The Supreme Court and Non-Practical Influence

Ethiopian Equality in Education

At times we may ask ourselves if we are not expecting too much from 13 Honorable Judges of the Israeli Supreme Court. They certainly have their hands full.

This appears to be a contradiction to the latest Supreme Court decision on Tebeka Advocacy for Equality and Justice for Ethiopian Israelis vs. the Ministry of Education.

The Supreme Court sits not only as an appellate court but also as a High Court of Justice (Bagatz).  In this decision, sitting as a Bagatz, the question facing the court was: whether Jewish religious schools could apply an admission quota for Ethiopian students on the grounds of “non-observant background”. The rationale being that the school’s aim is to maintain a “strong religious atmosphere” at the school.

This case would have no special interest if it wasn’t for the fact that the children in question had already been placed in the schools at the time the court heard the petition!

The Dispute

In reality, there was no dispute at the time of the hearing, therefore the court should have dismissed the case and sent the parties home. But the court did not dismiss the case and instead decided to give a theoretical decision.

The Question

Can we afford the luxury of theoretical decisions when there are many thousands of cases waiting for decisions? Is this one of the goals of the Supreme Court? Is this a proper use of public monies? My answer to all of the above is NO! But the Honorable Judges decided otherwise as follows:

“Since we realize that the phenomenon of non-admission of immigrant      children to educational frameworks in the city recurs, we decided, with the agreement of the parties, that in view of the theoretical and practical importance of this issue, it is appropriate to render a principled decision in the issues raised in this Petition, so that it may have practical influence in respect of reality, each year prior to the beginning of the academic year.”

These words may sound very logical and even noble, but again the question begs an answer: can all of the thousands of people waiting for extremely important decisions wait until our Supreme Court has stopped dealing with theories (theories that may never come to be in the future in a dynamic society such as ours)?

However important the issue may be, the courts should not issue a “judgment of the future” or “theoretical judgments”. This is not compatible with our legal system of Common Law.

A Word of Criticism

As in any democratic society, criticism is permitted and welcome even when directed at the highest court and its judges. The Supreme Court is well aware of the strong opposition to its policy of “judicial activism”. It should refrain from issuing “futuristic and theoretical decisions” which will certainly cause more opposition.

The Decision

The Court ordered the government and municipal authorities to take administrative and financial steps against any school continuing to exercise discrimination against Ethiopian children.

A Word of Wisdom

As much as we think this decision will be a kind of landmark or an Israeli version of Brown v. Board of Education, I am well aware of the reality in our fragile society. The segregation/separation/discriminatory phenomenon is not new to our educational system. This phenomenon, as bad as it is, will not disappear because the Supreme Court made a decision, valued as it is and important and theoretically crucial as it may be!

We are a unique society with many diverging opinions and no Supreme Court decision will ever be the “glue” of these diverging opinions. Only our free will to live together in this country can and ultimately will bring us together.

Sincerely,
 

Tzvi Szajnbrum, Attorney at Law