On one critical point, all Jewish factions in the conflict over who is a Jew ought to agree: It is not for a secular court to decide. Yet, that is just what happened in England.
Under its Race Relations Act, Englands highest court disqualified an admissions decision of a North London school. The school, under the aegis of Britains chief rabbinate, denied admission to a student on the grounds that he was converted to Judaism under Conservative and not the chief rabbinates Orthodox auspices. The parents sued, and won. The admission criteria of the school, Britains Supreme Court ruled, were discriminatory on the grounds of ethnicity.
In effect, the court said that Judaism is racist. Under Britains law of the land, it is personal practice exclusively ones degree of Jewish observance and not the biological line, that defines Jewishness.
Before non-Orthodox groups consider this a victory, consider: If a Conservative school in England rejects a convert on the grounds that his mother is not Jewish under a Conservative definition of Jewish law, the British court will overturn the schools decision. For the Conservative school has used ethnicity as a criteria of admission.
Or, if a Reform school in England rejects a student on the grounds that he is not Jewish, the British court will overturn the Reform schools decision, even if neither of the students parents are Jewish. For again, the school has used ethnicity as a criteria of admission.
The clear implication of the courts ruling is that anyone may declare himself a practicing Jew even if he has converted to Judaism under auspices that no Jewish denomination accepts, or has not converted at all; and that ones self-declaration of Jewishness will require a Jewish school to admit him.
Making the best of a very bad decision, Lord Sacks, Britains chief rabbi, said: I welcome the justices indication of the good faith in which the United
Synagogue, the London Beit Din and our office had acted. The justices, according to JTA, made it clear that they do not think that the school or the chief rabbi acted in a racist way, adding that they are free from moral blame.
Some consolation. Thats like extending sympathy to a killer who thought he was only using a toy gun. Clearly, the British courts have interfered with the internal workings of the Jewish community, not to mention arrogated to themselves the right to decide matters of Jewish theology. However the judges wish to characterize the motives or actions of officials in Britains chief rabbinate, the court rendered its decision under a law about racism.
Even the head of the Movement for Reform Judaism in Britain, while saying he was pleased with the decision, expressed reservations as to the applicability of the Race Relations Act to the issue of Jewish status, and as to the involvement of the secular courts in matters that should be dealt with by the Jewish community. Translation: A British court, declaring a millennia-old Jewish practice racist, is too high a price to pay for winning an intramural Jewish battle.
The board of deputies of British Jewry hopes for a legislative remedy, giving the right of Jewish schools of all Jewish denominations the right to determine for themselves who qualifies for admission on the basis of Jewish status.
This is not just a matter of internal Jewish preference. It also accords with sociological scholarship. Sociologists have long observed that Judaism, or Jewishness, is a sociological anomaly. It has elements of peoplehood, or race, and elements of religion, or ideology. For example, Jewish people, whether Russian, Argentinian or American, share a commonality in a way that a Russian Christian, an Argentinian Christian and an American Christian do not. In defining a Jew, ethnicity is not just an internal matter of Jewish concern, but a longstanding sociological dilemma. It should not be too much to ask courts to bow out of a dilemma that even sociological scholarship cannot fully resolve.
We are not sufficiently familiar with politics in Britain to express optimism or pessimism regarding the prospects for the board of deputies legislative approach, but this much is certain: This issue has negative potential far beyond the borders of Britain. Anti-Semites have lusted forever for an official stamp of racism on Judaism. The British court has provided it.
Obviously, freedom of religion as understood in the US, and as understood in Britain, are qualitatively different.
It is particularly heinous that a secular court has declared a religion that is not a closed class, that accepts sincere converts regardless of race witness, in our own communities, black and Hispanic converts to Judaism to be racist.
We wish the board of deputies every success in overturning this potentially lethal interference in internal Jewish affairs.
Meanwhile, the last word rests with Lord Rodger, a dissenter on the court: The decision of the majority means that there can in future be no Jewish faith schools which give preference to children because they are Jewish according to Jewish religious law and belief . . . Instead, Jewish schools will be forced to apply a concocted test for deciding who is to be admitted. That test might appeal to this secular court but it has no basis whatsoever in 3,500 years of Jewish law and teaching.
The majoritys decision leads to such extraordinary results, and produces such manifest discrimination against Jewish schools in comparison with other faith schools, that one cant help feeling that something has gone wrong.
