I used to bristle whenever I would hear people describe the Jews as a “race.” Not a nation, not a people, but a “race.” The fact that one cannot convert to a race (no matter how much I may want to be Nepalese, it’ll never happen) never seems to deter them from this bizarre notion. Hitler y”s called us a race. We all know what that led to.
And now a UK Jewish school admissions policy is “racist,” a court rules. “Racist” here is used interchangeably with “religious” by English courts. A 12-year-old kid whose mother converted via the Progressive movement in England was denied admission to the school, which only accepts students who are halachically Jewish. A high court judge got the definition right—that it’s based on religious, not racial grounds. But that ruling has been struck down in an appeal to another court that rules that (according to the child’s lawyer) “It is unlawful for a child’s ethnic origins to be used as the criterion for entry to a school. Such a practice is even more unacceptable in the case of a comprehensive school funded by the taxpayer.” On a good day, I don’t think most people in the world understand the Jews, and here Jews by birth and Jews by choice are being called separate races and ethnicities by a court of law. In what appears a terrible miscarriage of justice, the British court system has seen fit to interfere with a religion’s right to define itself.
And yet. On the one hand, I’m applauding Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks’s eloquent defense of the school’s admission policy. But on the other hand, as an American who remembers the media hoo-hah surrounding the attempt by a woman in 1995 to gain admission to the Military College of South Carolina (aka the Citadel), I’m also brought up short in my support of the school’s policy. A school that agrees to accept federal funding is also, whether it likes it or not, agreeing to accept federal intervention in how it runs itself. It must comply with federal laws, and in the case of the Citadel, that involved the requirement to provide equal access to women in the traditionally all-male institution (discrimination on the basis of sex being prohibited by federal law).
As tempting as it is for religious schools to accept government funding to help defray their exorbitant costs, this is where accepting that funding gets sticky. If this Jewish school in the UK accepts government funds, it becomes subject to the laws of the land, including the right of the not-so-pro-Jewish courts to meddle in its admissions policies (not to mention call it racist). And the same will go for Jewish day schools in America if, as many Jews who support vouchers will find out, they too decide to let the government get involved.
Shimshonit 
A school that agrees to accept federal funding is also, whether it likes it or not, agreeing to accept federal intervention in how it runs itself.
This makes sense.
You can read more here, although from a different perspective:
http://www.thejc.com/articles/the-deep-wrongs-lie-heart-jfs-case
I felt that the judge’s opinion was totally erroneous – the admissions policy is clearly based on religion and not race, for the child could get an Orthodox conversion and be immediately granted admission – but nevertheless, I could not help but secretly support the court’s ruling.
If non-Orthodox converted children will be admitted, perhaps then more lenient conversions standards will be necessitated. The Sephardim and German Neo-Orthodox tended to be extremely lenient on conversion, and I wish that the whole Orthodox world would follow them on this. (Rabbi Benzion Uziel advocated an almost universal policy of converting non-observant non-Jewish spouses of Jews, while Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits advocated Orthodox rabbis performing an Orthodox conversion for all non-Orthodox converts, with the aim of ensuring Jewish solidarity.)
Additionally: if the parents desire to send their child to an Orthodox school, then it shows they have some consideration for the Orthodox understanding of Judaism. We should celebrate this and encourage them to send their child to the Orthodox school! Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman, regarding all non-Orthodox non-Jewish spouses of Jews, who come to the Orthodox beit din asking for conversion, said that even if the non-Jewish spouse is not observant and doesn’t plan on ever be, his/her very coming to the Orthodox for conversion shows some limited amount of desire to have approval from and solidarity with the Orthodox. Similarly, Rabbi Marc Angel says that if the Orthodox would be as lenient as possible in conversion standards, and actively court all the non-Orthodox converts, then Orthodoxy would be more prominent in the public sphere, and would be considered a more worthy and influential contender, not closed behind its own ghetto walls.
In all this, a more Sephardi understanding of Judaism is evinced, in which the non-observant populace can live Jewish lives under Orthodox auspices, with the Orthodox authorities trying to satisfy the needs of the non-Orthodox with every bit of compassion and leniency they can muster. Traditionally, a Jewish community encompassed many elements – observant and not – and the rabbinic establishment had to accomodate everyone, and satisfy everyone’s needs and desires. It is only in recent times, with the dislocations of Jewish communities and the rise of “voluntary communities”, that rabbis started considering only their own personal constituencies, leading to humra and intolerance.
See http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/07/importing-reformism-into-israel.html
But I’m wary of supporting this intrusion into internal Jewish affairs, by the non-Jewish authorities, even if perhaps good will come of it. The halakhot of mesirah come to mind, as does the result of inviting Rome into Judea to arbitrate between two Hasmonean princes.
So I would never actively encourage the British court to do what it did, but perhaps, after the fact, it is not so lamentable. I don’t know.
Ilana-Davita: Thank you for the link. I read the article, and find it a compelling argument in favor of the children rejected by the school’s admissions policy because of their status.
Michael: Thanks for your perspective. I wish that Jewish education were more available to all, and agree with your points about conversion.
Both of you have provided a valuable counter-argument to the one put forth by the school and Chief Rabbi Sacks. I look back on my own education; if, as a non-halachic Jew, I had had access to a real Jewish education, I might have pursued conversion long ago. It certainly would have strengthened my Jewish identity and given me the motivation to make that my path.
About 10 years ago, a new pluralistic Jewish high school opened up in the Boston area. A friend of mine, who hailed from the Boston area, told me that her family was debating the merits of sending one of her brothers there. In the end, because young Jews sometimes meet their future spouses in high school, the family decided to keep him at the MO school his siblings had attended. While I don’t disagree with their decision, I do think it illustrates a certain amount of fear in the Orthodox world about exposing their children to the social marketplace where discrepancies in Jewish status come up and have to be dealt with.
It feels to me all too often that Jews are more worried about what the less religious will do to the more religious than what the more religious can offer the less religious. There seems to be a sense that the Torah can’t stand up to the challenges it may or may not meet from those not raised that way, who may be inclined to question it. However, I know from my pre-conversion teacher that it can and does stand up to that kind of scrutiny. I learned much from her, and she even a little from me. She was never bothered when my first reaction to learning something (like about taharat hamishpacha) was, “You’ve got to be kidding!”
I hate the feeling I get from some Jews (like the sledgehammer-wielding Rav Sherman here in Israel) that we need “a few good Jews” in straitjackets living the blackest haredi lives imaginable, and that everyone else is not worthy (“You can’t handle the truth!”).
So thank you for giving me another perspective on this issue.
I recently said that Rabbi Sherman is wielding a cudgel. :P
I know. I read that and thought it very apt, but didn’t want to plagiarize.
Shimshonit: I totally agree with what you wrote and find it difficult to understand why these children are denied the benefits of an Orthodox school education.
I think you misunderstand the point made by the Court of Appeal.
Entry into a state school is subject to the race discrimination laws and JFS is not exempted.
JFS can refuse on grounds of religion, which it did. but Jews constitute an ethnic ground, ie shared language, history, custom etc.
Being Jewish is not a religious construct but a way of life, look at the hassidim.
That being the case, JFS cannot exclude someone simply because the United Synagogue says that person is not Jewish.
At last, and this is to be welcomed, the disintegration of the US hold over state school. Obviously those who want to keep
converts out can simple set up their own private and practice whatever discrimination they like at their own expense.
Ernest
Ernest: I don’t think I misunderstand at all. I stated in the latter part of my post that as a government-funded school, JFS is subject to the law of the land.
But you and the Court of Appeals are wrong; Judaism is not an ethnicity. I belong to the same religion as the Ethiopians who live here in Israel, but I would hardly consider myself ethnically similar to them. They speak a different language, have a different history (at least for the last few thousand years), dress differently, eat different food, have a different code of manners, not to mention different skin color. But we are equally Jewish. The term “ethnic” doesn’t describe Jews at all. Being Jewish IS a religious construct, and it is that construct that determines who is considered Jewish according to Jewish law, whether or not you like how most Orthodox rabbis interpret that law.
If the Court considers both the people running the school and those seeking entry to be the same ethnicity (i.e. Jewish) how can that be discrimination? Only if they see converts and born-Jews as different ethnicities can there be any discrimination in this case. And to make this judgment on people who are all English and Jewish according to some definition is absurd.