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.'

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.federation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/childbirth-shabbos_booklet_a5_may15-clr.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiH6u_G9f-PAxV3UUEAHYxoIhIQFnoECGwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3H8zsDOE2t6EwUgca_z-1s

And the Pope won't say the same as the Westboro Baptists. So what. You seem determined to decide what people of a faith that isn't your own are allowed to believe. It is very arrogant. My one Jewish friend has a woman rabbi the other believes a rabbi has to be a man. Are you going to tell us which one is right.

I'm a Catholic and believe in transubstantiation, I'm pretty sure I can find Christian tracts that will set out why they don't believe in transubstantiation but it doesn't mean that I and millions of other Catholics don't believe it. Fortunately we are past the stage of people burning at the stake for it.

I've had Catholic priests give me absolution for using contraception, other priests won't. We are all still Catholics. I'm sure Rabbis are as likely as Catholic priests to have different views.

I'm off swimming with GC now so I will leave you to it.

People on this thread who are Jewish have explained to you that is not what they think.

What you're saying just doesnt make sense when it comes to Jewish Law though. It is against the principles. Thats why I am able to refute it.

But official data shows otherwise. Shall I listen to official data, or people on Mumsnet? Who do you think academics usually refer to?

I am suggesting you don't make assumptions about 'what they think', especially when the people concerned are telling you directly.

They see white and think "that's me".

It's patronising to blithely assume what other people's motivations are, especially given that more than one person on this thread has explained in nuanced and thoughtful terms their decisions. Maybe try listening.

And to answer your question, you don't 'listen' to data. You read it, assess and consider it, and use it to inform yourself. We 'listen' to people.

Well that is obvious by their choice to tick a white box or otherwise identify under "white" when there are other options.

You know white people, especially minority groups, can still experience racism, right? Being white doesnt make you bad or resistant to prejudice. It just means you identify as white, probably because your ancestors are European and pale-skinned.

https://medium.com/@realtalkwocandallies/im-jewish-and-i-m-white-81de073b26e7

An older but interesting opinion article.

I've used that phrase.

Jewish patient had a pacemaker fitted. You are supposed to carry a card identifying the make, model and mode of the pacemaker at all times. But orthodox jews do not carry things on Shabbat.

I said, "Look I'll tell you what I want you to do, but ask your Rabbi about Shabbat"

The answer in case anyone wants to know is Velcro. Velcro on the card, and more on the outside of an inside pocket.

I feel really sorry for the mothers in your hospital, especially if they are orthodox Jewish. It can’t be fun being resented when you’d like your religion respected, or being classed as ‘white’ by someone who wants to use that as a weapon against you.

You wish to behave like an employer who schedules a compulsory team meeting on a Friday afternoon or a school who timetables lessons on Saturday mornings. That’s discrimination. Not making a reasonable accommodation is discrimination.

Thank you, that's a really interesting perspective from an informed position.

I would think it reasonable that a belief can be accommodated as long as a) it doesn't put the patient at risk (unless the patient explicitly accepts the risk, such as in my blood transfusion example) and b) it does not have any impact on others.

Unfortunately, it sounds like accommodating the wish to not be discharged within the Sabbath can have an impact on others' care. I
wouldn't see it as any indication of you giving bad care to patients when you're faced with juggling this request for a religious accommodation within a secular hospital setting.

The link you sent with the guidance for Jewish hospital visitors and patients was interesting. The onus is clearly on the individual to use/adjust it as needed in accordance with their own values within their faith.

(FWIW I can see why you might rely on statistics to understand demand likelihood for services. It sounds like it would only ever be an approximation of religious accommodation requests anyway, given the variation within each faith, such as the Catholic and Jewish examples above - and that in reality, listening to requests for specific accommodations is done on an individual basis. Obviously stats for skin colour are immaterial for this purpose)

The leaflet is from the Kehillas federation, which I think is modern orthodox rather than Haredi.

Reasonable accommodation means that once you know someone is Shabbat observant, you need to be aware of the need to plan any Friday discharge early in winter. This is fairly standard advice in NHS hospitals. If you’re rushing the pharmacy to get the medication and chasing the paediatric consultants, the hospital is not doing that.

What else are they not doing, if they’re not doing that?

I should imagine that reasonable accommodations for any beliefs are done wherever viable. But equally, it's not always going to be viable.

Unfortunately I doubt it's as simple as planning ahead, with multiple patients to juggle on any given day - any of whom could have different beliefs that they have requested to be accommodated.

It does come down to ‘if they can’t manage that, what else are they not doing?’

Example for a non-Jewish patient known to me: an elderly lady with dementia needed to have her discharge managed so she was home by six pm. She lived alone and had a care package.

Instead she arrived home at 8 pm. Nobody to help. No carers available because they’d been told she’d be there by 6 and had presumed the hospital was keeping her in another night.

Incidentally, ‘Avoid discharging patients on the Sabbath’ is the Race and Health Observatory’s advice.

www.nhsrho.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Jewish-Identity-Culture-and-Care.pdf

It does come down to ‘if they can’t manage that, what else are they not doing?’

I guess it comes down to a question of priorities; do you give patients their life-saving medications, carried out necessary observations, call the doctor over deteriorating patient, review test results, fetch a wandering dementia back to the ward, or do discharge paperwork?

I guess it does, but if you discharge someone at the wrong time, you’re creating a problem- just not one you can see on the ward. You can’t see the lady with dementia outside her house in the cold. Because you thought other things were more important than the paperwork.

Likewise, if you have a local Haredi community, you won’t see the women deciding to have home births (with attendant dangers) because the hospital considers their modest request for early discharge on any winter Fridays (26 days out of 365…) utterly unmanageable. They just won’t be there - and then people will mutter how primitive ‘these people’ are.

Indirect discrimination works like that. There is always a perfectly plausible reason why ‘these people’ can’t be accommodated. There’s always something that’s higher priority.

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.

This sounds like more of a process problem that an actual priority problem. For a hospital that serves such a community there should be some sort of a marker of records/requests possible.

It's also perfectly reasonable for someone to request a such a discharge before sunset on Frida and if it is not possible that week then they should explain. As with any other issue. It's not the fault of the community.

If it is such a hindrance/time waste then surely staff should be reporting it?!

I'm skeptical though. It often seems like there's an excuse not to make any sort of reasonable adjustments for religion or disability.

It is a waste of resources for anyone to stay in hospital when they no longer need to be there. Anyone who is able to go home at 3pm on a Friday should be discharged then. Given the mess that is the NHS I would be very surprised if the systems could not be improved for everyone.

It's awful that the dementia patient didn't have access to her structured care when arriving home. Obviously nothing can be done in hindsight but it's my understanding that this type of situation is why patients can refuse discharge because it would be unsafe for them. I believe it's the only reason that is allowed for discharge refusal.

If money were no object in providing care, I would hope that respect for every person's belief could be accommodated in a way that had no impact on others. I dislike the thought of anyone feeling distressed in hospital because it hasn't been possible to accommodate respect for their belief in their care.

I even extend this to side room provision for people who identify as transgender whose belief means they don't want to be on a ward with others of their sex and where the law now makes it very clear that they can't be on a single-sex ward with members of the opposite sex (we can't inside anyone's head so have no objective way of differentiating between someone who has a genuinely held belief that they have a "gendered soul", that differs from their sex, and someone who is feigning this belief). The same argument could be said of trans-identifying people self-excluding from hospital care if requests to respect their belief are not accommodated. Obviously some will continue to self-exclude even if they get a side room because what they really want is to be on a ward with the opposite sex.

For clarity, I'm well aware that trans-identifying people often demand full compliance with their belief (e.g. no "misgendering"), not just accommodating the fact that they hold it (e.g. being offered a side room in the legally appropriate single-sex ward). Thankfully people with religious beliefs don't do that in the UK - as it says above, burning apostates of the "right" denomination of a religion is now in the past.

Hospitals' first priorities are medical need and safety. Accommodating needs that are based on beliefs would ideally be possible too but must always be secondary where there are resource limitations. For example, it would be inappropriate for a dementia patient's discharge (with home care arranged at a fixed time) to be prioritised lower than someone whose belief means they can't travel in a car after sunset - if the resource limitations meant that a prioritisation decision was necessary.

Although this is a side conversation from the main thread, it does highlight the complexity in establishing the difference between having a respect for someone's belief versus being asked (expected) to comply with a tenet of that belief.

Side rooms are very much required for clinical need and should not be used because of belief!

Just a point about ‘reasonable adjustment’ - the Equality Act only requires this for disability, not any other protected characteristics. The NHS does not have to make reasonable adjustment for belief. You could argue indirect discrimination but this is allow where it can be justified (for example where patients need to be dealt with on the basis of clinical need).

Side rooms are very much required for clinical need and should not be used because of belief!

Oh, I agree. But if funds to build more side rooms were plentiful, or there was nobody with a clinical need for the side room at that time, it could be. Accommodating beliefs should never be the primary priority though, given the limitations on resources - and if stretched funds were being diverted from elsewhere to accommodate this, something has gone wrong in the decision-making.

Gender identity belief has been found to be WORIADS in court by default, when Forstater won the right to not believe in it on appeal. So in legal terms, someone who believes themselves to have a gendered soul that differs from their sex is on par with someone who believes in god.

Just a point about ‘reasonable adjustment’ - the Equality Act only requires this for disability, not any other protected characteristics. The NHS does not have to make reasonable adjustment for belief. You could argue indirect discrimination but this is allow where it can be justified (for example where patients need to be dealt with on the basis of clinical need).

This makes sense. It also helps to set the context for why nobody should ever expect their belief-based request to be accommodated. My personal view is that if it's viable to do so, without compromising clinical care, great. But it should never be an expectation or a perceived right.

Gender identity belief has been found to be WORIADS in court by default

It wasn’t tested by the courts, though in the ERCC case the judges remarks were clear that they did not consider the version held there to be WORIADS. That is the version held by many.

If we can’t expect our belief based request to be accommodated, am I, as a patient, being unreasonable to request single sex personal care?

If we can’t expect our belief based request to be accommodated, am I as a patient, being unreasonable to request that the radiographer for my mammogram be born female?

These are examples of belief based requests.

Single sex care is based on privacy, safety and dignity. Not belief.

Single-sex care and spaces result from a need that has been identified through statistics: women are statistically vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse by men in such situations.