RSS Feed
London - Who is a Jew? And who gets to decide? Court Ruling Raises Question |
|
| |
Text Size
|
David Lightman with his daughter, who was denied admission to the Jews Free School because her mothers conversion was not recognized. But a court ruling has voided the admissions policy.
Who is a Jew? And who gets to decide?
On the surface, the court was considering a straightforward challenge to the admissions policy of a Jewish high school in London. But the case, in which arguments concluded Oct. 30, has potential repercussions for thousands of other parochial schools across Britain. And in addressing issues at the heart of Jewish identity, it has exposed bitter divisions in Britain's community of 300,000 or so Jews, pitting members of various Jewish denominations against one another.
"This is potentially the biggest case in the British Jewish community's modern history," said Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle newspaper here. "It speaks directly to the right of the state to intervene in how a religion operates."
The case began when a 12-year-old boy, an observant Jew whose father is Jewish and whose mother is a Jewish convert, applied to the school, JFS. Founded in 1732 as the Jews' Free School, it is a centerpiece of North London's Jewish community. It has around 1,900 students, but it gets far more applicants than it accepts.
Britain has nearly 7,000 publicly financed religious schools, representing Judaism as well as the Church of England, Catholicism and Islam, among others. Under a 2006 law, the schools can in busy years give preference to applicants within their own faiths, using criteria laid down by a designated religious authority.
By many standards, the JFS applicant, identified in court papers as "M," is Jewish. But not in the eyes of the school, which defines Judaism under the Orthodox definition set out by Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. Because M's mother converted in a progressive, not an Orthodox, synagogue, the school said, she was not a Jew - nor was her son. It turned down his application.
That would have been the end of it. But M's family sued, saying that the school had discriminated against him. They lost, but the ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal this summer.
In an explosive decision, the court concluded that basing school admissions on a classic test of Judaism - whether one's mother is Jewish - was by definition discriminatory. Whether the rationale was "benign or malignant, theological or supremacist," the court wrote, "makes it no less and no more unlawful."
The case rested on whether the school's test of Jewishness was based on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it concerned the status of M's mother rather than whether M considered himself Jewish and practiced Judaism.
"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 school appealed to the Supreme Court, which is likely to rule sometime before the end of the year.
The case's importance was driven home by the sheer number of lawyers in the courtroom last week, representing not just M's family and the school, but also the British government, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the United Synagogue, the British Humanist Association and the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal ruling threw the school into a panicked scramble to put together a new admissions policy. It introduced a "religious practice test," in which prospective students amass points for things like going to synagogue and doing charitable work.
That has led to all sorts of awkward practical issues, said Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, because Orthodox Judaism forbids writing or using a computer on the Sabbath.
That means that children who go to synagogue can't "sign in," but have to use methods like dropping prewritten postcards into boxes.
It is unclear what effect the ruling, if it is upheld, will have on other religious schools. Some Catholic schools, accustomed to using baptism as a baseline admissions criterion, are worried that they will have to adopt similar practice tests.
The case has stirred up long-simmering resentments among the leaders of different Jewish denominations, who, for starters, disagree vehemently on the definition of Jewishness. They also disagree on the issue of whether an Orthodox leader is entitled to speak for the entire community.
"Whatever happens in this case, there must be some resolution sorted out between different denominations," Mr. Benjamin said in an interview. "That the community has failed to grasp this has had the very unfortunate result of having a judgment foisted on it by a civil court."
Orthodox Jews, of course, sympathize with the school, saying that observance is no test of Jewishness, and that all that matters is whether one's mother is Jewish. So little does observance matter, in fact, that "having a ham sandwich on the afternoon of Yom Kippur doesn't make you less Jewish," Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet, chairman of the Rabbinical Council of the United Synagogue, said recently.
Lauren Lesin-Davis, chairman of the board of governors at King David, a Jewish school in Liverpool, told the BBC that the ruling violated more than 5,000 years of Jewish tradition.
"You cannot come in and start telling people how their whole lives should change, that the whole essence of their life and their religion is completely wrong," she said.
But others are in complete sympathy with M. "How dare they question our beliefs and our Jewishness?" David Lightman, an observant Jewish father whose daughter was also denied a place at the school because it did not recognize her mother's conversion, told reporters recently. "I find it offensive and very upsetting."
Rabbi Danny Rich, chief executive of Liberal Judaism here, said the lower court's ruling, if upheld, would help make Judaism more inclusive.
"JFS is a state-funded school where my grandfather taught, and it's selecting applicants on the basis of religious politics," he said in an interview. "The Orthodox definition of Jewish excludes 40 percent of the Jewish community in this country."
More of today's headlines
“Ashkelon, Israel - Two youths were caught breaking into an Ashkelon synagogue, vandalizing and desecrating it, and preparing to steal money from the donation boxes and...” Ashkelon, Israel - Synagogue Vandals Caught Red Handed
Tzfas, Israel - Under Strict Censorship of a Rabbinical Board Kosher Comics Have Sharply Risen
Total31
Read Comments (31) — Post Yours »
1
Nov 08, 2009 at 09:15 AM Anonymous Says:
Orthodox is the key word here, this school represents Orthodox Judaism
2
Nov 08, 2009 at 09:23 AM Yonason Herschlag Says:
I suggest; go with the flow. If the courts say that schools subsidized by the State have to go by the rules of admission based on practice of religion and not race, then define the school's criteria of religious practice based on religios practices that you are certain these families do not adhere to. Obviously the family doesn't observe family ritual purity, nor do they observe the laws of Shabbas and Yom Tov, and surely the practice of donning tefilin is not observed in such a home.
You can even let the courts call him an observant "Jew" (in their language); who cares? So long as he's not practicing the strain of Judaism to which the school adheres to, he is not admissable.
3
Nov 08, 2009 at 09:39 AM Anonymous Says:
“ I suggest; go with the flow. If the courts say that schools subsidized by the State have to go by the rules of admission based on practice of religion and not race, then define the school's criteria of religious practice based on religios practices that you are certain these families do not adhere to. Obviously the family doesn't observe family ritual purity, nor do they observe the laws of Shabbas and Yom Tov, and surely the practice of donning tefilin is not observed in such a home.
You can even let the courts call him an observant "Jew" (in their language); who cares? So long as he's not practicing the strain of Judaism to which the school adheres to, he is not admissable. ”
That probably won't work. The issue is the child's observance. Not the parent's.
4
Nov 08, 2009 at 09:28 AM michal Says:
Liberal Jews are our worst enemies.
5
Nov 08, 2009 at 09:28 AM UK expat Says:
Why is it Jonathan Sacks but "Rabbi" Danny Rich?
6
Nov 08, 2009 at 10:44 AM Babishka Says:
Why don't Reform Jews open their own schools, then they can admit whomever they want according to their own criteria?
7
Nov 08, 2009 at 10:28 AM Anonymous Says:
the problem here is not if he is jewish but is he jewish enough for the jews of the school. if one is jewish, has a bris, girl - mother is jewish she is. so its not a question about jewishness, its about frumness. just as I would not go to cheftiz chaim, or chaim berlin. he should find a school that is on is frumness level.
8
Nov 08, 2009 at 10:22 AM Zach Kessin Says:
“ Why is it Jonathan Sacks but "Rabbi" Danny Rich? ”
Your right, it should be Lord Sacks ;) though I'm sure he would be fine with Rabbi Sacks
9
Nov 08, 2009 at 11:12 AM Anonymous Says:
if someone tried to go to law school without the school's requirements, they would be denied entry. This student did not have the school's requirements.
10
Nov 08, 2009 at 11:58 AM Anonymous Says:
There is only one Judaism and that is the Orthodox version which is the only version, as is interpreted by Halacha. That's all that matters! It doesn't matter how these people or anyone wants to interpret 'who is a Jew'! Jewish law is Divine law and no-one has the right to tamper with it. Read about this case before and it shows you how England has gone down that slippery slope and the Jews there must be very wary. They have stepped into the freedom of religion aspect and that is always dangerous. It also shows you how, if they say there is 40% who call themselves Jews, but really wouldn't be counted as real Jews, how far everything has gone down! Today, one needs a yichus brief to show one's geneology! But the problem here is really how England views it and that should be none of their business, as they putting their nose, so to speak, into religious affairs. True, Chief Rabbi Sachs should intervene in this case.
11
Nov 08, 2009 at 12:27 PM Anonymous Says:
“ There is only one Judaism and that is the Orthodox version which is the only version, as is interpreted by Halacha. That's all that matters! It doesn't matter how these people or anyone wants to interpret 'who is a Jew'! Jewish law is Divine law and no-one has the right to tamper with it. Read about this case before and it shows you how England has gone down that slippery slope and the Jews there must be very wary. They have stepped into the freedom of religion aspect and that is always dangerous. It also shows you how, if they say there is 40% who call themselves Jews, but really wouldn't be counted as real Jews, how far everything has gone down! Today, one needs a yichus brief to show one's geneology! But the problem here is really how England views it and that should be none of their business, as they putting their nose, so to speak, into religious affairs. True, Chief Rabbi Sachs should intervene in this case. ”
You have a very narrow minded and unrealistic view. Wake up and smell the coffee.
12
Nov 08, 2009 at 12:17 PM Anonymous Says:
This problem is due to the fact that the school is funded by the government and therefore must accept any student that claims to be Jewish and not just by orthodox. standards. If they would pay for their own schools this problem wouldn't exist.
13
Nov 08, 2009 at 01:13 PM Listen Carefully USA! Says:
This is a perfect example of what happens when we all think that the Government has all the answers to our problems and that taking money from the Gov. will solve all our problems!
First, The Government is a "helping hand" to the less fortunate....
then it's "heavy hand!"
In England they took money to fund Jewish schools...Now government gets to define Jewish Schools..
Same thing is going to happen in USA with Heath care....
First the Government will pay for health care then they'll get to define what is AND WHO GETS health care!!!
OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!
14
Nov 08, 2009 at 12:59 PM Anonymous Says:
The Supreme Court's decision (and the thought process of how they arrived at that decision) is flawed. If the JFS were a secular Jewish school, then they're right. But it is a practicing Religious Jewish school. Then they must adhere to all the criteria of that particular religion. What the mother (in this particular case) considers herself to be is irrelevant. Were I to consider myself a Hindu, it would not make me one, at all!
15
Nov 08, 2009 at 12:54 PM Authentic Londoner Says:
The legal position of Jews in the modern state can be summed up by speech made in 18th century revolutionary France
"But, they say to me, the Jews have their own judges and laws. I respond that is your fault and you should not allow it. We must refuse everything to the Jews as a nation and accord everything to Jews as individuals. We must withdraw recognition from their judges; they should only have our judges. We must refuse legal protection to the maintenance of the so-called laws of their Judaic organization; they should not be allowed to form in the state either a political body or an order. They must be citizens individually. But, some will say to me, they do not want to be citizens. Well then! If they do not want to be citizens, they should say so, and then, we should banish them. It is repugnant to have in the state an association of non-citizens, and a nation within the nation. . . . In short, Sirs, the presumed status of every man resident in a country is to be a citizen"
Maintaining Jewish identity may be a matter of great importance to Jews but the British state must not do anything to help them do so and must act to stop that.
16
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:13 PM Anonymous Says:
“ if someone tried to go to law school without the school's requirements, they would be denied entry. This student did not have the school's requirements. ”
tThis is a bad example. No law school (much less one with government funding) would be allowed to use anything about the student's lineage as a criteria for exclusion.
17
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:32 PM MDshweks Says:
It should be known that Orthodoxy is a religion in itself, reform happened to start their own religion and they highjacked the name 'Judaism'.
Isn't that simple and true?
18
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:33 PM Anonymous Says:
“ This is a perfect example of what happens when we all think that the Government has all the answers to our problems and that taking money from the Gov. will solve all our problems!
First, The Government is a "helping hand" to the less fortunate....
then it's "heavy hand!"
In England they took money to fund Jewish schools...Now government gets to define Jewish Schools..
Same thing is going to happen in USA with Heath care....
First the Government will pay for health care then they'll get to define what is AND WHO GETS health care!!!
OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!
”
Thank you and God bless you and your all American family!
19
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:25 PM Anonymous Says:
“ The legal position of Jews in the modern state can be summed up by speech made in 18th century revolutionary France
"But, they say to me, the Jews have their own judges and laws. I respond that is your fault and you should not allow it. We must refuse everything to the Jews as a nation and accord everything to Jews as individuals. We must withdraw recognition from their judges; they should only have our judges. We must refuse legal protection to the maintenance of the so-called laws of their Judaic organization; they should not be allowed to form in the state either a political body or an order. They must be citizens individually. But, some will say to me, they do not want to be citizens. Well then! If they do not want to be citizens, they should say so, and then, we should banish them. It is repugnant to have in the state an association of non-citizens, and a nation within the nation. . . . In short, Sirs, the presumed status of every man resident in a country is to be a citizen"
Maintaining Jewish identity may be a matter of great importance to Jews but the British state must not do anything to help them do so and must act to stop that. ”
This statement you concocted was never recorded in French history and was made up by you to press some idiotic point of view.
20
Nov 08, 2009 at 03:31 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Why don't Reform Jews open their own schools, then they can admit whomever they want according to their own criteria? ”
They have - it's called Rosh Pina, and David Lightman has cousins who attend there, although with a far less questionable conversion problem than his
21
Nov 08, 2009 at 03:55 PM Anonymous Says:
“ You have a very narrow minded and unrealistic view. Wake up and smell the coffee. ”
You are right. There is no such thing as an Orthodox Jew. That is a title given to observant Jews (shomer Shabbos and the like) by non observant Jews.
There is however One G-d, One Torah and One Jewish nation. Our Torah is G-d's Divine Will. These are G-d's wants. His wants existed before our wants.
His wants are the only ones that count.
22
Nov 08, 2009 at 05:32 PM dov Says:
there is a yeshiva high school here in seattle that gets around this. they say that to get in, you dont have to be jewish but need to be converting, but by the time you graduate, you have to have converted. its also absurd that a frum school has to accept this goy. if your mother isnt jewish then news flash, you arent either. that includes bogus conversions by anyone who isnt orthodox
23
Nov 08, 2009 at 05:41 PM Authentic Londoner Says:
“ This statement you concocted was never recorded in French history and was made up by you to press some idiotic point of view. ”
That statement was made in the famous speech of Clermont-Tonnerre before the National Assembly in 1789. It is amazing that you have never heard of it.
24
Nov 08, 2009 at 05:35 PM Anonymous Says:
“ It should be known that Orthodoxy is a religion in itself, reform happened to start their own religion and they highjacked the name 'Judaism'.
Isn't that simple and true? ”
yes, it is true
25
Nov 08, 2009 at 08:31 PM Anonymous Says:
What it really shows you is that by receiving the government funds, they think they have a right to interpret Jewish law! Why are the Jewish schools being funded by the government? These should be private institutions.
26
Nov 08, 2009 at 11:31 PM Anonymous Says:
they are interpreting faith with a christian point of view, exactly that "faith" however in judaism faith is not enough, bloodlines are as important
27
Nov 09, 2009 at 12:08 PM anon Says:
Everybody wants all the public benefit but want to live in their own tent and commune absolutely sad and shocking.
28
Nov 10, 2009 at 07:46 PM Anonymous Says:
“ What it really shows you is that by receiving the government funds, they think they have a right to interpret Jewish law! Why are the Jewish schools being funded by the government? These should be private institutions. ”
because they pay, plenty taxes so some benefits should be funneled back
29
Nov 11, 2009 at 02:52 AM Milhouse Says:
“ there is a yeshiva high school here in seattle that gets around this. they say that to get in, you dont have to be jewish but need to be converting, but by the time you graduate, you have to have converted. its also absurd that a frum school has to accept this goy. if your mother isnt jewish then news flash, you arent either. that includes bogus conversions by anyone who isnt orthodox ”
The problem isn't that the school is being forced to take in goyim. That wouldn't be such a problem; there's no issur in doing so, and it's not as if there's a huge flood of goyim waiting to get in. But the court here has declared that this child is Jewish, and that the law MADE BY HASHEM that to be Jewish one needs a Jewish mother or a conversion is racist and illegal. Hashem says one thing, but the British court says another. That is a chilul Hashem that can't be allowed to stand.
30
Nov 11, 2009 at 02:48 AM Milhouse Says:
“ The legal position of Jews in the modern state can be summed up by speech made in 18th century revolutionary France
"But, they say to me, the Jews have their own judges and laws. I respond that is your fault and you should not allow it. We must refuse everything to the Jews as a nation and accord everything to Jews as individuals. We must withdraw recognition from their judges; they should only have our judges. We must refuse legal protection to the maintenance of the so-called laws of their Judaic organization; they should not be allowed to form in the state either a political body or an order. They must be citizens individually. But, some will say to me, they do not want to be citizens. Well then! If they do not want to be citizens, they should say so, and then, we should banish them. It is repugnant to have in the state an association of non-citizens, and a nation within the nation. . . . In short, Sirs, the presumed status of every man resident in a country is to be a citizen"
Maintaining Jewish identity may be a matter of great importance to Jews but the British state must not do anything to help them do so and must act to stop that. ”
Why? Because the rosho Napoleon said so? You forget that the UK fought a long and bitter war against him!
31
Nov 11, 2009 at 02:46 AM Milhouse Says:
“ This is a perfect example of what happens when we all think that the Government has all the answers to our problems and that taking money from the Gov. will solve all our problems!
First, The Government is a "helping hand" to the less fortunate....
then it's "heavy hand!"
In England they took money to fund Jewish schools...Now government gets to define Jewish Schools..
Same thing is going to happen in USA with Heath care....
First the Government will pay for health care then they'll get to define what is AND WHO GETS health care!!!
OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!
”
Where are you people getting this idea that this has anything to do with government funding?