British Court To Define Jewishness

[Malthus]

This sort of discrimination of course exists, but it is considered very "non Jewish" and extremely rude.

In fact, in Judaism it is considered extremely rude to comment on the fact someone is a convert.

One of my partners and her child from a previous marriage converted when she married a Jewish fellow.  She says she used to run into this all the time although it got better as the years passed.

There are lots of rude people out there. Upper middle class Jews in particular. I used to sell to this crowd when I was working in my mom's studeo, and of course my mom's relations mostly are - enough to make *me* anti-semitic. 

The cause is of course that Judaism is an "ethnic" or tribal identity. The theory is that a "convert" is adopted into the tribe, and is as good a Jew as anyone whose family has been part of the tribe since time out of mind. The *reality* is that those whose families have "always" been Jewish have, to the extent they are assholes, a tendancy to look down on newcomers. Thus, in Judaism the official tribal (rabbinical) law is that thou shalt not act like an entitled asshole in your relations with converts. 

The reason is often based on the Biblical admonition to treat strangers kindly, since Jews were themselves strangers in the land of Egypt. Here's a rabbi's explaination of this:

http://www.rabbihorowitz.com/PYes/ArticleDetails.cfm?Book_ID=636&ThisGroup_ID=292&Type=Article

[The Minsky Moment]

However, what I do not understand is where this leads, logically.

Where it leads to is the Court's adoption of a Christian definition of religion: "This does not mean, as Lord Pannick suggested it would mean, that no Jewish faith school can ever give preference to Jewish children. It means that, as one would expect, eligibility must depend on faith, however defined . . ."

That is the ultimate irony here and why this ruling is likely to infuriate many British Jews.  In the name of the abstract principle of non-discrimination , the Court has adopted a definition of religious affiliation peculiar to one particular religion (which coincidentially happens to be the majority religion) and forced it upon a minority religion.

[Gups]

Hi all, long time no see etc.

The Court of Appeal judgement is here in case anyone is interested. It might be noted that the respondents to the appeal were rather humstrung by the need to maintain that Jews are an ethnic or racial group so as to retain the protection for them of the Race Relations Act:

It is here, as it seems to us, that the respondents' argument encounters a major problem. One of the great evils against which the successive Race Relations Acts have been directed is the evil of anti-Semitism. None of the parties to these proceedings wants or can afford to put up a case which would result in discrimination against Jews not being discrimination on racial grounds. There would have to be something wrong with such an argument. So Lord Pannick accepts, indeed insists, not only that Jews are an ethnic or racial group and not simply a theological construct, but that for all purposes except those of the OCR and the school, M is a Jew. This is not an easy position to maintain, but its corollary, if it can be maintained, is that what excludes M is not his race or ethnicity but his eligibility to be regarded in Orthodox eyes as a Jew, a matter of pure theology.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/626.html

As several of you have noted, the problem stems from the fact that almost all religious schools are state funded. It's a historical issue since many schools were formed by churches. Unfortunately nobody is suggesting that the church's role in education ceases, probably on pragmatic grounds. While the schools are state funded, the churches own the land and buildings. So we're stuck with the fact that parents in a very secular country who's only good local school is run by a church have to go through the charade of going to church for years to get their kids into a school for which they are paying taxes.

Seems to me the Court found itself on the horns of a dilemma.

1. It accepted that there were two ways of being Jewish: (1) by birth; and (2) by conversion.

2. It decided that the school including someone as Jewish "by birth" (or excludiong someone because they are not) was prohibited "racial discrimination".

3. Thus the school could not exclude this person on that basis.

4. However, the school *can* discriminate on the basis of "religion". 

However, what I do not understand is where this leads, logically. The Court did not declare this kid to be a Jew. It merely states that the school cannot use the "by birth" criteria. The kid is not (Orthodox) Jew by conversion . Thus he's not Jewish at all, in terms of the school's "excess enrollment" criteria.

Without more being said, the effect of this ruling isn't to admit this kid, it is to in effect un-admit all the other kids who are Jewish "by birth" and have been admitted under the excess enrollment criteria. They will presumably all have to leave or get converted.

That's not at all my reading of the decision.  The school said the kid was Jewish by every criteria except their own. Both the school and the Government (which was supporting the school) said that the admission criteria was linked to ethnicity (see paras 42-45). It's hard to see how the Court could have come to any conclusion other than it did given the legislation and the position of school and Government. I'm a little surprised they got leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Where does this leave the school and its admissions policy? Well there decision not to admit this child is quashed and has to be reconsidered. Obviously it has no effect on those already at the school. The decisions to let them join is not being challenged.

It's admissions policy must be redrawn so that it is based on whether the parents practice their religion rather than whether their  mother is Jewish by race or not.  The present policy admits the children of a Jewish mother who is atheist but not those of a Jewish father who is observant or of a mother who has converted to the wrong sect.  The Christian schools manage this, I don't see why the Jewish ones cannot.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's admissions policy must be redrawn so that it is based on whether the parents practice their religion rather than whether their  mother is Jewish by race or not.  The present policy admits the children of a Jewish mother who is atheist but not those of a Jewish father who is observant or of a mother who has converted to the wrong sect.  The Christian schools manage this, I don't see why the Jewish ones cannot.

Because they are not Christian schools.  They are Jewish ones.

[Malthus]

However, what I do not understand is where this leads, logically.

Where it leads to is the Court's adoption of a Christian definition of religion: "This does not mean, as Lord Pannick suggested it would mean, that no Jewish faith school can ever give preference to Jewish children. It means that, as one would expect, eligibility must depend on faith, however defined . . ."

That is the ultimate irony here and why this ruling is likely to infuriate many British Jews.  In the name of the abstract principle of non-discrimination , the Court has adopted a definition of religious affiliation peculiar to one particular religion (which coincidentially happens to be the majority religion) and forced it upon a minority religion.

Yup, that was pretty well my opinion from the start - the court's ham-fisted ruling results in pounding the round peg of Judaism into the square hole of the basically Christian definition of "faith".

[Gups]

However, what I do not understand is where this leads, logically.

Where it leads to is the Court's adoption of a Christian definition of religion: "This does not mean, as Lord Pannick suggested it would mean, that no Jewish faith school can ever give preference to Jewish children. It means that, as one would expect, eligibility must depend on faith, however defined . . ."

That is the ultimate irony here and why this ruling is likely to infuriate many British Jews.  In the name of the abstract principle of non-discrimination , the Court has adopted a definition of religious affiliation peculiar to one particular religion (which coincidentially happens to be the majority religion) and forced it upon a minority religion.

Because the defenders of this decision made it clear that that definition was based on race/ethnicity. British Jews can't have it both ways. They can't say that discrimination against Jews based on ethnicity is wrong but discrimination by Jews based on ethnicity is OK.

[The Minsky Moment]

The other demerit of this decision is that it completely whitewashes the decision of the British State to confide admissions authority in the Office of the Chief Rabbi, without taking into account the positions of the other Jewish sects.  This again is the result of a mentality of trying to fit a religion that has no central authority into the frameword of a majority religion that does have one.  By making that choice, the State effectively created this situation in the first place; because if non-orthodox conversions were accepted as genuine for admission purposes, this case never arises.

[Gups]

The other demerit of this decision is that it completely whitewashes the decision of the British State to confide admissions authority in the Office of the Chief Rabbi, without taking into account the positions of the other Jewish sects.  This again is the result of a mentality of trying to fit a religion that has no central authority into the frameword of a majority religion that does have one.  By making that choice, the State effectively created this situation in the first place; because if non-orthodox conversions were accepted as genuine for admission purposes, this case never arises.

Which decision of the state was this? It's not mentioned in the Court's decision.

[The Minsky Moment]

Because the defenders of this decision made it clear that that definition was based on race/ethnicity. British Jews can't have it both ways. They can't say that discrimination against Jews based on ethnicity is wrong but discrimination by Jews based on ethnicity is OK.

See my comment above.  The whole notion of discrimination by Jews based on ethnicity is an artifact of the State's own religious policy.

The entity that is trying to have it both ways here is the UK government.  The government does not seem to be able to bring itself to make a full break with the country's theocratic institutions, and instead has pursed a half-assed policy where the historical State-sponsored religious institutions maintain significant aspects of their historical character, with a bone thrown to other religions in the form of similar state aid.  But what purports to be equal treatment of the different religions by the State is not -- a religion is only entitled to autonomous employment of state aid if it acquiesces to the government's definition of itself, which just happens to be a definition drawn from the official state creed.

[The Minsky Moment]

Which decision of the state was this? It's not mentioned in the Court's decision.

The present policy is to give priority to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (the OCR) or are following a course of conversion approved by the OCR.

[Malthus]

Hi all, long time no see etc.

The Court of Appeal judgement is here in case anyone is interested. It might be noted that the respondents to the appeal were rather humstrung by the need to maintain that Jews are an ethnic or racial group so as to retain the protection for them of the Race Relations Act:

It is here, as it seems to us, that the respondents' argument encounters a major problem. One of the great evils against which the successive Race Relations Acts have been directed is the evil of anti-Semitism. None of the parties to these proceedings wants or can afford to put up a case which would result in discrimination against Jews not being discrimination on racial grounds. There would have to be something wrong with such an argument. So Lord Pannick accepts, indeed insists, not only that Jews are an ethnic or racial group and not simply a theological construct, but that for all purposes except those of the OCR and the school, M is a Jew. This is not an easy position to maintain, but its corollary, if it can be maintained, is that what excludes M is not his race or ethnicity but his eligibility to be regarded in Orthodox eyes as a Jew, a matter of pure theology.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/626.html

As several of you have noted, the problem stems from the fact that almost all religious schools are state funded. It's a historical issue since many schools were formed by churches. Unfortunately nobody is suggesting that the church's role in education ceases, probably on pragmatic grounds. While the schools are state funded, the churches own the land and buildings. So we're stuck with the fact that parents in a very secular country who's only good local school is run by a church have to go through the charade of going to church for years to get their kids into a school for which they are paying taxes.

Seems to me the Court found itself on the horns of a dilemma.

1. It accepted that there were two ways of being Jewish: (1) by birth; and (2) by conversion.

2. It decided that the school including someone as Jewish "by birth" (or excludiong someone because they are not) was prohibited "racial discrimination".

3. Thus the school could not exclude this person on that basis.

4. However, the school *can* discriminate on the basis of "religion". 

However, what I do not understand is where this leads, logically. The Court did not declare this kid to be a Jew. It merely states that the school cannot use the "by birth" criteria. The kid is not (Orthodox) Jew by conversion . Thus he's not Jewish at all, in terms of the school's "excess enrollment" criteria.

Without more being said, the effect of this ruling isn't to admit this kid, it is to in effect un-admit all the other kids who are Jewish "by birth" and have been admitted under the excess enrollment criteria. They will presumably all have to leave or get converted.

That's not at all my reading of the decision.  The school said the kid was Jewish by every criteria except their own. Both the school and the Government (which was supporting the school) said that the admission criteria was linked to ethnicity (see paras 42-45). It's hard to see how the Court could have come to any conclusion other than it did given the legislation and the position of school and Government. I'm a little surprised they got leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Where does this leave the school and its admissions policy? Well there decision not to admit this child is quashed and has to be reconsidered. Obviously it has no effect on those already at the school. The decisions to let them join is not being challenged.

It's admissions policy must be redrawn so that it is based on whether the parents practice their religion rather than whether their  mother is Jewish by race or not.  The present policy admits the children of a Jewish mother who is atheist but not those of a Jewish father who is observant or of a mother who has converted to the wrong sect.  The Christian schools manage this, I don't see why the Jewish ones cannot.

In Catholic schools, for example, a kid is "Christian" through the ritual of baptism. This apparently doesn't offend against the definition of "race", even though every Catholic kid gets baptised and has no choice in the matter. I do not know if someone can be "Catholic" if they have not had the sacrament of baptism but merely state that they "practice Catholicism".

In Judaism, a kid born to an athiest Jewish mom is Jewish (unless they convert to something else). The Court recognized this fact; it simply stated that the school cannot consider it for purposes of admission.

The Court said nothing about how the school *could* choose "who is a Jew" (presumably they recognized that they had created an impossible dilemma). A "faith test" in inimical to Judaism, which is not founded on faith alone (an atheist Jew is still a Jew).

[Gups]

Which decision of the state was this? It's not mentioned in the Court's decision.

The present policy is to give priority to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (the OCR) or are following a course of conversion approved by the OCR.

That's the policy of the school, not the Government.

[The Minsky Moment]

Which decision of the state was this? It's not mentioned in the Court's decision.

The present policy is to give priority to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (the OCR) or are following a course of conversion approved by the OCR.

That's the policy of the school, not the Government.

\

This is a state-funded school; that distinction is meaningness.  Note that the Respondents in his very case include not only the school itself and an affiliated synagogue, but also the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.  That is precisely the root problem here - state and religion have become hopelessly entangled.

[Gups]

Hi all, long time no see etc.

The Court of Appeal judgement is here in case anyone is interested. It might be noted that the respondents to the appeal were rather humstrung by the need to maintain that Jews are an ethnic or racial group so as to retain the protection for them of the Race Relations Act:

It is here, as it seems to us, that the respondents' argument encounters a major problem. One of the great evils against which the successive Race Relations Acts have been directed is the evil of anti-Semitism. None of the parties to these proceedings wants or can afford to put up a case which would result in discrimination against Jews not being discrimination on racial grounds. There would have to be something wrong with such an argument. So Lord Pannick accepts, indeed insists, not only that Jews are an ethnic or racial group and not simply a theological construct, but that for all purposes except those of the OCR and the school, M is a Jew. This is not an easy position to maintain, but its corollary, if it can be maintained, is that what excludes M is not his race or ethnicity but his eligibility to be regarded in Orthodox eyes as a Jew, a matter of pure theology.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/626.html

As several of you have noted, the problem stems from the fact that almost all religious schools are state funded. It's a historical issue since many schools were formed by churches. Unfortunately nobody is suggesting that the church's role in education ceases, probably on pragmatic grounds. While the schools are state funded, the churches own the land and buildings. So we're stuck with the fact that parents in a very secular country who's only good local school is run by a church have to go through the charade of going to church for years to get their kids into a school for which they are paying taxes.

Seems to me the Court found itself on the horns of a dilemma.

1. It accepted that there were two ways of being Jewish: (1) by birth; and (2) by conversion.

2. It decided that the school including someone as Jewish "by birth" (or excludiong someone because they are not) was prohibited "racial discrimination".

3. Thus the school could not exclude this person on that basis.

4. However, the school *can* discriminate on the basis of "religion". 

However, what I do not understand is where this leads, logically. The Court did not declare this kid to be a Jew. It merely states that the school cannot use the "by birth" criteria. The kid is not (Orthodox) Jew by conversion . Thus he's not Jewish at all, in terms of the school's "excess enrollment" criteria.

Without more being said, the effect of this ruling isn't to admit this kid, it is to in effect un-admit all the other kids who are Jewish "by birth" and have been admitted under the excess enrollment criteria. They will presumably all have to leave or get converted.

That's not at all my reading of the decision.  The school said the kid was Jewish by every criteria except their own. Both the school and the Government (which was supporting the school) said that the admission criteria was linked to ethnicity (see paras 42-45). It's hard to see how the Court could have come to any conclusion other than it did given the legislation and the position of school and Government. I'm a little surprised they got leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Where does this leave the school and its admissions policy? Well there decision not to admit this child is quashed and has to be reconsidered. Obviously it has no effect on those already at the school. The decisions to let them join is not being challenged.

It's admissions policy must be redrawn so that it is based on whether the parents practice their religion rather than whether their  mother is Jewish by race or not.  The present policy admits the children of a Jewish mother who is atheist but not those of a Jewish father who is observant or of a mother who has converted to the wrong sect.  The Christian schools manage this, I don't see why the Jewish ones cannot.

In Catholic schools, for example, a kid is "Christian" through the ritual of baptism. This apparently doesn't offend against the definition of "race", even though every Catholic kid gets baptised and has no choice in the matter. I do not know if someone can be "Catholic" if they have not had the sacrament of baptism but merely state that they "practice Catholicism".

In Judaism, a kid born to an athiest Jewish mom is Jewish (unless they convert to something else). The Court recognized this fact; it simply stated that the school cannot consider it for purposes of admission.

The Court said nothing about how the school *could* choose "who is a Jew" (presumably they recognized that they had created an impossible dilemma). A "faith test" in inimical to Judaism, which is not founded on faith alone (an atheist Jew is still a Jew).

You don't need to be baptised. Your parents need to show they are practicing

The Court's role is not to drat schools admissions policies. It is to deal with whether a particular admission policy is lawful under statute or not. The school will have to redraft it (if they don't win the appeal).

[Malthus]

Which decision of the state was this? It's not mentioned in the Court's decision.

The present policy is to give priority to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (the OCR) or are following a course of conversion approved by the OCR.

That's the policy of the school, not the Government.

It is certainly the weak spot in the case, since the gov't apparently allows and approves this policy.

The better solution to the issue would be to broaden the ambit of who gets to decide what is a "valid conversion". The real complaint here is that the mom's conversion was considered invalid - by the Chief Orthodox Rabbi of Britian, who has no standing among Jews generally; Judiams is non-heirarchical and doesn't have bishops or popes.

The Chief Rabbi's decision then gets enforced by the state, through allocation of funding to the school and the decisions on admissions. Thus, the Chief (Orthodox) Rabbi's writ is extended over Jews who are not Orthodox - because of the British state.

That's the real problem here, and it is not addressed in this ruling.