Why JFS’s arguments are a crock of shit
Some of our more regular readers may remember a piece I put up a few months back about the JFS case. Today the supreme court voted, 5-4, against JFS, to say that they could not discriminate on the basis of ethnic origin. Fucking good job. Anyway, as soon as this judgement came out, the right-wing Jewish establishment started making up all sorts of bollocks arguments that I hope to quickly dismiss.
The first argument is that the government is trying to define what Jews are. In fact nothing of the kind happened. On the contrary the government thinks that Jews can define themselves as a group however they please, but is only willing to give money for a faith school if certain definitions aren’t used (such as those based on ethnic discrimination.) So by all means define yourselves ethnically, but do not expect money from the government. Comprendez?
The second argument is that the what the Chief Rabbi says goes, as far as all Jews are concerned. Well the fact is that the Chief Rabbi just represents the United Synagogue, who are just part of the British Jewish community. I mean apart from his fucking lame contributions to Thought For The Day, the man does not represent me, nor many Jews who are either secular or from liberal congregations.
The third argument is that Jews should have a right to a Jewish education paid for by the state. Erm, right. Well I mean I guess if Christians get this then it’s only equitable that Jews get it too, but really going to a Jewish school has no basis in religion and is just a cultural matter (and if you really want then you can send your kids to a comprehensive and then to cheder at the weekend). Maybe the state should be concentrating on giving children the best and most diverse education it can within the constraints of it’s budget. There’s no compelling reason why Jewish schools are necessary for the education of Jewish children.
The fourth thing that will be said lots is “but the judges did stress that the old policy wasn’t racist.” Well they did do that but that happens to be due to the fact that this set of judges could do with growing a large pair of testicles in order that they say it as it is. If you are discriminating on the basis of ethnicity, whether you back up your argument with fascist politics or the divine word of god, you are being racist. Deal with it.
Reader Comments
Actually this judgment affects private schools too. It’s not a question of accepting state money or not.
> There’s no compelling reason why Jewish schools are necessary for the education of Jewish children.
However orthodox schools do see the value and should be able to do exactly that.
Yes Yes and YES. The verbal contortions that the judges went through before they put out their judgement must have been entertaining for the fly on the wall.
May I take this opportunity to express solidarity with the BA Cabin crew. The coverage on it has been appallingly distorted. Am I supposed to care more about people who can afford to go away on an Xmas break than the pay and working conditions of airline staff ?
Its a small point but technically the court voted 7/2 that discrimination had taken place, 5 of direct discrimination, 2 of indirect discrimination and 2 that no discrimination had taken place, however as you can’t have indirect + direct discrimination together, the 2 for indirect were counted as against.
First argument: the court has ruled that in future JFS will be able to give priority to Jewish applicants who meet the test of orthodoxy by religious practice; shul attendance, the keeping of a Kosher home and so forth. It has therefore applied a Christian definition of orthodox Judaism (in Christian schools committment to the faith is measured by infant baptism, regular Church attendance and involvement with the local parish) which Christians themselves consider inappropriate. Thus the state has usurped the function, properly belonging to a faith community, to define itself.
Second argument: The Chief Rabbi has not claimed to speak on behalf of Anglo Jewry, he has acted quite properly as the leader of the mainstream Othodox Jewish congregation. JFS is affiliated to United Synagogue, it is an orthodox Jewish school, Chief Rabbi Sacks teaches orthodox Judaism and leads his community.
Third argument: Jewish parents, like parents of other faiths and none have the right to raise their children according to their own religious and/or philosophical principles. Hence, they are entitled to send their children to faith schools which are free at the point of access. To privatise faith schools would be to make it unduly burdensome for people to exercise their rights as well as render them available only to the super-rich. Faith schools are a right, not a privilege.
Contrary to your suggestions, faith schools are just as, if not more diverse than their non-denominational counterparts. Catholic schools, for example tend to be more ethnically-mixed than non-faith schools. Moreover all faith schools take in pupils from other faiths and none if there are places available. Faith schools, which are funded by their denominations as well as the state, prioritise applicants from their own denominations if they are oversubscribed. If you object to this practice, the solution is not to demand the restriction of religious rights or forcing the education of children in secular schools but widening access to faith schools for anyone who wants one by increasing their supply. You should campaign for a radical expansion of faith schools.
Fourth argument: The judges were right to stress that JFS’s policy wasn’t racist. How could it have been? United Synagogue and JFS would consider an orthodox Jewish child no less Jewish if it had an African Caribbean or Asian father, or three sets of non-Jewish grandparents, or even four so long as there was maternal Jewish ancestry or the mother had met the conditions of orthodox Jewish conversion. As far as I understand the rules governing matrilineal ancestry and the prohibion on marrying out, which an ancestress of mine transgressed, were introduced to ensure fidelity to the faith and prevent its contamination with idolatry and such like pernicious heresies. Very sensible, I think.
If you don’t like the tenets of orthodox Judaism, no one is forcing you to follow them. By that same token, orthodox Jews are entitled to their faith; it is quite wrong of the state to impose a concoted definition of Jewishness on an orthodox Jewish school.
Jonathan Sacks is a cheef. If you feel like a laugh get a book out of the library called ‘The New Antisemitism’ and then read one of his contributions.
It is a fair point that the boy’s father’s race would be irrelevant to the school, but refusing admission on the grounds of matrilineal ethnicity is against both the spirit and the wording of the Race Relations Act.
There were a suprising number of third parties that had a vested interest in this case. It seems they could not bear a non-Jewish definition of who is Jewish being imposed on them. This is not what has happened- the ratio decidendi is merely that faith schools with discriminatory admissions policies need to be in line with the RRA. Nobody is saying the Orthodox Jewish community can no longer self govern.