British Court To Define Jewishness

[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.

\

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.

Come on, can't you just admit you misread the judgement?

The schools admission board is not part of the Government or the state. If it was then the Governmebnt woudl choose admissions policies, which it does not. Lots of non-governmental organisations are funded wholly or partly by the state.

I agree with your last point, without having any particular idea how they could be disentangled without ruining the entire education system.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Court's role is not to drat schools admissions policies.

But in fact it has done exactly that - it has required the school to draft a new admissions policy based on "faith."

[Berkut]

Welcome back EG.

[grumbler]

Great to see you here, Gups.  I am enjoying this debate.  I agree with JR, though, that the state has created this problem by trying to have things both ways.

[Gups]

The Court's role is not to drat schools admissions policies.

But in fact it has done exactly that - it has required the school to draft a new admissions policy based on "faith."

Surely there is a distinction between requiring a new draft of an unlawful policy and drafting it yourself.

As Malthus notes, the solution is simple. Apply the same rule to the non-orthodox.

[Iormlund]

One of the problems as I understand it is that in some places, standards of public schools are so bad, that the religious ones are actually better - as they are staffed by people with some interest in educating the kids.

Not here. The reasons private (not just religious) schools are better is that they can reject problematic students, while state schools cannot.

[Gups]

Great to see you here, Gups.  I am enjoying this debate.  I agree with JR, though, that the state has created this problem by trying to have things both ways.

Thanks (and to Berkut too). Just a flying visit - this afternoon proves what a timekiller this board is.

I don't think the state created it necessarily but it sure hasn't tried to address the issue in any way. No one hates the entanglement of religion and education more than me. I have to spend £9K a year on a private school to avoid hypocritically pretending to be a Christian.

[The Minsky Moment]

Come on, can't you just admit you misread the judgement?

I have quoted it accurately.  What you are really accusing me of is making a false assumption that the school board is a de facto instrument of the State.  To wit:

The schools admission board is not part of the Government or the state. If it was then the Government woudl choose admissions policies, which it does not. Lots of non-governmental organisations are funded wholly or partly by the state.

He who controls the purse, controls the spender.  Full stop.  The government can set the conditions by which state aid is provided.  It could insist that the school accept any halakhically valid conversion or lose state aid.  It chose not to do so and that choice is no accident.

[Malthus]

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).

I am myself a non-practicing Jew. I am considered by the Jewish community (and consider myself) just as "Jewish" as the most orthodox rabbi.

If this ruling requires the school to redraft its policy to include a faith test of some sort, presumably I would not pass it; I would "not be a Jew".

This runs counter to the definition of Judaism used by Jews.

The notion that a Jewish institution has to reform itself to look like a Christian institution in order to support an Orthodox Chief Rabbinate, to enforce a "faith test" chosen by one sect (the most "extreme" at that), all in the name of some abstract notions of fairness - seems unreasonably perverse.   

I agree with the consensus that the problem in the first place is caused - by the school being publicly funded. The result is that it has become entangled in concepts developed by a society that, while not necessarily Christian itself, have been developed in an almost wholly Christian context - so that it seems reasonable and natural to insist that a "religion" is also a "faith", that has a hierarchy entitled to lay down the law, etc. - concepts not really applicable to Judaism.

[The Minsky Moment]

As Malthus notes, the solution is simple. Apply the same rule to the non-orthodox.

That is not his solution as I understand it.  His solution as I understand it is mine - force the school to accept all conversions conducted in accordance with Jewish law to be valid, regardless of the sect of the presiding rabbi.  That would solve the problem that caused the case to arose - but it happens to be a solution foreclosed by this ruling.

[Admiral Yi]

I am myself a non-practicing Jew. I am considered by the Jewish community (and consider myself) just as "Jewish" as the most orthodox rabbi.

This makes more sense to me.  Ethnicity confers religion but religion does not confer ethnicity.

[Berkut]

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).

I am myself a non-practicing Jew. I am considered by the Jewish community (and consider myself) just as "Jewish" as the most orthodox rabbi.

If this ruling requires the school to redraft its policy to include a faith test of some sort, presumably I would not pass it; I would "not be a Jew".

Is that the case?

I think they are saying you cannot exclude someone because they do not pass an ethnic Jewishness test - that does not at all mean that they MUST exclude those who pass an ethnic Jewishness test, but not a religious one.

I still do not see this as such a huge problem. The fact that Judaism has some ethnic conditions for inclusion doesn't make them 'special' such that they should have different rules from any other religion. Otherwise anyone can create a religion that is as exclusionary as they like. You keep harping on the ability to convert as being key to allowing this kind of discrimination.

Fine. I want to create a religion that only allows white people to join, or people who convert to my religion. However, to convert to my religion, any non-white must cut off two fingers.

Aren't you arguing that this should be perfectly acceptable - in fact, if you replace two fingers with "chunk of their penis", isn't that pretty much what the rabbi is demanding (at least for men)? is the theoretical ability to convert adequate to excuse racial or ethnic discrimination that is normally NOT permitted?

I don't see why Judaism should get some kind of pass when they want to dip into the public trough. Yes, the faith rules are not really "fair", but then, excluding people from good schools based on whether their mom was converted in Church A rather than Church B is not really fair either.

We all agree this is a mess whose foundation is the basic fact that the state is supporting religious institutions - but given that that is not going to end, I don't see the courts decision as particularly hostile to Jews by any means, nor do I think it's effect will be practically meaningful either.

[Gups]

Come on, can't you just admit you misread the judgement?

I have quoted it accurately.  What you are really accusing me of is making a false assumption that the school board is a de facto instrument of the State.  To wit:

The schools admission board is not part of the Government or the state. If it was then the Government woudl choose admissions policies, which it does not. Lots of non-governmental organisations are funded wholly or partly by the state.

He who controls the purse, controls the spender.  Full stop.  The government can set the conditions by which state aid is provided.  It could insist that the school accept any halakhically valid conversion or lose state aid.  It chose not to do so and that choice is no accident.

Unless this schools board is different from all the others, it is not appointed by the Govt and its sole function (to produce and implement an admissions policy) is not overseen by the Govt. Nor is funding dependent on either outcome, rather it is based on the number of children at the school and certain other criteria not related to admissions.

The Government could set conditions but have not done so. It can't be right that the policy of the admissions board is the Giovernment's policy simply because the Government could, if it chose to, pass new legislation empowering it to interfere in admissions policies and then do so.

[The Minsky Moment]

Unless this schools board is different from all the others, it is not appointed by the Govt and its sole function (to produce and implement an admissions policy) is not overseen by the Govt. Nor is funding dependent on either outcome, rather it is based on the number of children at the school and certain other criteria not related to admissions.

The Government could set conditions but have not done so. It can't be right that the policy of the admissions board is the Giovernment's policy simply because the Government could, if it chose to, pass new legislation empowering it to interfere in admissions policies and then do so.

This particular school is directly affiliated with the United Synagogue, an institution established by an Act of Parliament (and a named Respondent).  There is a long history in the UK of the state dealing with all "Jewish questions" by interfacing directly with the US, it predecessor the Great Synagogue, and the Chief Rabbi who is entrusted with the leadership of the US.  This school is the product of that historical development.  Thus, although the school board is not directly appointed by the Prime Minister, the fact remains that it is appointed by an official state-constituted body, and owes its existence to state funding.

The defense here seems to be that because the government has chosen not to interfere directly with admissions policy, it cannot be ascribed any responsibility for such policy.  That does not seem persuasive to me.  First of all because the government set up the very structures that led the admissions policy being adopted.  Second, because a decision to delegate is just as much as much a policy as a decision to make an affirmative decision to take action.  The government can't evade its responsibility by burying its head in the sand while it hands over wads of cash to one favored sect.

[Gups]

Unless this schools board is different from all the others, it is not appointed by the Govt and its sole function (to produce and implement an admissions policy) is not overseen by the Govt. Nor is funding dependent on either outcome, rather it is based on the number of children at the school and certain other criteria not related to admissions.

The Government could set conditions but have not done so. It can't be right that the policy of the admissions board is the Giovernment's policy simply because the Government could, if it chose to, pass new legislation empowering it to interfere in admissions policies and then do so.

This particular school is directly affiliated with the United Synagogue, an institution established by an Act of Parliament (and a named Respondent).  There is a long history in the UK of the state dealing with all "Jewish questions" by interfacing directly with the US, it predecessor the Great Synagogue, and the Chief Rabbi who is entrusted with the leadership of the US.  This school is the product of that historical development.  Thus, although the school board is not directly appointed by the Prime Minister, the fact remains that it is appointed by an official state-constited body, and owes its existence to state funding.

The defense here seems to be that because the government has chosen not to interfere directly with admissions policy, it cannot be ascribed any responsibility for such policy.  That does not seem persuasive to me.  First of all because the government set up the very structures that led the admissions policy being adopted.  Second, because a decision to delegate is just as much as much a policy as a decision to make an affirmative decision to take action.  The government can't evade its responsibility by burying its head in the sand while it hands over wads of cash to one favored sect.

This all seems tenous to me but OK. It's the Government's fault. The Government (the Court of Appeal) has told itself that its policy contravenes the Government's (Parliament's) law. The Government (the School Board) now has to comply.

I'm not sure if any of this is particulaly relevant to whether the Court made the right decision or not.

PS The United Synagogues Act 1880 was a private Act of Parliament. As with all private Acts it wasn't promoted by the Government of the day or supported by it (or opposed for that matter).