'Invidious' JFS court decision undermines Jewish community

The Jewish Free School is one of the most outstanding schools, probably in the world, never mind London. And it is free. Gerry Black's history gives an insight into its extraordinary merit. But the school has recently been in the headlines, caught up in the increasingly vicious battle between the religious and the secular. Faith schools are among the targets of both religious and non-religious who, not satisfied with having destroyed all but a few grammars, now want to topple one of the final ladders up which it is possible for a child to escape poverty, escape the enduring British class barriers defined by money and history, escape a life of under-achievement, escape all manner of horrors unimaginable to the children of the rich, escapes made possible purely by virtue of a good education, a commodity in scandalously short supply in much of the state sector. In the case of JFS, though, the issues are complicated by the complex questions surrounding Jewish identity in modern Britain, namely, is this identity a question of ethnicity, or religion. Various news and comment articles have already addressed this. Read Nicola Woolcock's news story in The Times, my own commentary, Michael Herman's Law Central blog and Geoffrey Alderman's article for our Faith page last Saturday. For an exploration of Jewish identity, I also strongly recommend Andrew Sanger's new novel The J-Word. Below, Jonathan Arkush, senior vice-president of the Board of Deputies, explains the anger in the community over the Court of Appeal decision, and Clarissa Sebag-Montefiore, recent graduate of City University's journalism school, gives her take on the JFS debate.

Jonathan Arkush writes:

In awarding school places Catholic schools can give preference to Catholic children, CoE schools can prefer CoE children, Muslim schools can prefer Muslim children – but Jewish schools cannot give preference to Jewish children.  We see no sense in that and it is plainly unfair.

The decision undermines the right of the Jewish community, which all other faith groups have, of determining who is Jewish for purposes that are central to the community, such as determining places at Jewish faith schools.  We do not see how the court can decide whether a person is Jewish since that is a matter of Jewish law and practice.  Every Jewish denomination decides this question on a simple principle – descent from a parent or conversion.  The court has ruled this out (but only for Jews).

The decision is wrong because every faith group is entitled to give preference to its own denomination when determining who shall be given places at their own faith schools.  This is entirely fair since the faith has generally paid most or all of the capital cost of establishing and building the school and continues to support it financially. When a school makes admissions decisions, it does so on grounds that are based solely on Jewish law and practice.  The court decided that the decision was based on ethnicity, but that was incorrect. Ethnicity is irrelevant to Jewish identity according to Jewish law – it simply does not come into consideration.

Note also that describing Jews as an ethnic group is dubious, since one is Jewish as a matter of Jewish religious law if one has only one Jewish parent, the mother in the case of Orthodox and Reform Jews, and the mother or father in the case of Liberal Jews.  The other parent may come from any ethnic background at all without affecting the Jewish status of the child.  Similarly, a person from any ethnic background at all can convert to Judaism and after their conversion is completely Jewish according to Jewish law.

One of the practical effects of the decision is that Jewish schools will no longer be able to determine who is Jewish, but will be forced to apply a test based on religious observance.  For example, how often the family attends synagogue, how strict it is about observing the Sabbath and Festivals, or eating food which is kosher and such like. In practice these matters are extremely difficult to assess and it is undesirable to do so, as it will force Jewish schools to make all sorts of enquiries about matters of personal conscience and is highly invidious. Until now most schools avoid doing so and take any Jewish child irrespective of his or her parents’ level of observance. That is not only more transparent, but enables children of all backgrounds to obtain a good faith education. The decision of the court, ironically, may actually result in a narrowing of the availability of places in Jewish schools to those who are already religiously observant.

Clarissa Sebag-Montefiore writes:

“No school,” stated the Court of Appeal on Thursday, “is permitted to discriminate in its admissions policy on racial grounds.” The landmark ruling against a famous Jewish faith school, which refused admission to schoolboy “M” because his mother was not born a Jew, raises the question: is Judaism an ethnicity or a religion? The issue has been battled over consistently in the last century. Yesterday it was brought to the forefront of the British justice system.

The conundrum is this: according to millennia of Jewish Law, faith is passed down through the mother. Twelve-year-old M had a Jewish father. He regularly attended synagogue. And his non-Jewish mother converted to Judaism with an independent progressive synagogue. But, according to Orthodox Judaism and the criteria set out by the Office of the Chief Rabbi, he is not Jewish.

For JFS, formally the Jew’ Free School, in Brent, London, the decision to exclude M was automatic. The rules are clear-cut. A Jew born to a Jewish mother is always a Jew. They may regularly snack on pork cracklings, or spend the Sabbath downing vodka shots in Soho nightclubs or have a genteel father. But they are still Jewish. By comparison an observant and religious individual who identifies themselves as Jewish, but without matrilineal lineage, is not.   

Not all strands of Judaism share this belief. The Liberal synagogue wholeheartedly accepts patrilineal descent. Judaism accounts for less than one per cent of the world’s population. This, combined with nearly one in every two Jews marrying out of the faith, means Liberals have embraced all forms of Judaism to ensure survival in a multicultural world. Rabbi Aaron Goldstein sees the verdict as cause for celebration. “It is airing our dirty washing in public…[but] sometimes you need that to happen. It’s very good to have a ruling from outside of to give you a reality check.”

For Orthodoxy, however, the story is rather different and the verdict has caused considerable upset according to the director of the Chabad House in Wimbledon, Rabbi Nissan Dubov. “This has to do with standards that Jews have had for thousands of years. It is something that is immoveable. It shouldn’t be tampered with. Once you start moving the goal posts you are not left with the original.” State interference is an exercise in pointless political correctness and, more importantly, is irrelevant when considering Orthodox religion, which is by definition traditional and stringent.

Student Benjamin Sanford, 19, has just left the Orthodox Hasmonean High School, in Hendon, London, which may soon have to amend its admission policy according to the new ruling. Sanford, who describes himself as “modern Orthodox” and is about to embark on a psychology degree in Birmingham, feels “obliged” to say when pushed that M is not Jewish. He admits this with some regret. “I don’t think the state has done enough to understand what Jewish is,” he says. “Reform people have a more prominent presence in British society and their influence is probably heard more. [The ruling] appears to be more of a reform stance.” Sir Alan Sugar is a prime example for Sanford. “He is proud of his Jewish identity but he is not a hundred per cent sure or accurate about what makes a Jew a Jew. A lot of Orthodox people see the Reform and Progressive [movements] as not living up to the Jewish way of life, and they are ashamed of them.”

Perhaps then M is better off in another school, one where he is not seen as a fraud or, worse, an embarrassment. One solution is the opening of JCoSS (the Jewish Community Secondary School) next year. The non-Orthodox, “cross-cultural” school will welcome and celebrate all brands of Judaism. Until then the JFS, supported by the Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, is planning to appeal in the House of Lords.

Follow Ruth Gledhill and/or Articles of Faith on Twitter.

Comments

[Eliyana]

This is a really complicated case - in terms of education, the JFS is surely brilliant, and there is no denying that. However, I am sure that I would not want my future children to attend an Orthodox school with such a closed minded definition of who is Jewish. Effectively, in the eyes of the European Jewish organizations (not the community mind you, who can be more liberal), it's ok to eat pork cracklings at the weekend if your mother was born Jewish and still be considered Jewish and join all sorts of Jewish organizations, but heaven forbid that you or your mother converted through a non-Orthodox stream of Judaism, you can be shomer shabbos to your hearts content and you are not Jewish. This is a really bigoted view that completely ignores the wonderful multifaceted world that is Judaism today and completely de-legitimizes conservative, reform, liberal, reconstructionist etc Judaism. Hence I would not want any child of mine to associate with such bigoted people and would rather prefer to have my children attend the wonderful school affiliated with my conservative synagogue in Los Angeles. However, this is not a luxury that is available to most non-American or Israeli Jews and I can understand why M's parents would want M in the JFS. Converts have always been an important part of our history, and *wanting* to put M in the JFS is a sign of their dedication to giving M a Jewish upbringing. This should be celebrated and encouraged, instead, the Orthodox establishment chooses to as usual de-legitimize any form of Judaism that is not their own and put a stamp on M's forehead that he is not Jewish. I really admire Jonathan Sachs for many counts, but shame on him for this - that is not my form of Judaism. That is all I have to say on the matter.

[Gladiatrix]

As a non-Jewish person I found this decision by the Court of Appeal incredibly offensive. Jewishness is a matter of faith, not ethnicity. A 2 year old child can understand that, so why eminent lawyers with decades of experience behind them cannot defies belief. If I were the Governors of the JFS or the Chief Rabbi not only would I appeal to the House of Lords, I would make formal complaints to the Office of Judicial Conduct and ask that the Appeal Court judges be officially reprimanded for misconduct on the bench.

[Thomas Reimel]

A "genteel" father? One hopes every man, jewish or not, can aspire to be a gentleman. The author meant "gentile."

[Robert Ian Williams]

Catholics not allowed to operate adoption agencies according to catholic teachig and now Jews not allowed to determine who attends a jewish school..what are our brave soldiers laying their lives down for ?

[Edward I]

"I include Catholic schools such as where Ruth sends her son,"
Edward I

Sorry Ruth, your son of course goes to a C of E school as you once told us.
However, that in no way detracts from my arguement.

[J Pearce]

This sort of problem would not occur if one simple thing happened - the State stopped funding faith schools!

Said schools would then have to exist solely within the private education sphere and as such, would have the freedom to set whatever entry requirements they so chose to do.

State funding of what are essentially extensions of religious institutions, only perpetuates the social ills Ruth mentions at the head of this piece. Religion, class and ultimately political power are inextricably bound up in this country.

Break the link between religion and state and we stand a much better chance of delivering an egalitarian society.

[Iftikhar]

Salaam

Muslim schools are not only faith schools they are more or less bilingual schools also. Bilingual Muslim children need to learn and be well versed in standard English to follow the National Curriculum and go for higher stidies and research to serve humanity. At the same time, they need to learn and be well versed in Arabic, Urdu and other community languages to keep in touch with their cultural roots and enjoy the beauty of their literature and poetry.

A Muslim is a citizen of this tiny global village. \He/she does not want to become notoriously monolingual Brit.

[peter wood]

"horrors unimaginable to the children of the rich" - Ruth really needs to shed this absurd conventionality that views human beings in terms of narrow social parameters, makes empty assumptions about their knowledge and their perception of life around them and bakes the whole mixture in a sauce of social prejudice...you might also try reading Henry James. Some people are unfortunate enough to experience both wealth and poverty in the course of their lives.

[Edward I]

"The standard deal is that the state pays 90% of capital costs and 100% of running costs. Since the latter amounts to far more over the long term, the state pays nearly all the costs."
COEL

So the average British taxpayer who in large part pays for this school, finds that his children are excluded from this school on religious grounds.

A quick browse of the JFS website shows various photos of the JFS schoolchildren proudly waving ISRAELI flags! This in a so called British school, paid for by British traxpayers, and according to the school, sets out to integrate the pupils into British life.
The absurdity of paying for a school which seems to hold more allegiance to a foreign country than to Great Britain is a glaring and disgusting scandal.
But let's look at the broader problem, which is the existence of faith schools, or perhaps more accurately, Religious Indoctrination Schools (RIS).
I include Catholic schools such as where Ruth sends her son, Moslem schools, C of E schools and Jewish schools--all paid for by the British government, but, regardless of the child's academic ability, these RISs apply strict barriers to any child who does not fit in with their religious profiling.
It seems to me that this is the underlying injustice, not the piddling analyses of a child's religious background and heritage which smacks of pre war German ethnic nit picking to weed out those who are "unacceptable". I see little difference.
Ruth brings in a red herring by mentioning that both her son's school and JFS have high academic levels. The fact is that there are good, bad and indifferent schools throughout the country and the religious aspect is irrelevant.
Religion and schooling must be separated.
To mix these two things is to cause even more fractures in a society where enough already exist (money, the old school tie, accent etc).

[Shmuel]

Your article is slightly inaccurate. You give the impression that only people who's Mothers are "born" jewish are considered Jewish. Incorrect, my Mother was born born non-Jewish- CoE, but underwent an Orthodox conversion under the Chief Rabbi (London Beth Din), before she had me.The process took seven years. I attended Hasmonean High School which has higher orthodox religious standards then JFS.
If M's mother had simply undergone orthodox conversion, there would be no propblem. So why hasn't she attempted to do this? It implies that there is a more political then religous agenda here.

[eleutheria]

"One of the practical effects of the decision is that Jewish schools will no longer be able to determine who is Jewish, but will be forced to apply a test based on religious observance."

Just like those Christian schools that insist on family attendance at Mass for a specific period, then.

"according to millennia of Jewish Law, faith is passed down through the mother"

Ethnicity and nominal religion might well be passed down that way, but faith is not ethnicity.

Sorry to bang on, but this whole affair is a mess, and the judges, the school and the mother really none of them comes out of it very well.

We all have to play by the same laws on race, so either Jewish authorities need to rethink the intersection of their religious rules and the law, or else we all need to rethink what race actually is and whether it's a coherent concept for legal purposes.

And I'm really not sure which is the correct thing to do.

[eleutheria]

"So on that the school is wrong-headed and needs to learn that it's not there to cater for children of Jewish parents however it may find them."

Sorry... that it *is* there to cater for children of (Orthodox) Jewish parents however it may find them, i.e., regardless of their real or perceived ethnic purity.

[eleutheria]

"caught up in the increasingly vicious battle between the religious and the secular"

Wrong. If anything, it's a battle between a religious woman and a religious group controlling school admissions. Religious and secular are not opposites in any case.

"or have a genteel father"

Thank God you or the sub or the computer didn't write the other word that looks like "gentile"!

I half agree with the school. It's difficult to make sense of it all, because race is a pseudoscientific concept to start with and saying it only passes through the mother just makes a mockery of it.

And it is all utterly stupid. For a start we have a Jew taking Jews to court saying she's discriminated against because she's Jewish!

One defining point of a religious school is to offer a religious ethos, not to be 'racially pure,' whatever bizarre meaning that might have here. So on that the school is wrong-headed and needs to learn that it's not there to cater for children of Jewish parents however it may find them.

The other defining point of a religious school is that it's exclusive. Orthodox Jews can set whatever purely religious demands they like. They can say you're not an Orthodox Jew if you can't stand on your head, for all I care, or expel you if you walk past an automatic light sensor on the Sabbath.

It seems to me that the judges in this case have thought Jews are all one massive love-in. Most of us know that Catholicism teaches that Anglicans aren't even a proper church, let alone nearly Catholic, or know that some Christians think the Pope is the Whore of Babylon. And we know that a Catholic religious school is a different kettle of fish from a CofE religious school, and we wouldn't dream of forcing CofE schools to take Catholics on equal priority with Anglicans because "they're all Christians."

So I wonder how much an ignorance of Jewish division informed their judgment. So maybe they judged that the school took the view that this woman was a convert, an upstart, "not a proper Jew" rather than the view that the Jewish equivalent of transubstantiation meant the two sides were as different as chalk and cheese.

[Andrew Sanger]

Jonathan and Clarissa seem to have misunderstood the Appeal Court's decision.

The Appeal Court is not interested in how Jewishness is defined. We can continue to define a Jew as someone with a Jewish mother (despite the circular logic of that). That is not at issue in this case.

All the court was concerned with is the admissions criteria of a state school in England. Clearly these criteria must conform to English law, and clearly any requirement that one's mother (or father or anyone else) belong to this, that or the other ethnic group is not permissible.

Ruth's blog posting starts with a picture of a history of JFS (founded 1732). Ruth perhaps knows that the United Synagogue did not control this school until the 1950s.

Until then, there was no "halacha test" for admission to JFS. If you identified as Jewish, and wanted your child to be educated under Orthodox Jewish auspices, then your child was eligible to attend JFS.

That is the situation that should prevail again today. A faith school - at least, if it is funded by the state, like JFS - should be defined by the education it provides, not by who may attend.

[Shaun]

I wasn't aware there was any problem with being Jewish and having a genteel father... Are you using a gentile spell-checker?

[Coel]

"Faith schools are among the targets of both religious and non-religious who, not satisfied with having destroyed all but a few grammars, now want to topple one of the final ladders up which it is possible for a child to escape poverty, [...]"

Wow, that's argumentative about the motives of those opposing faith schools (especially in accusing them of being the same people against grammar schools!).

I don't object to good state schools, selective education (per se), or ladders out of poverty. But I do object to such a taxpayer-funded ladder being available to the kid whose family drags him to church each Sunday, but not to the kid next door whose family does not.

"The decision is wrong because every faith group is entitled to give preference to its own denomination [...] This is entirely fair since the faith has generally paid most or all of the capital cost [...] and continues to support it financially."

The standard deal is that the state pays 90% of capital costs and 100% of running costs. Since the latter amounts to far more over the long term, the state pays nearly all the costs.

This is certainly not "entirely fair" since similar mechanisms are not available to the non-religious. This posts lauds the benefits of these schools, but then sees nothing wrong with such taxpayer-funded benefits being given preferentially to the religious!

If the whole system were rigged the opposite way, to the advantage of the non-religious (so that the non-religious got a better choice of school, and preferential access to socially selective schools that are more desirable), would the religious then see the problem?

[Steven Carr]

'They may regularly snack on pork cracklings, or spend the Sabbath downing vodka shots in Soho nightclubs or have a genteel father. But they are still Jewish.'

Those are the sorts of people the Jewish Free School was set up to teach.

People who have no interest in Judaism are welcome at the Jewish Free School if they have a Jewish mother?

[Ernest]

While I accept that Jewish identity in accordance with Orthodox tradition is through the mother - the argument sound more like the nature of the differences between being a member of the RC Church and Reformed Churches.

For Orthodox to be ashamed of Liberal or Progressive Jewish communities is difficult to comprehend. I have yet to hear of a Christian being ashamed of members of another Christian denomination!

I do respect each view, but in this case, to discriminate against the boy M, who had no control over his parentage does appear to be difficult to justify.

Perhaps the law in respect of faith schools needs to be more clearly defined, in particular the criteria for selection.

Of course, the proposed new Equality Bill will impact on this in any case - and faith schools might well find themselves in a position of having to accept anyone who applies, whatever their religious faith, or none.