The British Supreme Court declared last Wednesday in its ruling that the practice of admission at one Jewish High School in London was illegal. Jewish schools in London have had the practice and policy of admitting new students provided that their mothers are originally Jewish. This presents a bias among other students with originally Jewish fathers or with parents who are Jewish converts.

Lord Phillips, the president of the British court, in his majority opinion said that one thing is clear about the matrilineal test that Jewish schools in London practice: it is a test of ethnic origin. By definition, he further adds, “discrimination that is based upon that test is discrimination on racial grounds.”

This decision by the country’s highest court has brought an end to the case that has brought to the surface the deep divide experienced by the country’s 300,000 Jews.

The case was basically brought up to court because of the efforts of a 12-year old boy only known as M in the court documents. The boy had applied to J.F.S, one of Britain’s foremost Jewish secondary schools, and was not admitted because his mother—who is a Jewish convert—belongs to a progressive, and not Orthodox, congregation.

M then sued J.F.S but lost in the initial hearings of the case. The Court of Appeals the overturned the ruling last summer in favor of M. J.F.S then appealed the ruling which was brought to an end last Wednesday, still in favor of the boy.

“The ruling represents a definitive end to six decades of exclusion of children who are devout in their Jewish faith, but considered by some to be not quite Jewish enough to enjoy the benefits of their community’s leading faith school,” comments John Halford, the boy’s lawyer.

The case was disputed based on the argument of whether the school’s admissions policy, particularly the Jewishness test, was purely based on religion, which would be entirely legal, or based on race or and/or ethnicity, which would be illegal. Two Judges out of nine ruled the policy indirectly discriminatory; two ruled that it was not discriminatory; and five ruled it as being directly discriminatory.