NATFHE AND ITS JEWISH MEMBERS
Introduction
1. NATFHE is a secular organisation, which has always had a moral, and will soon have a legal, obligation not to discriminate against its members on the grounds of religious belief or non-belief. The union has also been in the forefront of promoting tolerance and respect between different religious, ethnic and other social groups.
2. This paper is in fulfilment of a commitment given at Conference 2002 by the outgoing Chair of FM&O (Jean Cooke) to look at NATFHE’s policies, procedures and employment practices to see how they may exclude or discriminates against certain groups, particularly those with beliefs and practices which involve religious observance on Fridays and Saturdays.
3. Categorisation is always fraught with danger but it is worth noting that the 2001 England and Wales Census recorded religious self-identification for the following groups:
Buddhists 0.3% ( 144,000)
Jews 0.5% ( 260,000)
Sikhs 0.3% ( 329,000)
Hindu 1.1% ( 552,000)
Muslim 3.0% (1,500,000)
None 14.8% (7,700,000)
Christian 71.7% (37,000,000)
4. It is important to note that religious identification does not mean religious practice. Indeed 44% said they had no religion in the 2000 British Social Attitudes survey.
5. Of course there are sub-divisions within these groups (e.g. the many sects of Christianity, Ahmadi Muslims, etc). Even in a small community characterised as divided between Christians and Muslims (e.g. Cyprus) there are at least two varieties of Christianity – the majority Greek Orthodox and the Maronites.
6. Religious observance may also vary considerably within any category (e.g. some Christian groups hold Sunday to be the ‘Sabbath’, some Saturday) and be relatively ‘strict’.
7. Religious category may overlap but can be distinguished from ethnic group. In the England and Wales Census, the following categories were identified.
White British 87.5%
White Irish 1.2%
White Other 2.6%
Indian 2.0%
Pakistani 1.4%
Bangladeshi 0.5%
Black Caribbean 1.1%
Black African 0.9%
Chinese 0.4%
Mixed 1.4%
8. The concentration of particular groups of people also varies by age and occupation. It is clear that there is a higher proportion of members of some groups employed in colleges and universities than in the population as a whole.
9. Whilst this paper focuses on the position of NATFHE members who are Jews, it contains wider implications for NATFHE’s relationship with its members from all faith groups, particularly those whose religious observance patterns make participation in NATFHE difficult.
Involving Jewish members
10. Over the past year a few Jewish members to whom religious observance is mandatory have individually raised questions about their seeming exclusion from NATFHE’s structures beyond the branch.
11. Sometimes these objections have also been accompanied by additional concerns about NATFHE’s policies on Israel / Palestine.
12. Outer London region has sent two resolutions with recommendations which are subsumed in this paper.
13. One Employment Tribunal case has been taken, and withdrawn, against NATFHE ‘alleging that the Union was discriminating against orthodox Jews by holding all regional meetings on Saturdays. The Union rules do not allow for them to be held on any other day.’
14. There have been two meetings with the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The first involved members of FM&O and the General Secretary; the second involved the Head of Equality Unit and the General Secretary.
15. At these meetings various distinctions have emerged between different groups or interests:
a. Jews by ethnicity (N.B. also a sub-category of people categorised in the census as ‘mixed’);
b. Jews by religion;
c. Jews whose religious observance may require ‘reasonable adjustment’ or special measures by the union or employer;
d. Jews who wish to change NATFHE’s policy on the Middle East.
(Clearly some people will be in more than one category.)
16. The Race Relations Act has been interpreted, on the basis of case law, as applying to Jews as an ethnic group, against whom it is thus illegal to discriminate. The regulations outlawing discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in employment and training will also apply to “trade organisations”, and will come into force in December 2003.
17. Undoubtedly the political situation in the Middle East has sharpened the issue of potential exclusion of Jewish members from the union’s policy-making process. It should be mentioned that there is no unanimous position amongst UK Jews on the question of Palestine. There has been correspondence and discussion with those who support the Government of Israel and wish to change NATFHE policy on Palestine and with those, e.g. Jews for Justice for Palestinians, who are in broad agreement with NATFHE’s current policy.
18. The Board of Deputies made the point that, whilst NATFHE can of course publicise any policy it has on the Middle East, the manner in which the points are made can be important, e.g. opposition to Israeli Government policies can seem like opposition to Jews unless some careful distinctions are made. NATFHE representatives emphasised the care with which this issue had been handled.
19. Similarly some campaigning symbols, e.g. those equating the swastika with the Star of David, are grossly offensive.
Action taken before May 2002
20. NATFHE as a union had a long history of promoting respect, understanding and tolerance for believers of different faiths and for those with no faith through multi-cultural and anti-racist educational practices.
21. NATFHE as employer and the staff unions had agreed a comprehensive Employer Equality Policy including a section on avoidance of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.
22. NATFHE as a union is the first union to have published a discussion document on Discrimination on the Grounds of Religion or Belief (March 2002).
23. NATFHE revised its own equality rules by adopting the model TUC aims and objects clauses.
Action taken between May 2002 and May 2003
24. FM&O have been kept fully briefed on these issues throughout the year, and has endorsed the actions taken.
25. We have consulted Regional Secretaries on the question of Saturday meetings. We are aware of the fact that:
· employers would be unlikely to provide time off for attendance at regional meetings
· ¼ of delegates are likely to be teaching on any night between Monday and Thursday
· there are travel problems for what would inevitably be a shorter meetings on an evening, and that
· Sundays are unlikely to be popular, not least because public travel systems are poor especially in large regions.
But we have been on a genuine search for any new ideas or solutions.
26. Rules Group drew up proposals to enable the NEC to remove from regional rules the requirement for Saturday meetings. These were adopted at the May NEC.
27. We have suggested that delegates who are unable to attend for religious reasons be allowed to send written comments to be read out at Region. Where travel during the religious observance day - rather than participation in a NATFHE meeting - is the problem, we have offered to pay for hotel accommodation near the meeting venue.
28. We have offered to call a meeting of NATFHE members who self-identify as Jews to one member who we met with the Board of Deputies but the offer was not taken up.
29. We have warned members to be on their guard against a rise in anti-semitism and Islamophobia in the current political climate.
30. We remain committed to ensuring non-discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief and have joined campaigns against anti-semitic political parties (e.g. at a National Assembly Against Racism Press Conference) and condemned attacks on synagogues.
31. The General Secretary and other NATFHE Officials have taken great care to respond in detail to letters and e-mails which have been received from members and non-members on the union’s policies on Palestine and Israel.
32. Our Equality Official has responded in detail to the Government’s consultation on religious discrimination.
33. We have circulated Regional Offices and Heads of Department at Head Office with the Board of Deputies’ advice to employers and employees on the employment of practising Jews
34. The December 2002 Lecturer included a pull out poster for every member, opposing intolerance (with specific inclusion of anti-semitism and Islamophobia).
35. The Head of Communications and Membership has examined
a. the feasibility and cost of introducing a new ethnic category Jewish for new members under Section A of the new membership form and on membership records
b. the feasibility of asking for the religious identity of new members following the 2001 census classification.
c. the possibility of existing members being able to return tear-off slips in the Lecturer to register religious affiliation.
d. the possibility of facilitating self-managed email networks for religious groups of NATFHE members
36. The Head of Equality Unit has examined:
a. the implications of the new legislation
b. the desirability of ethnic monitoring of Jews on the basis of ethnic identity NOT religion - given that there was vehement opposition to this in the early 1980s because of WW2 holocaust lists – taking advice of the Board of Deputies’ documents and the CRE.
c. the implications for existing equality structures including the desirability of a Jewish network (formal or informal)
d. the implications for existing equality structures including the desirability of faith networks (formal or informal)
e. other issues relating to faith groups in NATFHE, e.g. question of reserved seats etc (see below).
The question of networks, reserved seats etc
37. This process has made us examine our policies on equality structures.
38. Whilst there have not been complaints about the existing structures, one Jewish member has raised the legitimate question:
“I cannot see any place on the NEC or the Equality Committee for Jews or Sikhs. Under the law we are both ethnic minorities yet neither, I believe is represented. There are places for Blacks, the Disabled, Gays and Lesbians but not us. I understand there is a Black and Asian network, where do we fit in?”
39. Currently, NATFHE has two reserved seats on its NEC for Black Members, one for a disabled member, one for a lesbian and gay member, and five for women members. All of these will sit on the Equality Committee of the NEC.
40. Candidates are asked to confirm that they are from the appropriate group, but this has always been a matter of self-definition. The term "Black" is open to a wide range of interpretations. NATFHE's understanding of the term is very close to that used by The Commission for Black Staff in FE, i.e. "’Black’ includes members of African, African Caribbean, Asian and other visible ethnic communities who may face racism.”
41. By this definition some Jews may self-identify as Black; some Turks might self-identify as ‘Black’; but all Sikhs of Indian, East African or Caribbean origin are likely to do so.
42. However, as the Commission said, the “debate about terminology continues to develop." Just who is included in the term "visible ethnic minority" is open to argument. Certainly with immigration into Britain from a greater range of countries, we are likely, as are all organisations, to have to re-open the debate about terminology.
43. However, we are never likely to have, for a range of logistical reasons, separate representation for different ethnic groups and/or for different religions.
44. Apart from the NEC, NATFHE also has an Equality Advisory Council [EAC] with four places per region on it. These are for a Black, Disabled, Lesbian and Gay and Woman member {by the same process of self-definition}.
45. EAC, which meets once a term, has the right to send four motions to Annual Conference. The motions are not in the name of the four separate groups, but of the EAC.
46. As for networks, there is an e-mail grouping for each of the four groups, to which we send relevant information. We try to encourage lay activists to set up actual networks in the regions, but this rarely happens
Recommendations for Action
1. We should obtain regular updates on new law on religious discrimination and see what other unions are doing.
2. We should issue advice to regions on how they might include all delegates so far as possible which would e.g. ask Regions where there is a problem of exclusion:
· to be conscious of the issues involved
· to hold some meetings (e.g. one a year) on a day other than Friday night or Saturday
· to enable those who cannot attend to register their views by letter or email
· to note that current Regional Rules make no provision for proxy voting for Regional Council delegates who are not in the debate
3. We would have to decide whether it is desirable to add an additional category ‘Jewish’ to the ethnic monitoring question and/or make a NATFHE membership category when ‘Jewish’ is offered is offered as a reply specified under ‘other please state’.
The CRE advice is to use the same ethnic categories that were used in the 2001 census for the purposes of comparison and benchmarking and that if we want to introduce any new categories, they should be as sub-groups of an appropriate main group of the census categories. (see Appendix for categories)
The CRE further advice, if in doubt, to contact the Integration and Harmonisation Division of the ONS. This has been done and we have been told that Jewish would not fit as a sub-group of any of the census categories, and we would have to create a whole new category,