The difficulty is there are effectively two definitions of being Jewish. There is the purely racial one, which comes up when anti-semitism knocks and is defined purely on an ethnicity basis e.g. Hitler if one of your grandparents is Jewish. You can be discriminated against for being Jewish whether the OCR recognises you as Jewish or not.
Then there is the religious one. Even the reform in this country (not the USA) define being Jewish as through matrileneal descent. I can't remember the figure from the judgment but it's either 92 or 95% of the world's Jews define in this way. The reason why it is not "racism" in the common use of the word is because someone who is born to a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother or non-orthodox convert can change their status by converting. If it is purely by descent then it would not be possible to do so. For example if you wanted to change from white skinned to black, you could grow as many dreadlocks as you like and tar your skin but you would never truly be black.
A child of a non-Jewish mother and Jewish father can convert. I have known people who have done this and the orthodox conversion process is usually shorter and easier because there is often a recognition that they are coming from a different background. That is the case in this country which has one of the most draconian conversion processes.
The difference between reform and orthodoxy when reform started in the 19th century was so great that Christianity had more in common with orthodox Judaism. Even nowadays in terms of belief the dichotomy between orthodoxy and reform is not incomparable to prostestants and catholics. Orthodoxy goes by the belief that the Torah was given to be obeyed both oral and written law which are of divine origin. Reform as it has been explained to me by its practitioners is that these laws are more of social context and should be treated accordingly. That's quite a difference.
The attitude to converts is as much historically defined as anything else. At one point converts were encouraged but as a result of living amongst hostile nations where Jews were persecuted for practice and even more so for recruitment it turned inwards and the focus was more on other Jews and converts were discouraged for communal protection as well as fears of people using it as a front to discredit the community. Saying which that is not a reason to maintain it and not to make it easier. The key part of conversion is determining the sincere intent of the convert. That is the aim behind the process. If it is made really easy how could you tell who was just converting to get into a good school?
One of the other basic tenets is that once Jewish and born that way you cannot lose it even if you convert. This is why a catholic convert (ie Jewish converted to catholicism) would have been able to get into JFS under the old rules. The basis of this would be that their child is Jewish and it is the duty of the school to try and give them an understanding of this. I don't know if it ever happened (I went there for 5 years) but I'd imagine despite it being fine on paper the school might still be worried of the effect that child's parent would have on other children friendly with the child.
We3king you are Jewish according to halacha and the OCR. It is fine saying everyone should be modern and tolerant but from my understanding the decision to enforce the orthodox definition of Jews throughout schools in this country was done partly because of the oversubscription issues but also because the OCR has moved to the right over the last 20-30 years and this was seen as a way of combatting assimilation and intermarriage. In the 1950s there were around 500,000 Jews in this country. The number now is closer to 200,000 despite the birth rate having increased amongst the orthodox. The reasons given for this are mainly assimilation, intermarriage and general apathy.
I don't know if applying this rule was the best way to go about combatting the problem but sitting back in tolerant fashion will not resolve anything. The loss of a Jew in this way is considered a loss to the entire Jewish people and an impediment in bringing religious completeness. It is a good thing to accept everyone with open arms but if what they are doing is fundamentally opposed to what you view as right then you would be failing in your duty by letting them believe they are on the same page as you.
JFS always has been populated by kids whose parents are more concerned with them marrying and socialising with other Jews and getting a Jewish identity than religion. Frankly that is more racist in my view then if they wanted them to marry other Jews on the basis that you should marry another Jew because that is what is required under Jewish law.
I have no idea what the OCR will now do about school entry but judging by the primary school entry forms, the questions have become truly horrendous!
In conclusion I think the judgment is wrong in not differentiating between these two definitions of Jewish - the ethnic and the religious but taken to its logical extremes I don't think the previous rules were fair.
The unfortunate irony of this whole saga is the first non-orthodox/cross-communal Jewish secondary school was due to open September 2010 with the intention of prioritising non-orthodox Jews. As a result of the judgment this would now be indirect racism as it is a matter of birth that makes these kids non-orthodox.
Do you think this post would qualify as an entry for a Jewish school now?