Court allows school to ban boy for not being 'right type of Jew'

A Jewish school's entry criteria did not racially discriminate against an 11-year-old boy that it refused to admit, the high court ruled today.

The JFS in north-west London rejected the boy, known as M, because his mother was not regarded as "an approved Jew", the court heard.

Dinah Rose QC, representing M's family, told a previous hearing his application was rejected because the school gives preference to children whose "Jewish status" is confirmed by the United Synagogue (US).

A child's Jewish identity is inherited through the mother, but the US did not accept that M's mother was Jewish. She was born a Roman Catholic, but converted to Judaism before her son's birth, although not to the Orthodox movement.

Rose claimed that amounted to racial discrimination, as other children were given preference if their mothers were Jewish by birth, even if they were "committed atheists".

M's parents are now divorced and the boy lives with his father, with whom he is an active member of the local synagogue and of the Masorti, a "progressive traditional" Jewish movement.

His father told the hearing he was "appalled" by the school's decision.

The state-maintained faith school, formerly the Jews' Free School, gains some of the best academic results in the country and is heavily over-subscribed.

But Mr Justice Munby ruled JFS' entry policy was "entirely legitimate".

He said the policy was "not materially different" from Muslim schools giving preference to those born Muslim, or a Catholic school to those who have been baptised.

He said such policies were "a proportionate and lawful means of achieving a legitimate end".

He said a decision against the school could have rendered the admissions policies of a very large number of faith schools unlawful.

He did, however, rule that the school had failed to "comply in full" with section 71 of the 1976 Race Relations Act, which requires schools to try to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good race relations.

The judge said he could not find evidence of the JFS giving consideration to taking "active steps" to come up with specific ways to achieve those goals.

The judge said M's father was entitled to a declaration to that effect, if he wished.

But he said it was "quite idle to imagine that the fullest and most conscientious compliance with section 71 would have led to any difference" to the outcome in M's case.

Dismissing the case, the judge gave the father until Friday July 11 to apply for permission to appeal against his ruling.

The British Humanist Association is supporting M's application for judicial review.