Supreme Court Delays Implementation of District Court Decision Against Haifa University and its Use of Military Service Criterion to Allocate Student Dorms

On 10 April 2007, the Supreme Court of Israel decided to accept a motion filed by Haifa University to postpone the implementation of a decision delivered on 17 August 2006 by the Haifa District Court prohibiting the University's use of the military service criterion to allocate student dorms. The District Court reasoned that using the criterion of military service (defined as participation in military, national, or army reserve service and serving as student soldiers) is illegal because it discriminates against Arab students, and that it must therefore be cancelled. The District Court issued its decision on a petition filed by Adalah against the university's policy on 26 October 2005. Adalah argued that the inclusion of this criterion discriminates against Arab students, most of whom are exempt from military service, on the basis of nationality.

The Supreme Court's decision allows Haifa University to continue to use the criterion of military service in the allocation of student accommodation pending the issuance of its final decision on an appeal submitted by the university. The university's motion is the second such motion which it has filed in order to stay the implementation of the District Court's decision; before approaching the Supreme Court the university also requested a stay from the District Court, which the latter rejected.

Adalah Attorney Sawsan Zaher, who is representing three women university students in this case, stated that Supreme Court's decision thus authorizes Haifa University to continue to discriminate against Arab students. As Adalah argued in the petition, most Arab students do not perform military service, and as a result automatically enter the housing application process at a disadvantage in comparison with students who have performed military service. In the fall of 2005, under the existing system, applicants who participated in military service were automatically granted 20 points or one-third of the total points needed to qualify for housing; students who did not perform military service received zero points. As Adalah also emphasized in the petition, students who have served in the Israeli military already receive substantial benefits under The Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law, which enumerates all the social and economic benefits to which former soldiers are entitled, providing them with compensation including housing and educational grants.

The Supreme Court's decision relied on the fact that the total percentage of Arab students enrolled at the university is 20%, while the percentage of Arab students who live in university accommodation is 35%. The Court reasoned, �on examination of the allegedly group harmed by the use of the military service criterion, it becomes apparent that no harm has been caused to it.� It further maintained that changing the criteria at the present time could cause damage. It also stated that the ruling issued in H.C. 11956/05, according to which the use of the criterion of military service is not void, could have a bearing on the aforementioned appeal filed by Haifa University (See H.C. 11956/05, Suhad Bishara v. The Minister of Construction and Housing, decision delivered on 13.12.2006 on a petition submitted by Adalah challenging the enormous financial support by the state to former soldiers for home mortgages. A motion for a second hearing is pending before the Supreme Court: H.C. 1241/07, Suhad Bishara, et al. v. The Minister of Construction and Housing).

In its decision to reject the first motion filed by Haifa University requesting a stay, the Haifa District Court ruled that its decision of August 2006 to accept the petition �created expectations among the students who were unable to obtain student accommodation. These are legitimate expectations which must be protected.� The District Court added that, �the decision on the matter of the use of the criterion of military service as a criterion for awarding advantages in general, and allocating specific resources such as student accommodation in particular, necessitates a process of balancing between various considerations, which is sufficient to refute the claim that the appeal to delay the implementation of the decision has a high chance of being accepted.� The District Court further indicated that the amount of dorm space available for allocation in accordance with the criteria currently in use is relatively low and limited, and therefore the effect of a change created by the court's decision would affect a low number of housing units and cause a small amount of harm to the university.

C.A. (Civil Appeal) 8695/06, University of Haifa v. Haneen Naamneh et al. (Supreme Court, pending)