something to do with who funds the school. The case would play out exactly the same way no matter where the funds came from. ”
That is true, the case would play out that way, but the important fact I try to show is that the JFS is an English school, part of the English education system, getting benefits from that and as such it is unfair and dishonest to desire that it would not have to observe the laws of the country. Of course, it is quite interesting to test in court what the laws of the country actually are.
19
Oct 28, 2009 at 12:38 PM Milhouse Says:
“ That is true, the case would play out that way, but the important fact I try to show is that the JFS is an English school, part of the English education system, getting benefits from that and as such it is unfair and dishonest to desire that it would not have to observe the laws of the country. Of course, it is quite interesting to test in court what the laws of the country actually are. ”
The only important fact is that Hashem made a law, and the English court says that law is racist and illegal. The ruling applies to all schools, even if they were to turn down all government funding. This is an insupportable situation, a complete chilul hashem, and it must be resisted. Therefore your raising the funding issue is dishonest.