In February 2008 Richard Stein and Rosa Curling were instructed by the British Humanist Association (BHA) to intervene in a controversial case concerning the admissions policy of JFS, a Jewish school situated in the North of London. The school was accused of applying criteria, which were racially discriminatory and therefore in contravention of the Race Relations Act 1976. The issue was raised by a parent of a child who was refused entry on the grounds that his religious status was not recognised by the British Orthodox community. The school’s admissions policy favours children of Jewish descent over those raised in the practise of the faith. This policy was endorsed by the School’s Adjudicator who was asked to review JFS’ decision.
The High Court judge who heard the case dismissed the allegations of racial discrimination, arguing that the admissions criteria respected a religious and not a racial definition of the child’s status. The policy was therefore in keeping with government regulations that permit faith schools to favour adherents to their designated faith.
BHA felt compelled to speak out not only in defence of the child’s father but also in criticism of the injustice of the admissions policies applied by state-funded faith schools. The organisation contends that to discriminate against a child on the grounds of religion is a violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits any form of discrimination whether religious or racial.
Discriminatory admissions policies in state-funded faith schools are defended as being necessary for the preservation of the appropriate ethos. However, Andrew Copson, BHA’s Director of Education and Public Affairs, insists that ‘there is no evidence that school ethos is damaged by more inclusive admissions policies.’ Moreover, in this particular case such an argument seems particularly invalid given that JFS admit children who do not practise the Jewish faith (but are recognised as being of Jewish origin) over those that are active in their religious beliefs and practice.
For BHA, any form of discrimination in the admissions procedure of a state-funded school is unacceptable in a democratic society that promotes openness and diversity. The judgment has been appealed and Leigh Day and Co will be representing BHA at the Court of Appeal.
Information was correct at time of publishing. See terms and conditions for further details.