On 27 May 2007, Adalah filed its concluding arguments to the Supreme Court of Israel against the appeal by Haifa University regarding its use of the military service criterion to allocate student dorms. Adalah demanded that the Supreme Court reject Haifa University’s appeal against a decision of the Haifa District Court that the University’s use of this criterion discriminates against Arab students on the basis of national belonging, and that it must be cancelled. Adalah Attorney Sawsan Zaher is representing three Arab women students at the University of Haifa in the appeal.

In its decision, delivered on 17 August 2006, the District Court ruled that using the military service criterion is discriminatory because it results in the exclusion of Arab students and damages their chances of winning places in the student dorms on the basis of their national belonging. Those who have performed military service, overwhelmingly Jewish students, are granted 35% of the points needed to qualify for a place in the dorms, while students who did not serve in the military, almost all of whom are Arabs, are not awarded these points. The District Court also ruled that in light of this discriminatory result, the use of this criterion can only be based on primary legislation and must fulfill the conditions of the fairness test.

In the concluding arguments, Attorney Zaher argued that Haifa University’s position disregards the socio-economic needs of the students and thus harms the principle of equality on the basis of national belonging. Adalah further argued that the Absorption of Former Soldiers Law – 1994 enumerates a wide scope of social and economic benefits provided for discharged soldiers, including education and benefits. Thus, "Going beyond this legislative arrangement leads to a situation of discrimination on the basis of national belonging, in contradiction of constitutional principles," Adalah contended.

Before the District Court, Haifa University did not claim that the use of the military service criterion is based on value-based considerations – assisting someone who has served the state – but that its considerations are based solely on economic need. However, the university did raise this argument before the Supreme Court. Adalah emphasized that the University cannot change the purpose of its policies and practices from court to court. Adalah also contended that, "The position of the University of Haifa would legitimize the use of the military service criterion in many other instances, which could transform this criterion into a means for expanding the socio-economic gaps between the two national groups."

During the past academic year, Haifa University administered housing for approximately 1,115 students, with 517 dorm spaces available to applicants under a points-based system. The required minimum number of points needed to qualify for housing at the university was 61 points. 20 points, equating to 35% of the minimum number of points needed, were awarded to students who performed military service. As the majority of Arabs citizens of Israel are exempt from military service, almost all Arab students start with zero points. "The unreasonableness of this [point] allocation [for military service] is intensified by the large weight given to it, a criterion which is utterly unrelated to the economic objective behind the [university’s] allocation of student housing."

"If all students received housing on the basis of low economic status relative to the other applicants, the proportion of Arab students would be far higher than the proportion which actually receives dorms – 35% – because the economic situation of Arabs is in general worse than the rest of the citizens," argued Adalah. Therefore, given the proportion of Arab students at the university (20%), the correct application of an economic needs-based approach to the allocation of student housing would produce different results, as the percentage of Arab students in the dorms would be far higher than the number who receive student dorms today. The Haifa District Court examined this issue, and decided that, "If the test were economic circumstances, then naturally the number of members of the Arab minority awarded housing because of economic circumstances would be higher."

C.A. (Civil Appeal) 8695/06, Haifa University v. Haneen Naamnih, et al. (case pending).

Adalah’s Concluding Arguments (Hebrew)
Haifa University’s Appeal to the Supreme Court (Hebrew)