Faith school where women are banned from wearing trousers becomes state funded

[ArabellaSaurus]

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2025/09/faith-school-which-bans-women-wearing-trousers-becomes-state-funded

'The National Secular Society has expressed alarm that a London faith school which bans women from wearing trousers and penalises families who attend non-kosher restaurants will now be funded by the state.
Nancy Reuben Primary School re-opened as a voluntary aided (VA) state school this month, after operating as an independent school for 26 years. Its decision to join the state sector follows the Government's move to charge VAT on independent school fees.'

'Women may not wear trousers, mini skirts, shorts, low necklines or sleeveless tops
The school's dress code for parents and visitors says men "must have their head covered at all times" and women "must wear skirts of knee length (a maximum of 2" above is acceptable)". It says trousers "may not be worn" by women.
Additionally, women must cover their underarms and may not wear cap sleeves. Women may not wear clothes with necklines lower than "4 fingers from the collar bone" either "in front or back of the garment".
Trousers are permitted for aupairs and nannies but they may not wear mini skirts, shorts, plunging necklines or sleeveless tops.'

Right. But then we get to the argument that overwhelmingly, very religious Jews/Muslims tend to not be wealthy. I don’t know where I stand on this!

We let ALL faith schools, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, set their own rules.

The question is whether we should

A lot of the time they may be identifiable as Jewish though, esp if they are Orthodox and wear traditional dress.

You can't speak for all Jews, it would be a bit like saying you don't believe what Louis Theroux says about the Westboro Baptists because you know some Anglicans who aren't like that. I think my Jewish friend knows what the rules are in her Synagogue and she wouldn't get in a car on Shabbos even if it was driven by a non Jew.

I think in a multi-cultural society in which belief or faith is a protected characteristic you have to permit faith schools...so long as they have regulatory over-sight so as to ensure they are complying with necessary safeguards, instructions and national curriculums.

Yes. There is also a small amount of Jews who are black as well, not to mention mixed-race Jews.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.heyalma.com/black-jews-are-not-a-monolith/&ved=2ahUKEwj-opb3z_6PAxVUW0EAHf09McIQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2MOMUI2Ma1rEXx6PMuj5fH

Ugh, that link doesn't work anymore. I'll link this one instead.

https://www.heyalma.com/you-should-know-these-black-jews-who-made-history/

Some examples are converts, others mixed-race. It should be remembered that any non-Jew can convert to Judaism, it is a religion based around an ethnic group & doesn't proselytise but it DOES accept committed converts.

Plus there is the ancient Beta Israel community of Ethiopians who have always practised Judaism.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel&ved=2ahUKEwj4k5X40P6PAxWnUkEAHf2HEXoQFnoECCIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2k2XBktOqBxMls-sOCnCjO

All ethnic Jews DO have Middle Eastern heritage, they are distinct from other Europeans. Similarly, Romany gypsies have identifiable descent from ancient India. It is disingenuous to disregard this and also to claim that this ethnic difference hasn't led to discrimination.

That comment told me all I need to know about motivation. The whole ‘ all Jews are European’ anyway.

They walk among us or even worse, deliver our children.

This thread has certainly taken some interesting twists and turns.

Regarding hospitals, if someone needs to be discharged on medical grounds on a Friday evening or on a Saturday, I can't imagine religious preference would be taken into consideration so that they stayed in until the Sunday - hospitals are not religious institutions and will make decisions based on medical reasoning. Yes, patients can refuse care for medical reasons (e.g. a Jehovah's Witness might refuse a blood transfusion even if it means death is likely) but the law doesn't allow people to challenge a hospital's decision on discharge and stay in longer than they need to medically, unless it is clear that they would be unsafe if discharged. It's not antisemitic to state or even support this.

It feels like we've wandered down quite a derail from the OP, but equally the point remains the same: no public institution should enforce religious restrictions that impact someone's decisions. If the school was challenged on its policy, I would expect it to lose in a court for breach of the Equality Act and the protected characteristic to not hold a belief. (Equally, I wouldn't expect it to be challenged if everyone who attends it does so because they share the same religious values as the school).

Then she would perhaps break other rules around preserving health by refusing.

Yes but if that person identifies as white and has European ancestors, who are you or me to argue that they aren't white?

We all know there are Jewish people of everyone creed and colour. We also know that the majority of Jewish people identify as white.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/6529598/jewish/What-You-Need-to-Know-About-Shabbat-in-the-Hospital.htm

Discharged on Shabbat
Thank G‑d, things are on the mend and the patient has been discharged from the hospital. One problem, it's still Shabbat!
If possible, arrange for the patient to remain in the hospital until the end of Shabbat (hospitals are often willing to accommodate). If staying in the hospital is very difficult or there is a great need to return home on Shabbat, the patient may be transported home by a non-Jew.

She believes you can in an emergency, mother and baby fit for discharge from hospital wouldn't qualify. As an example I was due to be discharged from maternity ward on a Saturday, Sister came over and said I couldn't be discharged papers hadn't been signed although she admitted doctor had said I was fit for discharge. . I said I was going anyway. Was she risking mine or babies lives? I don't think so. As I said Jewish people and congregations can interpret laws differently. You can't actually tell them what they believe.

People who identified as Jewish through religion only were most likely to identify their ethnic group using the "White: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British" tick-box (82.9%).

You can write in any response you want. You have multiple boxes to choose from. Most Jewish people choose to identify as white. This isnt new or any revelation. You can write under "other ethnicity group" so you don't even have to write under white other.

Most Jewish people self identify as white. Data consistently shows that to be the case. I am not sure why anyone is arguing with this.

No but the Talmud can. Refusing to be in a car for Shabbos in an emergency would be risking life.

You have missed the point entirely, that people are having to frame their identity via the pre-constructed/conceived set of options available to them, and not as they actually do identify. For someone who thinks other people's categories and boxes don't matter when it comes to the issue of gender identitity - you must surely understand this point?

Anyway, why are you trying to hammer this point about 'whiteness' anyway; what is your purpose?

What would you say 'whiteness' as' an identity' means? Do you think it has meaning for people; for all people; for some people;...or what?

Jewish people (unless converts) are definably a distinct ethnic group. Someone may identify as white for restrictive forms but I doubt they would deny their ethnic difference.

The whole busines of 'identity' has twisted and distorted everything. I'm imagining the original purpose of these tick box categories was to monitor practices such as DEI?

What does' identifying with' one's skin tone actually mean - once it is shorn of its itersectionalist implications of privilege and oppression?

I do think people are much more tolerant of how we provide holistic and individualised care to the Haredi community than literally any other group of people. And we really do a lot.

If we were making non-Muslim women wait for discharge so we could get the Muslim women out by Jummah, there would be far more outrage. Especially by those kept waiting.

Training and working in a hospital with a Haredi community, you get used to it and it becomes a norm. It is when new staff join and see what is going on that they point out that we are actually compromising the quality of care of other service users. Instead of helping a mum with breastfeeding, I am busy trying to discharge someone who wants to be home before sunset so I am rushing the pharmacy for their medication and on the phone chasing paediatricians to discharge the baby when really we should just wait for when the pharmacy and paediatrician can get here.

And this was the case before we had all the funding issues. Before we even had the coalition this was going on..it's just now we have even less scope to try and help each other as the staff just aren't there.

I already said she would in an emergency but a healthy mother and baby in a hospital is not an emergency. Or is your hospital so bad that it's a risk to life? If so should babies be delivered there?

Many of the forms allow you to write whatever you want for ethnicity. There isn't a restriction. They see white and think "that's me". As a mixed race individual, I've been ticking other since I could fill out a form at 7 because back then where they only had Black, white, other or Asian, I knew I was an Other because I am not (fully) Black, White or Asian.

It can be confusing, I'm dual nationality British and Irish. More and more they are shown as two options, for me it was easier to just tick white.