21.09.23
Editorial Note
A new report was published by the British Society for Middle East Studies (BRISMES) together with the Palestinian group, the European Legal Support Center (ELSC). BRISMES and ELSC have rejected the adoption of The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism. In their words, “UK higher education institutions should rescind the adoption of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism.”
BRISMES is holding a conference to promote the report’s findings, on September 28, 2023.
The report is based on an analysis of 40 cases recorded between 2017 and 2022, where university staff and students were accused of antisemitism, based on the IHRA Working Definition. Except in two ongoing cases, the accusations of antisemitism have all been rejected. The final two have yet to be substantiated. According to the authors, “The findings demonstrate that the IHRA definition is undermining academic freedom and freedom of expression in relation to discussions of Israel and Palestine and risks being used in a way that discriminates against Palestinians and others on campuses who wish to teach, research, study, discuss, or speak out against the oppression of Palestinians.”
In a common technique to camouflage their antisemitic agenda and legitimize their findings, the two organizations recruited an anti-Israel Israeli academic to lead the campaign, Prof. Neve Gordon. The journal Times Higher Education published his interview. Gordon is the chair of BRISMES’ committee on academic freedom and a professor of international human rights and humanitarian law at Queen Mary University of London. Formerly of Ben Gurion University’s Department of Politics and Government who called for the boycott of Israel in 2009. Gordon claims that “BRISMES and the European Legal Support Centre received many requests of support from staff and students who have been accused of antisemitism because they criticized the policies of the Israeli government or just ‘liked’ some tweets about Israel or about the Labor Party… We began noticing a pattern of what appeared to be spurious accusations which are causing considerable stress and reputational damage to individuals in academia and decided to investigate the matter.” Gordon added: “As a Jewish parent, whose children have experienced antisemitism in a London school, it is clear to me that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is diverting our attention from real manifestations of antisemitism in UK higher education and society more generally. Instead of combating antisemitism, the IHRA definition has become a political tool to undermine and punish protected speech voiced by Palestinian and other students and staff who criticize Israeli policies.”
Gordon also stated: “What has been framed as a tool to classify and assess a particular form of discriminatory violations of protected characteristics, has instead been used as a tool to undermine and punish protected speech and to punish those in academia who voice criticism of the Israeli state’s policies.”
Contrary to Gordon’s claim, the IHRA Definition states clearly, “However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
The report delves primarily into incidents relating to anti-Zionism, the boycott movement, Israeli Apartheid Week, or comments on former leaders in the Labor Party accused of antisemitism, which many universities are unsure how to handle as these are sometimes considered borderline cases of antisemitism. Clearly, negating the Jewish right to self-determination in the ancestral homeland is antisemitic.
In January, the Community Security Trust (CST), a charity that protects British Jews from antisemitism, published a report, “Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2020-2022,” that showed a 22% increase in university-related antisemitic hate incidents reported to CST over the past two academic years.
Ironically, the attack on IHRA occurred during a dramatic increase in antisemitism in the West. The Palestinian Authority has contributed its fair share to the denigration of Jews. As widely reported, Mahmoud Abbas, the PA head with a long history of Holocaust distortion and denial, stated that Hitler killed the Jews because of their ‘social functions’ related to money. ” Abbas said, “They say that Hitler killed the Jews for being Jews and that Europe hated the Jews because they were Jews. No. It was clearly explained that they fought them because of their social role and not their religion.” Abbas later clarified that he was referring to “usury, money and so on.”
The official Palestinian news agency recently published an antisemitic item negating Jews’s rights to their religion, stating, “On what is called ‘Yom Kippur,’ the settlers seek to simulate the sacrifice and set a record number of people storming Al-Aqsa Mosque and the day after it… The so-called ‘Feast of the Throne’ begins on September 30 and extends until October 17. It is one of the biblical pilgrimage holidays associated with the ‘alleged Temple,’ during which the settlers attempt to bring plant sacrifices into Al-Aqsa Mosque and raise the number of intruders to more than 1,500 intruders over successive days. Jerusalemite warnings continue about the danger of settlement rituals in the Blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and the city of Jerusalem, during the Jewish holidays, and calls for the necessity of traveling to Al-Aqsa to thwart the settlers’ plans and the ongoing Judaization efforts against the Blessed Mosque and the occupied city of Jerusalem.”
WAFA, the official PA news agency, published the following statement on July 27, 2023, “The Islamic organizations in Jerusalem… called on every Palestinian and Muslim who can carry out Ribat (i.e., religious conflict over land claimed to be Islamic) in the alleys, houses of worship, benches, and plazas of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque / the Noble Jerusalem Sanctuary, with its entire territory that stands at 144 dunams, so that it will remain pure of the infidels’ defilement and precious and pure for the Muslims only, as Allah granted them in the holy Quran.”
In another report, the PA Minister of Religious Affairs, Hatem Al-Bakri, was recorded on PA Television on September 15, 2023, saying, “Allah, purify the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Ibrahimi Mosque from the defilement of the criminal infidels, O Master of the Universe.”
The British Foreign Secretary who spoke at the International Counter-Terrorism Conference in Israel on September 12, 2023, said, “when I meet with the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, and I will make it clear that rather than spreading disgusting, anti-Semitic tropes, and outrageous distortions of history, they should be clear in their denouncement of violence. They should be clear that there is no acceptance for brutality and terrorists. And they should be clear there is no excuse to target Israelis, particularly Israeli civilians.”
The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism is an essential tool for fighting the growing antisemitic movement. Many countries and institutions have voluntarily accepted the document. The anti-IHRA advocates are fighting a rearguard battle, which hopefully they cannot win.
References:
https://www.brismes.ac.uk/events/ihra-report-launch
The Effects of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism on Academic Freedom
Date: Thursday, 28 September 2023
Time: 16:00-17:30 (BST)
Location: Online via Zoom (registration required)
About the Event
As the controversial IHRA Definition of Antisemitism that conflates criticisms of Israel with antisemitism has been adopted by UK universities, a new report conducted by the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES), the largest academic association in Europe focused on the study of the Middle East and North Africa, and the European Legal Support Center (ELSC), examines its consequences for academics and students. The report demonstrates that the definition is not fit for purpose and is infringing on academic freedom and freedom of speech, while also harming the mental health, reputation and career prospects of students and staff.
Panellists
Akram Salhab is a PhD student in politics at Queen Mary University of London, focusing on Palestinian history, sovereignty and anticolonialism. He is a longstanding organiser for democratic rights in Palestine, and for freedom of speech on Palestine at UK universities, including working to counter the impact of the Prevent legislation and the IHRA. He presented and helped produce a news item for Channel 4 News on these topics, and the wider Palestinian experience of colonialism: https://www.channel4.com/news/activist-akram-salhab-on-the-palestinian-experience-of-british-colonialism
Gabriel Frankel is the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) Legal Officer in the UK. He provides legal assistance to individuals and groups – including academics and students – facing restrictions on their fundamental freedoms due to their speech or activities related to Palestine.
Hagit Borer is a Professor of Linguistics at Queen Mary University of London. She is a Fellow of the Linguistic Society of America (2014), and of the British Academy (2018). Originally from Israel, she has lectured extensively on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to community and academic audiences in the US and in the UK. In 2021 she became active in the campaign against the adoption of the IHRA definition of Antisemitism by British HE, and in that context, published an article against that definition in Times of Higher Education.
Ben Jamal has been Director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), the largest organisation in the UK campaigning for the rights of the Palestinian people, since 2016. He is a British Palestinian and a member of the British Palestinian Committe.
Chair
Paola Rivetti is Associate Professor in Politics in the School of Law and Government, Dublin City University. She is author of Political participation in Iran from Khatami to the Green Movement (2020) and an Associate Editor of the journals Iranian Studies and Partecipazione e Conflitto. She is a member of the Brismes Council and the newly-formed Committee for Academic Freedom of the Italian Society for Middle East Studies SeSaMO.
===========================================
Press Release | New Report Highlights Major Free Speech Issues in UK Universities
- Posted: 13/09/2023
Report published today reveals breaches of fundamental rights in UK Higher Education through the use of the ‘IHRA definition of antisemitism’
London, 13 September 2023
A controversial definition of antisemitism that conflates criticisms of Israel with antisemitism has been used on campuses, leading to restrictions on the freedom of speech of staff and students, the new report reveals. This is the first study to expose the harmful implications of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism following its adoption in UK universities. It was conducted by the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES), the largest academic association in Europe focused on the study of the Middle East and North Africa, and the European Legal Support Center (ELSC). The report demonstrates that the definition is not fit for purpose and is infringing on academic freedom and freedom of speech, while also harming the mental health, reputation and career prospects of students and staff.
The report is based on an analysis of 40 cases, recorded between 2017 and 2022, in which university staff and students were accused of antisemitism based on the IHRA definition. In all instances, except in two ongoing cases, the accusations of antisemitism have been rejected. The final two have yet to be substantiated.
The findings demonstrate that the IHRA definition is undermining academic freedom and freedom of expression in relation to discussions of Israel and Palestine and risks being used in a way that discriminates against Palestinians and others on campuses who wish to teach, research, study, discuss, or speak out against the oppression of Palestinians.
The accusations have, in some cases, led to the cancellation of events that discuss the situation in Palestine and/or take a critical stance on Zionism, or the imposition of unreasonable conditions on the format of events. A common feature across several cases is the occurrence of significant and sustained levels of monitoring and surveillance by complainants including recording student speeches and staff lectures; monitoring student or staff social media posts; and reviewing academic publications, course syllabi and reading lists.
Staff and students who were subject to investigations and, in some cases, disciplinary hearings registered varying levels of stress and anxiety caused by these processes, despite being exonerated.
The reflections of one academic who went on leave due to stress are illustrative:
When you are in the process, you don’t understand how stressed you are. My nerves made me hyper vigilant for two years. The impact of the cases, continual media coverage, and constant communication to deal with the case resulted in chronic stress.
Another targeted academic expressed concerns about their reputation and career:
I feel like I’m on this emotional roller-coaster. I feel like I won’t get a job anywhere else. If I apply for another job, they might not hire me. Not that they would think that I’m antisemitic but because they would want to avoid controversy. That’s the reality for me now. It’s different for the people whose investigations didn’t go public. Reputation is everything for academics.
One student explained how the accusations interfered with their studies and threatened their future education:
It was really difficult to hear that you might be kicked out of university. It was very hard for me to focus on my studies. I had to do re-sits in the summer, so I didn’t graduate until recently. I nearly didn’t get into Oxford. I missed the deadline by two months. If it wasn’t for Oxford being really flexible, I wouldn’t be sitting here right now.
These cases are creating a chilling effect among staff and students, deterring individuals from speaking about or organising events that discuss Palestine out of fear that they will be subject to complaints, or else will face considerable bureaucratic hurdles and even costly legal action. Academics employed on temporary contracts and students are particularly susceptible to self-censorship out of fear that any sort of accusations, even if not upheld, could jeopardise their future ability to obtain permanent employment or impact their mental health.
The authors of the report recommend that UK higher education institutions should rescind the adoption of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism.
Neve Gordon, the Chair of BRISMES’s Committee on Academic Freedom and a professor of human rights law in the School of Law at Queen Mary University of London said:
What has been framed as a tool to classify and assess a particular form of discriminatory violations of protected characteristics, has instead been used as a tool to undermine and punish protected speech and to punish those in academia who voice criticism of the Israeli state’s policies.
Giovanni Fassina, Director of the ELSC added:
Not only does the documented pattern call into question the compliance of UK universities with their legal obligation to protect academic freedom and freedom of expression, but it is leading universities away from their core mission of nurturing critical thought, facilitating unhindered research, and encouraging wide-ranging debate.
Background
In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a working definition of antisemitism (‘the IHRA definition’), to which was appended a list of examples of antisemitism, several of which mention Israel, thereby conflating criticisms of the State of Israel, its policies, practices and political ideology with antisemitism. In practice, these examples have been used in UK higher education institutions to delegitimise points of view critical of Israel by making false accusations of antisemitism.
As pointed out by one of the main drafters of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, writing in The Guardian in 2019, “It was never intended to be a campus hate speech code”.
While antisemitism exists within UK society and incidents of anti-Jewish prejudice occur in higher education institutions, just as in other institutional contexts, the findings of this new report provide concrete evidence that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is not fit for purpose. The history and instrumentalisation of the IHRA definition of antisemitism should be understood in a wider context of attacks on advocates for Palestinian rights, as explained in a previous report published by the ELSC. Additional resources produced in the USA and Canada demonstrate similar harmful consequences for the rights of advocates for Palestine, while several human rights organisations, like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have asked the UN to reject the IHRA definition because its use and implementation “chill and sometimes suppress non-violent protest, activism and speech”. Such misuse has also been criticised by the former UN Special Rapporteur on Racism E. Tendayi Achiume.
In the UK, other efforts are being deployed at the institutional level to try and undermine advocacy for Palestine. In June 2023, the government tabled a bill aimed at preventing public bodies from making investment decisions that align with their human rights responsibilities and obligations. The bill was designed to target, in particular, boycotts, divestment and sanctions of Israel and, therefore, the Palestinian-led BDS movement. In response, a coalition of more than 70 civil society organisations in the UK declared that this bill represents a further attack on freedom of expression. Human Rights Watch called the bill “the latest in a growing list of measures which fundamentally undermine free speech and democratic rights in the country.”
The British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES) is the largest academic association in Europe focused on the study of the Middle East and North Africa. Through its Committee on Academic Freedom, it is committed to supporting academic freedom and freedom of expression, both within the region and in connection with the study of the region, both in the UK and globally.
The European Legal Support Center (ELSC) is the only organisation providing free legal support to individuals, groups and organisations advocating for Palestinian rights in Europe, including the UK. ELSC also documents incidents of repression and analyses and challenges the restrictive policies that result in shrinking space.
===========================================https://www.brismes.ac.uk/files/documents/Freedom%20of%20Speech%20and%20Academic%20Freedom%20in%20UK%20Higher%20Education-BRISMES-ELSC.pdf
SEPTEMBER 2023
European Legal Support Center
British Society for Middle Eastern Studies
Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in UK Higher Education: The Adverse Impact of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
The European Legal Support Center is the first organisation of movement lawyers mandated to defend and empower the Palestine solidarity movement in mainland Europe and the UK. ELSC provides free legal advice and assistance to associations, human rights organisations, groups, individuals, students and academics advocating for Palestinian rights. Founded in 1973, the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies is a forum for educators and researchers working to promote Middle Eastern studies, and to raise awareness of the region and its interconnection with the world, and with the UK. It is the publisher of the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. It advocates on behalf of its members, supporting research and education, disseminating knowledge, deepening public understanding, and defending academic freedom.
ELSC BRISMES
2 Contents
Executive summary 04 Introduction 07 Section 1: Legal Perspectives on the IHRA Definition of Antisemitsm 10 1.1 Legal Opinions 1.2 Universities’ Duties to Protect Freedom of Speech Section 2: Unfounded Allegations: Targeting Staff, Students, and Events 16 2.1 The Cases 2.2 Consequences for Individual Staff and Students 2.3 The Chilling Effect Section 3: University and Staff Responses 34 Section 4: Conclusions and Recommendations 37 4.1 Summary of Findings 4.2 Recommendations Appendices 42 3
Executive summary
We are committed to the struggle against antisemitism and all forms of racism. Antisemitism exists within UK society and incidents of anti-Jewish prejudice occur in higher education institutions, just as in other institutional contexts. Antisemitism must be addressed, and institutions should seek to prevent it. However, universities must do so in a way that does not discriminate directly or indirectly against others or undermine academic freedom and freedom of speech. This report demonstrates that accusations of antisemitism levelled against students and staff in UK universities are often based on a definition of antisemitism that is not fit for purpose and, in practice, is undercutting academic freedom and the rights to lawful speech of students and staff, and causing harm to the reputations and careers of those accused. This report was produced by the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) and the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES), Europe’s leading scholarly association concerned with the study of the Middle East and North Africa. The report is based on an analysis of 40 cases that were reported to the ELSC and in which UK university staff and/or students were accused of antisemitism on the basis of the ‘IHRA working definition of antisemitism’ (‘IHRA definition’), between 2017 and 2022. In all instances, except for two ongoing cases, the accusations of antisemitism were rejected. The final two have yet to be substantiated. On the basis of these findings, this report recommends against the adoption and use of the IHRA definition in a higher education setting. However it is beyond the remit of the report to suggest alternative definitions while the Human Rights Act of 1998 and the 2010 Equality Act provide the necessary legal tools to combat antisemitism and hate speech more generally. In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a ‘working definition of antisemitism’, to which was appended a list of illustrative examples. Several of the examples conflate criticisms of Israel, its illegal policies, practices and the political ideology on which the state was founded, with antisemitism. These examples contradict the IHRA definition itself and reflect positions advanced by advocates of Israeli policies towards Palestinians.1 4 The definition and illustrative examples have been invoked in many contexts in the UK. This report shows that since its adoption by UK higher education institutions, the IHRA definition has been used in ways that delegitimise points of view critical of Israel and/or in support of Palestinian rights, in violation of academic freedom and freedom of speech. It is noteworthy that the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, E. Tendayi Achiume, has warned against the use of the definition ‘owing to its susceptibility to being politically instrumentalised and the harm done to human rights resulting from such instrumentalization.’ 2 There is widespread agreement among scholars and legal experts (including the lead drafter of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern)3 that the IHRA definition is not appropriate for university settings where critical thought and free debate are paramount. Nevertheless, in 2020, the then Secretary of State for Education threatened university leaders with punitive financial consequences if their institutions did not adopt the IHRA definition.4 As a result, 119 universities (almost 75% of UK universities) have adopted some version of the definition as a basis for campus policies.5 Contrary to what many institutions seem to believe, it is simply not possible to use the IHRA definition to determine whether or not an individual incident or statement is antisemitic, whilst simultaneously protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom and preventing discrimination. To attempt to do so inevitably leads to damaging and iniquitous consequences for staff and students. 5 This report highlights four major consequences of the IHRA definition’s adoption: Key findings 1. Advocates of Palestinian human rights, critics of the Israeli state and its policies and those researching and teaching about the history of and current situation in Israel-Palestine have been targeted with false accusations of antisemitism. 2. University staff and students are being subjected to unreasonable investigations and disciplinary proceedings based on the IHRA definition. These proceedings have harmed the wellbeing of the staff and students subjected to false allegations of antisemitism. Those falsely accused have felt their reputations to have been sullied, and they are anxious about possible damage caused to their education and careers. 3. The complaints have had an adverse effect on academic freedom and freedom of speech on campuses, leading, in some cases, to the cancellation of events or the imposition of spurious conditions on the format of events. 4. From testimonies received, it is clear that these cases are creating a chilling effect among staff and students, deterring individuals from speaking about or organising events that discuss Palestinian human rights and Palestinian self-determination out of fear that they will be subject to complaints, or else will face considerable bureaucratic hurdles and even costly legal action in order to allow events to take place. Academics employed on temporary contracts (who constitute a significant proportion of university teaching staff), as well as students, are particularly susceptible to self-censorship out of fear that any sort of accusations, even if not upheld, could jeopardise their future ability to obtain permanent employment. Hence, overall, we conclude that the adoption and deployment of the IHRA definition in UK universities has already dealt a blow to academic freedom and freedom of speech. This not only threatens the ability of higher education institutions to meet their legal obligations in this regard, but is also preventing students from engaging in nuanced discussions about the Middle East, global politics, and the question of Palestine, which are also necessary as part of efforts to combat antisemitism. 6 Introduction The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is an intergovernmental body whose stated purpose is ‘to strengthen, advance and promote Holocaust education, research and remembrance’. The IHRA definition is intended by its authors to be a practical educational tool that help ‘raise awareness of key issues’. It defines antisemitism as: a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.6 Advocates of the definition argue that its adoption is necessary to combat antisemitism in UK universities and assert that the definition ensures the safety and security of Jewish students and staff.7 Further, they argue that as it is framed as ‘nonlegally binding’ it will not impinge on freedom of speech, academic freedom or anti-discrimination law. Yet, there are repeated concerns raised by academics, activists and legal experts that the IHRA definition is suppressing lawful speech on Palestinian human rights and criticisms of the Israeli state. There are seven references to Israel in the illustrative examples accompanying the definition. Several of these examples effectively conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism with racism and discrimination directed at Jews, for example, ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor’. This example not only erroneously essentialises Jewish self-determination as indistinguishable from the State of Israel (a historically-contingent position particular to Zionist ideology) but also delegitimises Palestinian claims to self-determination and opposition to Israel’s discriminatory policies against Palestinians as antisemitism. Most worryingly, it suppresses documented evidence of Israeli crimes against Palestinians. The promotion of the IHRA definition in UK universities and its use in complaints against staff and students is part of a wider context and history of false accusations of antisemitism being levelled against those concerned with Israel’s human rights violations. In 2022, after publishing its report entitled Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity, Amnesty International was accused of deploying ‘antisemitic tropes’.8 In 2019, Tower Hamlets council refused permission for the Big Ride for Palestine, a charity event in aid of Palestinian 7 children, because of fears that it could breach the IHRA definition.9 As such, this reconceptualisation of antisemitism serves to erase Palestinian existence and narratives and shield the rights-abusive policies of the State of Israel – and the structural basis for these actions – from criticism. It further prevents Palestinians from speaking about their oppression and silencing support for Palestinian rights.10 According to a recent report produced by the Taskforce on Antisemitism in Higher Education (established by the UK Government’s Independent Adviser on Antisemitism, Lord Mann), that questioned 56 universities across the UK about their experience of using the IHRA definition: None knew of or could provide a single example in which the IHRA definition had in any ways restricted freedom of speech or academic research, or where its adoption had chilled academic freedom, research or freedom of expression. All these 56 institutions were using the definition and were seen to be listening to the Jewish community about how it experiences antisemitism. 11 Yet, the 40 incidents examined in this study contradict the above claims and raise serious questions about the findings of the Taskforce on Antisemitism in Higher Education. This report confirms the views of recognised experts on antisemitism, Jewish history and related subjects that the IHRA definition is unsuitable for universities.12 Scholars have expressed concern that research and teaching on Israel and Palestine has become increasingly difficult because of the IHRA definition’s widespread adoption.13 The case studies analysed in this report demonstrate that the imposition of the IHRA definition, in its varied forms in UK higher education institutions (regardless of the caveats included in some universities’ policies), stifles free speech within the law in relation to teaching, research and discussion of Israeli government policies, the nature of the formation of the Israeli state, and the nature of Zionism as an ideology and movement. It has served to unfairly damage the reputation and careers of staff and students who speak about the violations of Palestinian human rights and crimes committed by Israel. Most egregiously, it erases the experiences of the Palestinian people, hides from public view documented evidence of the crimes committed against them and thereby prevents universities, staff and students from contributing to informed public debate on the matter. 8 Methodology This report draws on the work of the European Legal Support Center (ELSC), which has advised and represented people in UK higher education who have been affected by the adoption of the IHRA definition. The report has been produced together with experts from the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES), Europe’s leading scholarly association concerned with the Middle East. Since 2019, BRISMES has been monitoring the impact of the IHRA definition through its Committee on Academic Freedom.14 The analysis in this report is based on 40 cases involving the use of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. These cases occurred in 14 universities, of which 11 are part of the Russell Group. Of these 40 cases, 24 involved members of university staff, nine involved university students and seven involved student societies/unions. In all instances, except for two ongoing cases, the accusations of antisemitism have been rejected. The final two have yet to be substantiated. The cases represent all the incidents recorded by the ELSC occurring between January 2017 and May 2022 and in which university staff and/or students were accused of antisemitism on the basis of the IHRA definition. In some cases, individuals and groups impacted by complaints reached out to the ELSC for support or to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), which then referred them to ELSC.15 In other cases, the ELSC reached out to individuals and groups after becoming aware of the incident either via the media, including social media, and after assessing the relevance of the case to the ELSC mandate. All data related to the incidents were collected by means of Incident Report Forms, which were filled out by affected individuals or groups. Information was fact checked and completed by means of interviews and/or desk research carried out by ELSC staff. The evidence analysed in this report reveals that the adoption of the IHRA definition by UK universities has led to complaints of antisemitism being levelled on the assumption or assertion that criticisms of Israel and/or of Zionism are forms of antisemitism. Our findings demonstrate that the IHRA definition is undermining academic freedom and freedom of expression in relation to discussions of Israel and Palestine and risks being used in a way that discriminates against Palestinians and others on campuses who wish to speak out against the oppression of Palestinians. Section 1 explains why the IHRA definition is inadequate for challenging antisemitism. Section 2 analyses the cases supported by the ELSC. It details the nature of the accusations made against staff and students, the outcome of investigations and disciplinary hearings, and how they have affected the people accused. Section 3 summarises the responses to the IHRA definition by universities and university staff. Section 4 summarises the findings of this research and provides recommendations for the UK government, university leadership and other relevant constituencies. 9 Section 1: Legal Perspectives on the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism 10 1.1 Legal Opinions Lawyers and legal scholars have argued that the IHRA definition, including some of its illustrative examples, threatens legally guaranteed rights of freedom of expression and assembly by conflating anti-Zionism (a political standpoint) with antisemitism (a form of racism against Jews). The legal opinion of Hugh Tomlinson KC stresses that the definition has no legal standing in the UK; that public bodies have statutory duties to respect and ensure the right of freedom of expression and assembly; and that reliance on this definition to ban or restrict events which are accused of being ‘anti-Israel’ but which express no hatred of Jews would be unlawful.16 Tomlinson concluded that a public authority which sought to apply the definition to prohibit or sanction ‘activities such as describing Israel as a state enacting policies of apartheid, as practising settler colonialism or calling for policies of boycott, divestment or sanctions against Israel… [which cannot] properly be characterised as antisemitic … would be acting unlawfully’.17 11 Similarly, in a letter published in January 2021, distinguished lawyers in the UK, including Sir Stephen Sedley and Sir Anthony Hooper, two retired Lord Justices of Appeal, stated: The legally entrenched right to free expression is being undermined by [the IHRA definition]. Its promotion by public bodies is leading to the curtailment of debate. Universities and others who reject the instruction of the [former] secretary of state for education, Gavin Williamson, to adopt it should be supported in so doing.18 The letter’s authors urged the Government to withdraw its pressure on universities to adopt the IHRA definition. Moreover, some have questioned the effectiveness of the definition itself. The legal opinion of Geoffrey Robertson KC points to the definition’s inadequacy as a mechanism to protect Jews from antisemitism, arguing that ‘The definition does not cover the most insidious forms of hostility to Jewish people and the looseness of the definition is liable to chill legitimate criticisms of the State of Israel and coverage of human rights abuses against Palestinians’.19 Even the principal drafter of the text that became the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, has deplored the misuse of the definition as a tool to target or chill speech on college campuses. He called it not just misuse, but abuse.20 Stern is a US attorney and the Director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate. For 25 years he was a national staff member of the American Jewish Committee, acting as its antisemitism expert. As chief author of the definition, he is on record as criticising the vague wording of the core definition drafted by someone else, noting that it ‘doesn’t really say much’.21 It is also noteworthy that the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, E. Tendayi Achiume, has stated that: Notwithstanding the political endorsement of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition across Europe and in North America, it has become highly controversial and divisive owing to its susceptibility to being politically instrumentalized and the harm done to human rights resulting from such instrumentalization. As a result, the Special Rapporteur cautions against reliance on the working definition as a guiding instrument for and at the United Nations and its constituent entities.22 12 1.2 Universities’ Duties to Protect Freedom of Speech Freedom of speech and expression is generally protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which the UK is a party. Article 10(1) of the ECHR provides that: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.23 13 Interference with the rights contained in Article 10(1) are only permitted in the strictly defined circumstances set out under Article 10(2) and must be ‘established convincingly’.24 The protections under the ECHR on the right to freedom of expression and assembly are incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act of 1998, which states that UK courts must interpret primary and secondary legislation in a manner that is compatible with Convention rights (including case law of the European Court of Human Rights) insofar as possible. The Human Rights Act requires that public authorities, including universities, act in compliance with the ECHR. Therefore, generally speaking, universities must refrain from interfering with the right to freedom of expression granted to individuals.25 Moreover, they have duties to actively uphold these rights. Specifically, Section 43(1) of the Education (No.2) Act 1986 places an obligation on universities in England and Wales to ‘take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers’.26 On 11 May 2023, the UK Parliament enacted the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which further requires higher education institutions to ‘take the steps that, having particular regard to the importance of freedom of speech, are reasonably practicable’ to achieve freedom of speech for staff, students and visiting speakers.27 Academic freedom is a specific and reinforced protection of the more general freedom of expression applicable to universities. Specifically, academic staff have freedom within the law ‘(i) to question and test received wisdom, and (ii) to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges 14 they may have at the providers.’28 Political speech also benefits from heightened legal protection under Article 10 of the ECHR given that Article 10(2) has limited application to speech which can be categorised as political or pertaining to matters of public interest.29 The UK High Court has stressed that the right to freedom of expression ‘includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence’ as ‘[f]reedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having’.30 In light of the above, Israel’s history and politics, like the history and politics of any state, are legitimate matters for discussion and debate in universities. No institution has the right to limit or forbid lawful criticism of Israel or anti-Zionist views. Similarly, the history and politics of Palestine, and the conditions of life of Palestinians, are also matters of institutional, national, and international public interest. They are all legitimate matters of public discussion and debate, just as discussions of human rights, international law, and related matters in other contexts. However, as this report demonstrates, the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and in particular its illustrative examples that conflate statements critical of the State of Israel with antisemitism, have been deployed in ways that undermine academic freedom and freedom of speech and expression in UK universities. 15 Section 2: Unfounded Allegations: Targeting Staff, Students, and Events 16 In this section, we present an overview of the 40 cases that the ELSC recorded between 2017 and 2022, which demonstrate how the definition has been used as a basis for claiming that lectures, research, speeches, social media posts and campus activism amount to antisemitism for simply being critical of Israel and/or Zionism. The deployment of the IHRA definition in these ways confirms Geoffrey Robertson KC’s 2018 prediction: it is likely in practice to chill free speech, by raising expectations of pro-Israeli groups that they can successfully object to legitimate criticism of Israel and correspondingly arouse fears in NGOs and student bodies that they will have events banned, or else will have to incur considerable expense to protect them by taking legal action. 31 Accusations of antisemitism that depend upon the IHRA definition have been largely targeted at staff teaching and researching the Middle East, and at Palestinian students and others concerned with advocating Palestinian human rights. In many of the cases, the complainants make reference to the IHRA definition to produce poor faith interpretations or misinterpretations of statements, often taking particular phrases or terms out of context. Another common feature across several cases is the occurrence of significant levels of monitoring and surveillance of any publicly expressed analysis or opinion about Israel or Palestine. This includes recording student speeches, staff lectures, and other presentations; monitoring student or staff social media posts (including the collection of social media posts several years after they were written); reviewing academic publications; and reviewing course syllabi and reading lists. Those responsible for disciplinary processes at universities often do not possess the necessary tools or background to assess independently the merits of such allegations. In most cases, members of staff co-opted into judging whether a student, society or colleague have made statements that are antisemitic have extremely little, or no understanding of the IsraelPalestine question. 17 2.1 The Cases For all 40 cases analysed, except two ongoing cases, the accusations of antisemitism have been rejected. The final two have yet to be substantiated. Attempts to restrict academic freedom and freedom of expression on campuses by means of the IHRA definition of antisemitism have directly affected 24 staff members, nine students and seven student groups. The cases occurred in fourteen universities, of which eleven are part of the Russell Group. There were various outcomes for the individuals or groups affected: two have faced threats of legal action; 27 have faced investigations including, for many, long disciplinary processes; in four cases, events have been prevented from taking place on campus and, in seven cases, there was institutional interference in the respective events and/or scholarship.32 There were various outcomes for the individuals or groups affected: two have faced threats of legal action; 27 have faced investigations including, for many, long disciplinary processes; in four cases, events have been prevented from taking place on campus and, in seven cases, there was institutional interference in the respective events and/or scholarship.32 18 MAIN OUTCOMES OF THE INCIDENTS MAIN OUTCOMES OF THE INCIDENTS 19 WHAT DO THE ALLEGATIONS TARGET When looking at the objects of the allegations: in 24 cases, individuals were targeted mainly based on their online political commentary; in nine cases, allegations were made against an individual’s respective scholarship; and in seven cases, the targets were Israeli Apartheid Week events33 or other Palestine-related student activism. 20 Of the nine accusations made against individual students, seven cases were investigated through university inquiries or hearings, and the students were found to have no case to answer or were cleared of allegations. In one case, no investigation or disciplinary process was launched. One case is still ongoing. Of those cases in which investigations or disciplinary hearings occurred, they took several months, resulting in prolonged student stress and anxiety, thereby undermining universities’ duty of care to the students. In seven cases, student societies and student unions were accused of antisemitism and/ or experienced disruptions of events or initiatives in support of Palestinian rights. One of the cases is ongoing, and a complaint has been filed with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, following substantial procedural errors in a lengthy year-long complaints procedure. The underlying allegation of antisemitism has yet to be substantiated. Student Cases 21 In June 2021, a university received an anonymous complaint and opened an investigation into alleged antisemitism against a student who had posted on their social media a Human Rights Watch infographic about Israel’s system of apartheid in the West Bank. They referred to the latter as ‘ethnic cleansing’ and that it was ‘reminiscent of South African apartheid’. According to the complainant, the post was antisemitic because it was in breach of examples of the IHRA definition. Following legal support, the university found that there was no case to answer but it took two months before it decided to drop the investigation. how the IHRA definition is used to misrepresent criticisms of Israel An illustrative case: 22 Of the 24 cases against university staff, 18 led to an investigation or to a formal disciplinary hearing. In the case of investigations, all resulted in findings of ‘no case to answer’. In the case of formal hearings, all staff were ‘exonerated of all charges’. In other words, every allegation of antisemitism was found to be false. In six cases, either a formal complaint was never lodged, the university decided not to open an investigation or the complaint was dismissed. STAFF CASES 23 In December 2020, an academic staff member teaching on the Middle East received a notification from their university management that a recent graduate, whom the academic had never taught, had submitted complaints for antisemitism against them and that an investigation had been opened. The complaints concerned more than 20 social media posts, some of which were posted by the academic, whilst others were merely shared or liked, dating from 2016 to 2020. The posts consisted of criticism of Zionism as a political ideology; a media article about the Nakba, and comments about the allegations of antisemitism made against members of the Labour Party. The complainant argued that the posts breached the IHRA definition. The academic was cleared of all allegations but not before being subjected to a lengthy disciplinary process. This caused a considerable amount of stress and represented a significant burden on the academic, who had to request legal advice. The university referred to the IHRA definition as part of their policies to include in the disciplinary proceedings. An illustrative case: how an anonymous complainant screened an academic’s social media activity from 2016 to place them under a 6-month-long investigation for alleged antisemitism 24 Obstruction and Prevention of Events Among the case studies, 10 events between 2017 and 2022 were targeted with demands for their cancellation. The interference with and curtailment of meetings and events took many forms. Four of these cases involved the actual cancellation of events by universities, including two events that went ahead outside of the university. In one case, the university imposed unreasonable vetting conditions on the speaker, including that he declare in advance his support for the IHRA definition. After he refused, the event was cancelled by the university. However, other organisations agreed to host it. In two other cases, a similar vetting was imposed on academics, who also refused to endorse the IHRA definition. The events still went ahead after an exchange between the respective academics and the universities. In one case, the university asked lecturers to attend several events organised by a Palestine student society to make sure the content would not contravene the IHRA definition, creating a chilling effect on the students and speakers. In two cases, the event was allowed to go ahead but subject to many conditions, which included changing the title of the event, recording it, refusing access to the public and imposing security staff and checks. In another case, the event still went ahead, but speakers and organisers were subjected to smears, causing fear and leading the student society that had organised the event to lose members. 25 Dr. Somdeep Sen, Associate Professor at Roskilde University, was invited to deliver a lecture on his book Decolonizing Palestine: Hamas between the Anticolonial and the Postcolonial (Cornell University Press, 2020) at the University of Glasgow. Following the announcement of the lecture in autumn 2021, the university received a complaint from the university’s Jewish student society, claiming that the lecture’s topic was antisemitic and expressing concerns that the event might lead to negative repercussions for Jewish students. In response, the university asked Dr. Sen to provide information about the talk’s content in advance of the event and to confirm that he would not say anything during the presentation that would contravene the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism. Since the university’s requests were discriminatory and undermined academic freedom, Dr. Sen decided to pull out and the event was cancelled. how a spurious complaint filed by the University of Glasgow Jewish Student Society led to potentially illegal university reaction and the cancellation of an academic event An illustrative case: 26 Five of the cases involved the defamation of external speakers, including, Omar Barghouti, a scholar and founder of the Palestinian campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions; Marika Sherwood, a Jewish historian and Holocaust survivor; Dr. Somdeep Sen, an academic from Roskilde University; and a Local Government Councillor and Liverpool Hope University Professor, Michael Lavalette. One case involved intense smears against a students’ union for promoting Israeli Apartheid Week events on campus. Two other cases involved smears by pro-Israel media or watchdog groups against Palestine student society events that were due to happen during Israeli Apartheid Week but that were cancelled by the universities, citing the IHRA definition. In all these cases, allegations of antisemitism were found to be spurious. They were made by complainants who disagreed with the objectives and/or content of the event or the politics of one or more of the event’s participants or organisers. The IHRA definition, which was explicitly referenced in all of these cases, undermined academic freedom and freedom of expression on UK campuses and in some instances had damaging repercussions for student organisers, student societies and invited speakers. 27 2.2 Consequences for Individual Staff and Students Stress, Anxiety and Personal Distress All of the staff and students who were subject to disciplinary investigations followed by disciplinary hearings, registered varying levels of stress and anxiety caused by these processes. Many of those targeted specifically identified the protracted nature of the investigations or disciplinary processes as an exacerbating factor. Lack of regular communication from those conducting the investigations and lack of support from their respective institutions contributed to their distress. When you are in the process, you don’t understand how stressed you are. My nerves made me hyper vigilant for two years. The impact of the cases, continual media coverage, and constant communication to deal with the case resulted in chronic stress. The reflection of one academic staff who went on leave due to stress is illustrative: 28 While the case was going on, it was really terrible. It was on my mind all the time. Really stressful. I was very angry and anxious. I never really thought I’d lose my job, but I couldn’t rule it out. I felt betrayed by the university. As a tactic of intimidation, these accusations are effective because the university did put me through the [disciplinary] process. It will remain a big problem until the university is willing to put more measures in place to protect us from these accusations. During the first investigation with the media smears, I felt really helpless and powerless at that point as the university was looking out for its own interests. They kept telling me not to say anything to the media. At that point I just kept quiet. I felt really alone. It was just me. Another member of staff explained their loss of confidence in her university as an employer: An academic staff member described their sense of isolation and anxiety about their future career: Of the 16 staff whose cases involved investigations or investigations leading to hearings, a majority cited adverse consequences for their teaching preparation and research. 29 It affected me mentally, it took a lot of time and mental effort. It caused a lot of stress. It served as a distraction from other important things in my life. Still another student reported: A targeted student described the negative effects of accusations on their studies: For many of the students and staff whose cases are analysed here, allegations of antisemitism are experienced as a personal assault on their identity, given that they have been engaged with anti-racist activism over a number of years. In some cases, the scholarship of accused staff focuses on antiracism. Being targeted in this way has had damaging psychological and sometimes physical effects. They make you waste time, sap your energy and make you exhausted. They make you not perform to your ability because you have other things to think about… You learn that [the University] is not there for you. Different interests trump your rights. All of the students whose cases were analysed noted the adverse effects on their studies. Some became concerned about the consequences for their education, academic progress and career plans. One student explained how the accusations interfered with their studies and threatened their further education: It was really difficult to hear that you might be kicked out of university. It was very hard for me to focus on my studies. I had to do resits in the summer, so I didn’t graduate until recently. I nearly didn’t get into my Masters programme. I missed the deadline by two months. If it wasn’t for Oxford University being really flexible, I wouldn’t be sitting here right now. 30 I feel like I’m on this emotional roller-coaster. I feel like I won’t get a job anywhere else. If I apply for another job, they might not hire me. Not that they would think that I’m antisemitic but because they would want to avoid controversy. That’s the reality for me now. It’s different for the people whose investigations didn’t go public. Reputation is everything for academics. It was very stressful. [It required] a lot of time out from my parental leave to go to meetings, look at documents, collect evidence. It was very disruptive [and] contributed to pushing me away from academia. There was also the context of government attacks on higher education, that was another reason, but this on top made me think the university sector is not the best place to stay. It is not possible to assess the precise long-term damage to the reputations and careers of students and staff who have been falsely accused of antisemitism, given the short timeframe of the incidents. What is demonstrable, however, is that those falsely accused of antisemitism are very concerned that the accusations will have an adverse effect on their standing in their universities and communities. This fear is exacerbated when the accusations begin to circulate on social media and the internet. Of the cases in which individuals were represented or advised by the ELSC from 2017 to 2022, over half of those accused expressed concern about their reputations. Slightly fewer than half were equally concerned about their careers. One targeted academic expressed this concern poignantly: Damage to Reputation and Career Another found that the accusations and the subsequent university process deterred them from continuing their academic career: 31 2.3 The ‘Chilling Effect’ The spate of allegations of antisemitism is damaging academic freedom, curtailing freedom of debate and discussion on campuses, leading to self-censorship among those who research and study IsraelPalestine, and, in some cases, harming personal and professional lives and livelihoods. In addition to these harms, it is likely that the IHRA definition and its use has a much wider chilling effect, causing others to avoid discussing issues related to Palestine, thereby acting as a form of self-censorship. The difficulty for academic teaching staff is clear. Academic staff who lecture and write about Palestinian and Israeli history, society and politics believe that the IHRA definition, and specifically the examples that reference Israel, constrain what they can teach and write about to such a degree that it results in self-censorship. One member of staff asks pointedly: Similarly, an academic staff member described the cloud of potential threats that hang over their scholarship: How should I discuss the 1948 colonial, ethnic cleansing that led to the creation of the State of Israel? Wasn’t that—to use the words of one of the examples of ‘antisemitism’ included in the definition—an ‘endeavour’ to create a state based on a racist deployment of violence? And how should I approach the persistence of these practices of violence along racial lines carried out by the State of Israel? How should I discuss the endeavour of Israel’s state courts to expel Palestinians from their homes? Can I raise the question with my students, or with guest speakers, or in my research? Am I even allowed to talk about these things? I rewrote the title of a chapter and the abstract so it is not that easy to find it online. This is the chilling effect, and it is an unacceptable restriction on academic freedom. My book will be online for free … easily accessible, and I’m particularly nervous. … I already thought about arguments in case I’m 32 I do know now that I have support behind me, but the effect of the litigation is that it has had a chilling effect—not wanting to be overly visible, doubting statements, and things like that. What’s also chilling is that it’s all very secret. You have a sense that it’s also happening elsewhere in other universities, but that you cannot say anything. I would still advocate but maybe not on such a big platform [namely, Facebook or Twitter]. Another academic provided details of how the chilling effect silenced them: An external speaker who was pressured by a university to endorse the IHRA also noted a sharp decline of invitations to speak at Palestinerelated events in universities. The chilling effect also serves to intimidate those who may wish to advocate for Palestinian rights. One targeted student described how they have limited their public support for Palestinian rights: After incidents targeting their events, one Palestine student society lost almost the entirety of its membership (from 30 to 2 members) because, as a member testified, ‘everyone was scared’. attacked, and I wrote the book thinking about how I could be attacked. It is an unreasonable situation. I do not even work directly on the Middle East. So, I cannot imagine what it must be like for people who work on Israel-Palestine. It’s a horrible environment to have to try to think how your academic work could be … misused. 33 Section 3: University and Staff Responses to the IHRA definition 34 There is widespread assessment among scholars and legal experts that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is not appropriate for university settings—where critical thought and free debate are paramount and must be safeguarded. Nevertheless, in 2020, the then Secretary of State for Education threatened university leaders with punitive financial consequences if their institutions did not adopt the IHRA definition,34 resulting in 119 universities (almost 75% of UK universities) adopting the definition as a basis for their campus policies.35 Adoption of the IHRA definition has typically been imposed by Senior Management, Council, or another governing body, most often without meaningful staff, student or trade union consultation, despite the disciplinary and other contractual implications of adoption, and contrary to objections raised by university staff, students and other stakeholders. These decisions have also been taken without consultation with academic experts in the relevant fields of law, Jewish and Palestinian studies and Middle East studies in their own institutions, nor with all students who may be affected, specifically, Palestinian students and advocates of Palestinian rights. There has been a failure to conduct risk assessments regarding the impact on Palestinian staff and students as well as on staff and students who study and carry out research on Israel-Palestine. Whilst in many universities, management has consulted with Jewish student societies when considering adoption of the IHRA definition, they have failed to consult with Palestinian student societies or other societies that might be affected by the adoption of the definition (for example, anti-racism societies or societies concerned with decolonising the university). University leaders’ failure to confer with their own academic experts as well as with the vast majority of relevant stakeholders runs contrary to obligations to create an inclusive environment and is anathema to academic freedom and democratic practice. 35 Staff at some universities have demanded that the IHRA definition be withdrawn from university policy, and in some cases, prevented the definition’s adoption. As part of their opposition, in addition to raising concerns about academic freedom and freedom of expression, staff have highlighted the need to address all forms of racism equally in university policy and procedure, and that universities should educate staff and students about racism in its various forms, including antisemitism. Some universities have attempted to safeguard against potential negative impacts of the IHRA definition by introducing caveats to protect academic freedom, such as the clarifications made by the UK Home Affairs Select Committee.36 Some universities have adopted the IHRA definition alongside the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, despite the fact that the latter contradicts some aspects of the IHRA definition.37 Significantly, the authors of the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism developed this document to provide clearer guidance ‘to identify and fight antisemitism while protecting free expression’.38 Such caveats and other attempts to mitigate the negative effects of the IHRA definition have not prevented it from being used to target students and staff for their criticisms of Israel, nor prevented it from being used to suppress Palestine-related events. 36 Section 4: Conclusions and recommendations 37 4.1 Summary of Findings Overall, this report finds that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is undermining academic freedom and freedom of expression on campuses through its use in complaints processes against protected speech in relation to Israel-Palestine. In all cases recorded by the ELSC, except for two ongoing cases, the accusations of antisemitism with reference to the IHRA definition have been rejected. The final two have yet to be substantiated. University leaders may conclude that their disciplinary procedures are working properly. Yet, the pursuit of lengthy investigations and disciplinary processes against staff and students is creating a chilling effect, leading to self-censorship when teaching, researching, studying and discussing the question of Israel-Palestine. Moreover, these investigations have negative impacts on the wellbeing of staff and students, whilst unfounded allegations also have the potential to damage the reputations and careers of those who have been wrongfully accused of antisemitism. It is particularly concerning that certain groups of staff and students, who are under-represented and marginalised within UK academia, are targeted with complaints that rely on the IHRA definition. Specifically, Palestinian students and staff who express their respective experiences of oppression and discrimination, and who talk about the history of the oppression of their people are among those targeted, alongside other students and staff–who are frequently Black and Minority Ethnic–who express solidarity with the plight of Palestinians. University management and its leadership bodies have a duty of care to these students and staff as they do to all others. These constituencies, no less than any others, have the right to protections afforded by university non-discrimination and equality policies.
38 4.2 Recommendations
To the UK government: We recommend that the UK government should retract its instruction to universities to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, as it is inappropriate for higher education institutions, which have legal obligations to secure academic freedom and freedom of speech. To university management: We recommend that the IHRA definition should not be adopted, implemented or promoted by any higher education institution. Where it has been adopted, the decision should be rescinded. If it is not rescinded, we recommend that it not be applied, formally or informally, in any disciplinary proceedings, due to its vagueness affnd its potential to be used to stigmatise lawful speech and undermine academic freedom concerning Israel and its policies, in violation of legal obligations to ensure academic freedom and freedom of speech. We also call on universities to be mindful of their obligations to uphold academic freedom and freedom of expression when considering whether to take forward complaints related to political speech or academic expression. Finally, we remind universities that they have a duty of care to their staff and students, which includes not subjecting them to unnecessary disciplinary processes due to the negative impact they have on an individual’s wellbeing. 39 To student unions and societies: We recommend to student unions not to adopt or endorse the IHRA definition, nor to use it to assess antisemitism in relation to complaints raised. Where it has been adopted, the decision should be rescinded. We recommend that student unions and societies lobby university management to protect the academic freedom and freedom of expression of all members of their campus community. We recommend that academic boards and senates call on university managers to rescind the IHRA definition and to ensure protection of academic freedom and freedom of expression for the entire university community. We also recommend that academic boards and senates consider developing detailed guidance and procedures for the protection of academic freedom and freedom of expression. To academic boards and senates: 40 To the National Union of Students (NUS): We recommend that the NUS should retract its adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism and not use the definition as a tool to assess antisemitism in complaints raised. To the Office for Students (OfS): The IHRA definition is not a useful tool for interpreting and tackling antisemitism on campuses and, therefore, we call on the OfS to stop recommending the use of the definition by UK universities.
APPENDICES
41 1. A table of all the cases informing this report can be found here: https://bit.ly/evidenceihra 2. A list of all open letters written by the BRISMES Committeeon Academic Freedom since 2019 that raise concerns about academic freedom and freedom of expression in relation to Israel-Palestine in UK universities can be found here: LETTER TO PROFESSOR SIR CHRIS HUSBANDS Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University regarding the investigation of Shahd Abusalama and cancellation of the class she was scheduled to teach 25 January 2022
LETTER TO PROFESSOR SIR ANTON MUSCATELLI Principal of University of Glasgow, expressing deep concern regarding the university’s treatment of Ms. Jane Jackman 1 November 2022 LETTER TO PROFESSOR DAME NANCY ROTHWELL President and ViceChancellor of University of Manchester, to express our concerns about the University’s treatment of Alistair Hudson, Director of the Whitworth Art Gallery (WAG) 8 March 2022 https://www.brismes.ac.uk/advocacy/committee-on-academic-freedom Specifically (in reverse chronological order): 42 LETTER TO PROFESSOR HUGH BRADY Vice-Chancellor of Bristol University, regarding the University’s decision to fire Professor David Miller following an investigation into comments that he made that were critical of Israeli government policy, Zionism and pro-Israel groups 12 October 2021 LETTER TO UCL PROVOST Regarding the UCL Academic Board Vote on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism 30 March 2021 LETTER TO PROFESSOR DAME JANET BEER on the IHRA definition of antisemitism 24 January 2019 LETTER TO PROFESSOR SIR ANTON MUSCATELLI Principal of University of Glasgow, regarding the University’s ‘Protocol for Managing Speakers and Events’ and the University’s decision to adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and their implications for Middle East Studies and academic freedom 19 October 2021 LETTER TO UK MINISTER OF STATE FOR UNIVERSITIES regarding the IHRA definition of antisemitism and the autonomy of universities 26 May 2021 43 1 Lerman A. (2022). Whatever Happened to Antisemitism? Redefinition and the Myth of the ‘Collective Jew’. Pluto Press; also see European Legal Support Center, ‘Suppressing Palestinian Rights Advocacy through the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism’, June 2023, online at https://res.cloudinary. com/elsc/images/v1685978238/The-Practice-of-Suppressing-Palestinian-Rights-Advocacy-FINAL-PP/ThePractice-of-Suppressing-Palestinian-Rights-Advocacy-FINAL-PP.pdf?_i=AA 2 The report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, E. Tendayi Achiume, submitted to the 77th Session of the UN General Assembly, 7 October 2022, p. 14, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematicreports/a77549-report-special-rapporteur-contemporary-forms-racism-racial 3 Written Testimony of Kenneth S. Stern, Executive Director, Justus & Karin Rosenberg Foundation, Before the United States House of Representatives Committee on The Judiciary, November 7, 2017 Hearing on Examining Anti-Semitism on College Campuses, online at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20171107/106610/HHRG-115-JU00-Wstate-SternK-20171107.pdf 4 Eleanor Busby, ‘Universities may face cuts if they reject definition of antisemitism, says education minister’, The Independent, 9 October, 2020, online at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/ education-news/antisemitism-universities-gavin-williamson-funding-cuts-b911500.html 5 UJS, ‘IHRA Campaign’, No Date, online at https://www.ujs.org.uk/ihra_campaign; see also Office for Students, ‘OfS reports significant increase in universities signing up to IHRA definition of antisemitism’, 10 November, 2021, online at https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blog-and-events/ press-and-media/ofs-reports-significant-increase-in-universities-signing-up-to-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism 6 For the definition and the list of examples, see The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, ‘What is antisemitism?’, No Date, online at https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definitionantisemitism 7 Campaign Against Antisemitism, ‘UCL Jewish Society, Backed By CAA And Others, Sends Letter To UCL Council Urging Rejection of Alternative Definitions Of Antisemitism’, 23 March 2023, online at https://Antisemitism.Org/Ucl-Jewish-Society-Backed-By-Caa-And-Others-Sends-Letter-To-Ucl-CouncilUrging-Rejection-Of-Alternative-Definitions-Of-Antisemitism/ 8 The Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, ‘ISGAP Fellows Reject Antisemitic Tropes in Amnesty Report’, 23 April 2022, online at https://isgap.org/post/2022/04/isgap-rejectsamnestys-report-on-israel 9 Damien Gayle, ‘UK Council Refused to Host Palestinian Event over Antisemitism Fears’, The Guardian, 3 August 2019, online at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/03/uk-councilrefused-to-host-palestinian-event-over-antisemitism-fears 10 Amongst others, see: Letters, ‘Palestinian rights and the IHRA definition of antisemitism’, The Guardian, 29 November 2020, online at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/nov/29/palestinianrights-and-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism 11 Parliamentary Taskforce on Antisemitism in Higher Education, ‘Understanding Jewish Experience in Higher Education’, May 2023, pp. 11-12, online at https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2023/05/Understanding-Jewish-Experience-in-Higher-Education.pdf 12 For example, Peter Ullrich, Brian Klug and Amos Goldberg, “Expert submission in the context of a NOTES 44 public consultation launched by the European Commission for its upcoming ‘Strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life in the EU’”, 5 July 2021, online at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/ better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13068-Strategy-oncombating-antisemitism-and-fostering-Jewishlife-in-the-EU/F2661357_en; and Taner Akçam and others, “Call by scholars on global leaders at Malmö Forum on Combating Antisemitism”, 11 October 2021, online at https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/ euobs-media/b7602129dc4791bd47267b593f517caa.pdf 13 For example, see written evidence by the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (FOE0145), submitted on 29 January 2021 to the Human Rights (Joint Committee)’s inquiry, Freedom of Expression, available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/work/778/freedom-of-expression/publications/ written-evidence/?page=1 14 British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, ‘BRISMES Committee on Academic Freedom’, No Date, online at https://www.brismes.ac.uk/advocacy/committee-on-academic-freedom 15 We would like to thank PSC for their inputs and for playing a key role in passing concerns to ELSC for legal analysis and support. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) is the largest organisation in the UK advocating for the rights of Palestinians with over 8000 members and affiliations from 15 national Trade Unions. Many of its members are students or academics. 16 Hugh Tomlinson, ‘In the Matter of the Adoption and Potential Application of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition Of Anti-Semitism’, No Date, online at https:// freespeechonisrael.org.uk/ihra-opinion/#sthash.WDNEXkul.dpbs 17 Ibid. 18 Letters, ‘Antisemitism definition is undermining free speech’, The Guardian, 7 January, 2021, online at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/jan/07/antisemitism-definition-is-undermining-freespeech 19 Geoffrey Robertson, ‘IHRA definition of antisemitism is not fit for purpose’, 13 August 2018, online at https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/ihra-definition-antisemitism-not-fit-purpose 20 Written Testimony of Kenneth S. Stern, Executive Director, Justus & Karin Rosenberg Foundation, Before the United States House of Representatives Committee on The Judiciary, November 7, 2017 Hearing on Examining Anti-Semitism on College Campuses, online at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ JU/JU00/20171107/106610/HHRG-115-JU00-Wstate-SternK-20171107.pdf 21 Ibid. 22 The report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, E. Tendayi Achiume, submitted to the 77th Session of the UN General Assembly, 7 October 2022, p. 14, online at https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ a77549-report-special-rapporteur-contemporary-forms-racism-racial 23 European Convention on Human Rights, online at https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng. pdf 24 Gaunt v United Kingdom (2016) 63 EHRR SE15, §§43-44. 25 According to Article 10 (2) of the ECHR, the right to freedom of expression does not legally extend to speech that is unlawful, or, in other words, that incites violence, hatred or hostility towards a racial or religious group. 26 Education (No. 2) Act 1986, Article 43, ‘Freedom of speech in universities, polytechnics and 45 colleges’, online at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/61/section/43 27 Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, online at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/2023/16/enacted 28 Section 2(8)(c) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, online at https://www.legislation. gov.uk/ukpga/2017/29/section/2/enacted?view=plain 29 Wingrove v The United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 1, para 58; Vajnai v Hungary (2010) 50 EHRR 44, para 47; Ceylan v Turkey (1999) ECHR 44, para 34. 30 Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999) EWHC Admin 733, §20, online at https:// www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/733.html 31 Geoffrey Robertson, ‘Anti-Semitism: The IHRA Definition and its Consequences for Freedom of Expression’, 31 August 2018, online at https://prc.org.uk/en/post/3992 32 A table of all the cases informing this report can be found online at https://bit.ly/evidenceihra 33 Israeli Apartheid Week is an annual series of events organised globally to raise awareness about Israel’s apartheid regime and to build support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. It is often the opportunity for student movements to demonstrate intersectionality and connect with other struggles for justice in the UK and beyond. 34 Richard Adams, ‘Williamson accuses English universities of ignoring antisemitism’, The Guardian, 9 October 2020, online at https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/oct/09/williamson-accuses-englishuniversities-of-ignoring-antisemitism; Fiona McIntyre, ‘Universities threatened with defunding over antisemitism’, Research Professional News, online at https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-hegovernment-education-2020-10-universities-threatened-with-defunding-over-antisemitism/ 35 UJS, ‘IHRA Campaign’, No Date, online at https://www.ujs.org.uk/ihra_campaign; see also Office for Students, ‘OfS reports significant increase in universities signing up to IHRA definition of antisemitism’, 10 November 2021 online at https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blog-and-events/ press-and-media/ofs-reports-significant-increase-in-universities-signing-up-to-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism 36 UK Parliament, ‘Defining antisemitism’, Point no. 24, online at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/136/13605.htm 37 The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, March 2021, online at https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/ 38 At UCL, the Academic Board Working Group on Racism and Prejudice found that despite the addition of two caveats in ‘parliamentary riders’, the IHRA definition had led to violations of academic freedom and freedom of expression at the university (December 2020, online at https://www.ucl. ac.uk/ucu/sites/ucu/files/wg-racism-and-prejudice-report.pdf). Warwick University’s Assembly expressed concerns about the definition’s adoption and an Assembly Working Group has been reviewing antisemitism definitions. The University of Brighton’s Race and Faith Commission considered the IHRA and recommend that no definition of any one form of racism should be adopted (2021, online at https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/app/uploads/2021/11/IHRA-road-MAP-of-OPPOSITION.pdf). The University of Kent and the Open University adopted the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism alongside the IHRA definition to highlight the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. The University of Aberdeen Council decided that the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism should be adopted instead of the IHRA definition. Sheffield Hallam University’s announcement that it has adopted the IHRA definition clarifies that it ‘will not limit legitimate criticism and debate’ and the University will ‘uphold and protect the rights of students and staff to hold legitimate debates on issues related to Israel, Palestine and the Middle East’ (February 2021, online at https://www.shu.ac.uk/ news/all-articles/latest-news/university-statement-ihra-definition-of-anti-semitism. 46 Designed by Giacomo Fausti https://www.giacomofausti.com/
========================================================
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JJ7NNKxkRJYnNbpqSNYut_K5haLWA2wo/edit#gid=625201812
Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech in UK Higher Education: The Adverse Impact of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
APPENDIX 1 – TABLE OF EVIDENCE
This table lists all cases recorded by the ELSC in which UK university staff and students were accused of antisemitism on the basis of the IHRA definition, between 2017 and 2022.
In all cases, freedom of expression and/or academic freedom of students and staff was restricted.
| Date | Type of individual or entity affected | Type and description of incident | Outcome | Incident code |
| Staff | ||||
| Dec 2021-Oct 2022 | Staff | Complaints of alleged antisemitism and a smear campaign following a social media post commenting on a student’s banner and the expression of anti-Zionist views to an online news outlet. | The university dropped the first investigation and rejected the second complaint. | 21AS1 |
| Oct-21 | Academic (external from the university in which the incident occurred) | Complaint of alleged antisemitism based on a book’s title and topic of a book launch; vetting and attempt to disrupt or cancel the event. | The university did not investigate but sought to vet the speaker’s speech; the speaker withdrew and the event was cancelled and hosted by another organisation. | 21AS2 |
| May-July 2021 | Staff | Complaint of alleged antisemitism because the staff signed an open letter in 2016 in support of a former elected student union official who faced allegations of antisemitism for their criticisms of Israel and Zionism. | The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held. | 21AS3 |
| May-June 2021 | Staff | Several complaints of alleged antisemitism for: signing an open letter in 2016 in support of a former elected student union official who faced allegations of antisemitism for their criticisms of Israel/Zionism; liking social media posts by well-known Palestinian rights advocates; liking a social media post from former leader of the Labour Party; liking social media posts commenting on the Labour Party. | The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held. | 21AS4 |
| May-June 2021 | Staff | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for liking a social media post in support of former leader of the Labour Party. | The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held. | 21AS5 |
| May-July 2021 | Staff | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for posting and liking social media posts commenting on the Labour Party. | The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held. | 21AS6 |
| May-July 2021 | Staff | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for signing a letter opposing unfounded allegations against a former elected student union official. | The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held. | 21AS7 |
| May-June 2021 | Staff | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for posting a social media post in support of former leader of the Labour Party. | The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held. | 21AS8 |
| Feb-21 | Staff | Two complaints of alleged antisemitism for participating in Palestinian rights protests and expressing antizionist political positions, and smear campaign by a British NGO combating antisemitism. | The disciplinary process led to a rejection of allegations of antisemitism. | 21AS9 |
| Jan-July 2021 | Staff | Complaints of alleged antisemitism for: liking and sharing social media posts commenting on the Labour Party or former leader of the Party; commenting on social media about allegations of antisemitism made against a British filmmaker; sharing a social media post referring to Israel’s training of the US police. | The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held. | 21AS10 |
| Jan-June 2021 | Staff | Complaints of alleged antisemitism for the content of a book published by the staff member more than 15 years ago; and because the staff member signed an open letter in 2016 in support of a former elected student union official who faced allegations of antisemitism for their criticisms of Israel/Zionism. | The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held. | 21AS11 |
| Jan-May 2021 | Staff | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for liking a social media post commenting on Donald Trump and antisemitism. | The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held. | 21AS12 |
| Jan-May 2021 | Staff | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for liking a social media post commenting on UK politics and the Labour Party. | The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held. | 21AS13 |
| Jan-21 | Staff | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for criticising Zionism and settler colonialism. The Jewish student society called on the university to sanction the academic for breaching the IHRA definition of antisemitism. A British NGO combating antisemitism wrote to the university calling for the same. The staff member also faced smears in various media, including on social media. | The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held. | 21AS14 |
| Nov-20 | Staff | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for posting and liking social media posts published over the previous four years including: commenting on the Labour Party; criticising Zionism; sharing an article about the Nakba; expressing solidarity with a Labour Party member who was expelled for ‘bringing the party into disrepute’. | The disciplinary process led to a rejection of allegations of antisemitism. | 20AS1 |
| Nov-20 | Staff | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for posting and liking social media posts commenting on the Labour Party, criticising Zionism and describing pro-Israel actors as a ‘Zionist lobby’. | The disciplinary process led to a rejection of allegations of antisemitism. | 20AS2 |
| Nov-20 | Staff | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for liking social media posts commenting on the Labour Party, on pro-Zionist organisations or criticising Zionism; for signing a petition in support of Palestinian rights and criticising Israeli policies. | The disciplinary process led to a rejection of allegations of antisemitism. | 20AS3 |
| Nov-20 | Staff | Complaint for alleged antisemitism for: liking, sharing and posting social media posts denouncing unfounded allegations of antisemitism (including against Labour Party members); criticising Israeli policies; and for describing increased cooperation between the governments of India and Israel as the collaboration of two extremist governments. | The disciplinary process led to a rejection of allegations of antisemitism. | 20AS4 |
| Jan-20 | Academic (external from the university in which the incident occurred) | Attempt to disrupt and cancel an event; complaint of alleged antisemitism for being featured as a speaker in an upcoming event entitled ‘Building a United Anti-racism Front’. Calls to cancel the event and allegations of antisemitism were published in media. A former member of the body that complained claimed that the political position of the academic (‘calling for a one-state solution’) was antisemitic according to the IHRA definition. | The university did not open any investigation. The event was heavily monitored, security staff were hired just for the event and the attendees’ identities were checked multiple times. | 20AS5 |
| Nov-19 | Staff | Complaint for alleged antisemitism for parts of a lecture on Israel-Palestine that included comments on the Labour Party. The complainant sent recordings of the lecture to pro-Israel platforms, where a smear campaign was conducted against the academic, defaming them as antisemitic and supportive of terrorism. | The academic was cleared of allegations of antisemitism after an investigation. | 19AS1 |
| Mar-17 | Academic (external from the university in which the incident occurred) | Attempt to disrupt and cancel event. The day before a lecture on Israel-Palestine, the university informed the academic that their talk would be vetted. They also faced questioning by the university, which included questions about whether they supported the IHRA definition. | The academic submitted an outline of their talk but did not express support for the IHRA definition. After a lengthy discussion between the academic and the university and only two hours before the event’s start, it was authorised. | 17A1 |
| Mar-17 | Academic (external from the university in which the incident occurred) | Attempt to disrupt and cancel event. After an Israeli embassy official in the UK alerted the university about the title of a lecture to be given by the academic, the university censored the title. | The event went ahead with another title, and the university imposed conditions: requiring that it be recorded, that the chairs be replaced, and that it be open only to students. | 17A2 |
| Feb/March 2017 | Academic (external from the university in which the incident occurred) | Attempt to disrupt and cancel event. The afternoon before the academic was due to speak at the university, they were told that the event would go ahead only if they agreed to complete a ‘risk assessment’, which included their written acceptance of the IHRA definition. | The academic refused to confirm their acceptance of the IHRA definition; after an exchange of emails with the university explaining their views, the event went ahead. | 17A3 |
| Feb-17 | Staff | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for publishing an article about antisemitism in a left-leaning on-line political magazine. A British NGO focused on antisemitism threatened the university and demanded that they take action; national media published smears against the academic, repeating the allegations of antisemitism. | The university declared that it would not discipline the academic because the article was not found to be antisemitic. Nevertheless, the university convened a panel that reviewed the article with reference to examples in the IHRA definition and found areas of concern. A university manager later strongly suggested to the academic that they take down their article and advised them not to write about Palestine in an online format. | 17AS4 |
| Students | ||||
| Jun-21 | Student | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for comments on a social media post that compared the actions of the State of Israel and Nazism. | The investigating officer found no case to answer. | 21S1 |
| Jun-21 | Student | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for posting on social media a Human Rights Watch infographic about Israel’s system of apartheid in the West Bank, with comments referring to ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘reminiscent of South African apartheid’. | The investigating officer found no case to answer. | 21S2 |
| May-21 | Student | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for posting and liking social media posts criticising Zionism or Israeli policies. | The student was cleared of allegations of antisemitism after an investigation and disciplinary hearing. | 21S3 |
| May-21 | Student | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for liking social media posts criticising Zionism or commenting on the Labour Party. | The student was cleared of allegations of antisemitism after an investigation and disciplinary hearing. | 21S4 |
| Apr-21 | Student | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for liking a social media post containing a satirical comment about the alliance between Washington DC and Israel. | The student was cleared of allegations of antisemitism after an investigation and disciplinary hearing. | 21S5 |
| Apr-21 | Student | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for liking a social media post from a Jewish cartoonist and activist, and liking social media posts criticising Zionism or commenting on the Labour Party. | The student was cleared of allegations of antisemitism after an investigation and disciplinary hearing. | 21S6 |
| Feb-21 | Student | Complaint of alleged antisemitism and smear campaign for attending a Black Lives Matter protest, reposting literature by a prominent Palestinian poet and publishing social media posts critical of the Israeli army. | The student was cleared of allegations of antisemitism after an investigation and disciplinary hearing. | 21S7 |
| Dec 2020-Aug 2022 | Student | A peer-reviewed article about pro-Israel advocacy in the UK, and its affect on pro-Palestinian sympathy, led to accusations of antisemitism against the author. Complaints about the article followed smears published in a blog. | The university opened an investigation in response to complaints about the article which included the commission of an anonymously authored ‘expert report’. This report was not shown to the author but formed the basis of the preface of the article, which apologised for offending people and insinuated that the article was antisemitic without providing evidence for these claims. Despite receiving a number of complaints about the preface, the university has not removed it. | 20S1 |
| Sep-18 | Student | Complaint of alleged antisemitism for sharing a social media post mentioning that ’the establishment of Israel was a racist endeavour’. | The university did not investigate the case. | 18S1 |
| Student groups | ||||
| Dec-21 | Palestine Student Society | Complaint of alleged antisemitism sent to the student union for a statement—’End the Palestinian Holocaust’—made during a Palestine Student Society event. | The case is ongoing. The decision was not upheld, but a adequate remedy was not provided and a complaint has been filed with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. | 21SOC1 |
| Nov-20 | Two members of the Students’ Union | Threat of legal action from a pro-Israel lawfare group against student union trustees for a motion on divestment that referred to Israel as an apartheid state. | The case was left unresolved after the complainant’s barrister did not respond to proposals for a settlement. | 20SU1 |
| Feb-19 | Palestine Student Society | Disruption and vetting of event; complaint of alleged antisemitism; and smear campaign. During an educational panel about the difference between antizionism and antisemitism, some students recorded the panel and disrupted it through verbal and physical violence and making allegations of antisemitism referring to the IHRA definition. After the event, the complainants cyber-harrassed the organisers and asked the university to take action. | After a meeting with the students, the university did not open an investigation, but the student society lost almost all of its members because this incident intimidated them. Lecturers attended several subsequent events organised by the student society to ensure that content would not breach the IHRA definition. | 19SOC1 |
| Feb-18 | Student Union | Attempt to disrupt and cancel event with threat of legal action and smear campaign. After a student union promoted Israeli Apartheid Week on campus, the Israel Student Society threatened the union with legal action, claiming that the event was discriminatory and that its slogan was in breach of the IHRA definition. A pro-Israel watchdog amplified the allegations on their platform. | The events went ahead without any investigation opened nor any legal action taken. | 18SU1 |
| Feb-17 | Palestine Student Society | Attempt to cancel event planned during Israeli Apartheid Week and smear campaigns. The event included a mock Israeli checkpoint to raise awareness about the Israeli occupation. | The university cancelled the event, despite several appeals made by the student society. | 17SOC1 |
| Feb-17 | Palestine Student Society | Attempt to cancel event with complaint of alleged antisemitism for raising awareness about Israeli occupation during Israeli Apartheid Week. | The university cancelled the event. | 17SOC2 |
| Feb-17 | Palestine Student Society | Attempt to cancel event planned during Israeli Apartheid Week. | The university cancelled the event, but it took place off campus. | 17SOC3 |
==============================================================
The working definition of antisemitism
In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.
On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.
=================================================
https://palinfo.com/news/2023/09/21/851082/Jerusalem.. Dozens of settlers storm Al-Aqsa and the occupation storms Al-Eizariya Girls School
Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 11:10 am
Occupied Jerusalem – Palestinian Information Center
Dozens of settlers stormed, Thursday morning, the courtyards of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, under heavy protection from the occupation forces.
Groups of settlers carried out provocative tours of the mosque’s courtyards, and performed Talmudic rituals in its courtyards, after storming it from the Mughariba Gate side.
Coinciding with the settlers’ incursions into the mosque, the occupation forces pursued and harassed the stationed men and women, as the Jerusalem station arrested Nafisa Khwais from Omar Bin Al-Khattab Square and took her to the investigation center.
Extremist Temple groups continue to mobilize settlers to carry out more incursions into the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, during three Jewish holidays that began several days ago and extend until mid-October.
Temple groups take advantage of Jewish holidays to practice their Talmudic and Torah rituals in Al-Aqsa Mosque, most notably prayers, supplications, fasting, slaughtering sacrifices, blowing the trumpet, and others, in efforts to Judaize it, impose a new reality in it, and divide it in time and space.
The “Jewish New Year” is followed by the so-called “Days of Repentance,” in which the settlers violate Al-Aqsa wearing biblical white clothing, leading to the second Jewish holiday during this period, which is called the biblical “Feast of Atonement” on September 25.
On what is called “Yom Kippur,” the settlers seek to simulate the sacrifice and set a record number of people storming Al-Aqsa Mosque and the day after it, as well as attempting to blow the trumpet at the “Tanqaziyya” school.
The so-called “Feast of the Throne” begins on September 30 and extends until October 17. It is one of the biblical pilgrimage holidays associated with the “alleged Temple,” during which the settlers attempt to bring plant sacrifices into Al-Aqsa Mosque and raise the number of intruders to more than 1,500 intruders over successive days.
Jerusalemite warnings continue about the danger of settlement rituals in the Blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and the city of Jerusalem, during the Jewish holidays, and calls for the necessity of traveling to Al-Aqsa to thwart the settlers’ plans and the ongoing Judaization efforts against the Blessed Mosque and the occupied city of Jerusalem.
In another context, the occupation forces stormed Al-Eizariya Girls Basic School in occupied Jerusalem after blowing up its doors, searched it, seized its surveillance camera recordings, destroyed part of its contents, and caused major material damage.
===============================================
https://palwatch.org/page/34584
PA minister: Jews are “criminal infidels” who “defile” Muslim holy sites
Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik | Sep 20, 2023
- PA Minister of Religious Affairs asks Allah to “purify” Muslim holy sites “from the defilement of the criminal infidels” – on eve of Jewish New Year
- PA: Jews at the Temple Mount are “infidels” who invade the Al-Aqsa Mosque
- Abbas’ spokesman: The Western Wall and the Temple Mount are “a pure right of the Muslims only”
- PA minister repeats libel: Israel wants to “eliminate the Al-Aqsa Mosque”
- Fatah: Jews are openly planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque
In anticipation of the large number of Jews who would visit the Western Wall to celebrate the Jewish New Year this past weekend, the Palestinian Authority attacked Jews as “infidels” who would “defile” the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
In a televised sermon on the eve of the Jewish New Year, PA Minister of Religious Affairs Hatem Al-Bakri preached that “criminal” Jewish “infidels” would “defile” the Muslim holy sites and prayed that Allah would purify the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Cave of the Patriarchs:
PA Minister of Religious Affairs Hatem Al-Bakri: “Allah, purify the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Ibrahimi Mosque (i.e., Cave of the Patriarchs) from the defilement of the criminal infidels, O Master of the Universe.”
[Official PA TV, Sept. 15 2023]
A Fatah’s spokesperson stated that the Jews have always “secretly plotted” to harm the Al-Aqsa Mosque and warned that they are now planning to destroy it:
“Fatah Spokesperson in Jerusalem Muhammad Rabia: “[In the past the Jews] secretly plotted and prepared projects and plans, which targeted the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Today this is being carried out openly by bringing the red heifers that they [the Jews] will slaughter and scatter their ashes… to purify themselves and allow them to break into the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. They are dividing [the mosque] according to time and area, and now they are planning to destroy the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque.”
[Official PA TV, Topic of the Day, Sept. 4, 2023]
PA minister Al-Bakri repeated this recently:
PA Minister of Religious Affairs Hatem Al-Bakri: “There is a plan by the occupation that has targeted this site [the Al-Aqsa Mosque]. This plan was prepared 50 years before the establishment of the State of Israel [in 1948]. They prepared these plans, and they are carrying them out every day. They are attempting to reach the final point, which iseliminating the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the acts of harm are continuing against all the Christian and Muslim holy sites.”
[Official PA TV News, Aug. 21, 2023]
The Islamic religious leadership in Jerusalem has also exhorted Palestinians to take actions to prevent Jews from “defiling” the Muslim sites, completely ignoring the fact that the Temple Mount is one of Judaism’s holy sites:
“The Islamic organizations in Jerusalem… called on every Palestinian and Muslim who can to carry out Ribat (i.e., religious conflict over land claimed to be Islamic) in the alleys, houses of worship, benches, and plazas of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque / the Noble Jerusalem Sanctuary (i.e., the Temple Mount), with its entire territory that stands at 144 dunams (144,000 sq. meters), so that it will remain pure of the infidels’ defilement and precious and pure for the Muslims only, as Allah granted them in the holy Quran.”
[WAFA, official PA news agency, July 27, 2023]
Spokesperson for PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, Nabil Abu Rudeina, has likewise denied Jews any right to pray at the Western Wall or visit the Temple Mount, categorizing the sites as “a pure right of the Muslims only”:
“Official Spokesperson for the [PA] Presidential Office Nabil Abu Rudeina… emphasized that the Israeli attempts to change the historical status quo in Jerusalem are unacceptable and fated to fail. He also emphasized that the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque isa pure right of the Muslims only.”
[WAFA, official PA news agency, July 27, 2023]
Similarly, Abbas’ Fatah condemned Jews at the Western Wall who were part of an anti-judicial reform group, as “invading settlers”:
Posted text: “Settlers invade the Al-Buraq Wall (i.e., the Western Wall of the Temple Mount) and hold Talmudic (i.e., Jewish) prayers this morning in occupied Jerusalem.”
[Fatah Commission of Information and Culture,
Facebook page, July 23, 2023]
Palestinian Media Watch has shown that the PA intentionally mislabels Judaism’s holiest site – the entire Temple Mount and the Western Wall – as “the Al-Aqsa Mosque,” and defines all Jews who visit or come to pray as “invading settlers” who “break in” and “defile” the mosque.
Additionally, it should be noted that Jews who visit the Temple Mount are restricted to specific sections of the open areas and are barred from entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock. Jewish prayer at the Temple Mount is prohibited because of threats of terrorism by Palestinians.
To combat the “defilement” of “extremist settlers,” the Palestinian National Council – the legislative body of the PLO – called for violence and terror, using the PA euphemism “resistance,” vowing that “Palestine” will be liberated.
The following are longer excerpts of the statements cited above:
Headline: “The Islamic organizations in Jerusalem condemned the invasion of the Al-Aqsa Mosque by the occupation and its settlers”
“The Islamic organizations in Jerusalem… emphasized their insistence on opposing the unfair Israeli measures against the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, its visitors, its guards, and the worshippers. The organizations called on every Palestinian and Muslim who can to carry out Ribat (i.e., religious conflict over land claimed to be Islamic) in the alleys, houses of worship, benches, and plazas of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque / the Noble Jerusalem Sanctuary (i.e., the Temple Mount), with its entire territory that stands at 144 dunams (144,000 sq. meters -Ed.), so that it will remain pure of the infidels’ defilement and precious and pure for the Muslims only, as Allah granted them in the holy Quran.”
[WAFA, official PA news agency, July 27, 2023]
The Islamic organizations in Jerusalem are:
The Islamic Waqf Council (Jordanian)
The PA’s Supreme Muslim Council
The Palestinian Dar Al-Ifta (i.e., the official PA body for issuing religious rulings headed PA Mufti Muhammad Hussein)
The Office of the PA Supreme Shari’ah Judge
The PA’s Islamic Waqf and blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque Affairs Department
The PA and its leaders misrepresent all of the Temple Mount as an integral part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Therefore, they vilify any presence of Jews on the mount as an “invasion.” It should be noted that Jews who visit the Temple Mount only enter some sections of the open areas, and do not enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock. Israeli police ban Jewish prayer at the Temple Mount because of threats of violence by Palestinians.
“Official Spokesperson for the [PA] Presidential Office Nabil Abu Rudeina… emphasized that the Israeli attempts to change the historical status quo in Jerusalem are unacceptable and fated to fail. He also emphasized that the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque is a pure right of the Muslims only, and Jerusalem and the holy sites are a red line that cannot be allowed to be crossed under any circumstances.”
[WAFA, official PA news agency, July 27, 2023]
Nabil Abu Rudeina also serves as PA Deputy Prime Minister, PA Minister of Information, Fatah Commissioner of Information, Culture, and Ideology, and Fatah Central Committee member.
The PA and its leaders misrepresent all of the Temple Mount as an integral part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Therefore, they vilify any presence of Jews on the mount as a “break-in.” It should be noted that Jews who visit the Temple Mount only enter some sections of the open areas, and do not enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock. Israeli police ban Jewish prayer at the Temple Mount because of threats of violence by Palestinians.
“Division according to areas and times” refers to a submission of a “private bill” by Israeli MP Uri Ariel in March 2003. The bill suggested ensuring freedom of religious worship by allowing both Jews and Muslims to pray on the Temple Mount – what the Palestinians call the Al-Aqsa Mosque plaza. The bill sought to designate separate prayer times and areas of the site for Muslims and Jews. The bill never progressed past the initial legislatory stage. While there was additional discussion on the subject in 2012, no legislation was ever passed.
In response to the incessant PA claims that the “division according to areas and times” of the Temple Mount is an operative Israeli plan, former Israeli PM Netanyahu stated on many occasions that the Israeli government has no intention of changing the so-called status quo on the Temple Mount, which de facto is interpreted to mean Jews are only allowed to enter the Temple Mount, but not to conduct individual or communal prayers there.
In July 2021, former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett said Muslims and Jews have freedom of worship at the Temple Mount, which was understood by many as a hint to changing the status quo at the site, but the following day his office backtracked and said he misspoke and did not mean Jews would have freedom of worship, but rather would have freedom to visit. “There is no change in the status quo,” a statement from PM Bennett’s office confirmed.
====================================
https://cst.org.uk/news/blog/2023/01/19/cst-report-shows-22-increase-in-campus-antisemitism
CST REPORT SHOWS 22% INCREASE IN CAMPUS ANTISEMITISM
19 January 2023
Today CST publishes a new report, Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2020-2022, that shows a 22% increase in university-related antisemitic hate incidents reported to CST over the past two academic years. This is the second investigation of its kind by CST looking exclusively at the experiences of Jewish students, as well as staff and campus organisations around the country.
CST’s new report reveals 150 university related antisemitic incidents were reported to CST in the last two academic years across 30 towns and cities in the UK.
Jewish life on campus is vibrant and there are a wealth of opportunities available that contribute to the overwhelmingly positive experiences of Jewish students at university. Most Jewish students will not encounter any antisemitism during their studies, but anti-Jewish hatred can still present a significant challenge for Jewish staff and students.
In 2020/2021, CST recorded 95 university related antisemitic incidents; the highest total recorded for a single academic year. Fifty-five of these incidents took place in a single month, May 2021, when there was a significant escalation of conflict in Israel and Gaza. This was a period when national levels of anti-Jewish hate crimes increased, and university campuses were disproportionally affected. For Jewish staff and students, online spaces were especially hostile during this time with three quarters of the incidents reported in May 2021 occurring on social media platforms or messaging apps. In times of heightened tensions such as this, universities are urged to consider the impact on Jewish staff and students and show an increased level of support.
The 150 incidents reported to CST during the past two academic years included seven threats, three of which were death threats sent to Jewish students, and three physical assaults. The remaining 140 incidents were in the category of Abusive Behaviour, which includes verbal abuse, antisemitic graffiti on non-Jewish property, and online or offline written abuse. Eighty-two incidents took place online, 47 incidents occurred on campus, and 21 took place off campus.
This report shows the challenges faced by students when universities, who have a duty of care to protect all students at university, do not always provide robust support to Jewish students or staff. This is sometimes seen in how some academic institutions handle complaints of antisemitism. In some cases, CST found that investigations into complaints of antisemitism have been marred by slow responses, a breakdown in communication, a lack of impartiality or objectivity from investigating officers, and a failure to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism in an appropriate way.
CST’s recommendations for universities:
- Maintain a fair, independent and impartial complaints process that consults external advisors with specialist expertise in the type of discrimination or bigotry being alleged
- Offer a timely response to students and update them on any progress made, delays that may be inavoidable and when they can expect an outcome to the investigation
- Allow for anonymity for students in the reporting of a hate crime and the involvement of third party representation
- Ensure that adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism is accompanied by training for staff who will be investigating the complaint so that they know how to use the definition, and have a wider understanding of the nature, language and impact of antisemitism on British campuses
CST works alongside the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) and other campus-based organisations to support students, academics and others who experience antisemitism in a higher education setting. CST’s campus team gives advice to Jewish students and Jewish societies on campus regarding how to organise events safely. CST also works with different organisations to teach students about topics relating to antisemitism and extremism on campus. It is hoped, as with all CST’s work, that this will contribute to the building of a safer and more inclusive environment for Jewish students and staff.
In response to CST’s new report, CST Chief Executive Mark Gardner said:
“Antisemitism at our universities has been a running sore for decades and these new findings show that far too many Jewish students suffer hatred and bias. This study also reinforces last week’s National Union of Students’ own report into antisemitism, including the link between anti-Israel hatred and racist treatment of British Jews. Students’ Unions and university authorities need to better support their Jewish students, taking concerns seriously and acting against antisemitism, whether it comes from students or academics.”
HM Government’s Independent Adviser on Antisemitism, Lord Mann, said:
“Antisemitism on campus has long been a concern for parents and students, and the reported rise in university-related antisemitic incidents over the past few years is both worrying and unacceptable. It is imperative that more is done to protect Jewish students and staff from the scourge of antisemitism and both the Community Security Trust and the Union of Jewish Students are at the forefront of this work. Together with the leadership of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, I have recently set up a Taskforce to hold hearings and focus groups at a wide and diverse number of universities across the UK, to meet with student unions’ representatives, Jewish students and staff. The taskforce will examine the Jewish experience at Higher Education institutions and provide recommendations about what measures could be implemented to help tackle antisemitism and support the Jewish community within the sector. All Jewish students have a right to be themselves on campus without any negative impact on their university experience.”
Union of Jewish Students President Joel Rosen said:
“Jewish students living away from home for the first time have the right to be who they are and to feel safe where they live and study. These incidents have a detrimental impact on the community, leading some to hide their identity and disengage from parts of university life. Jewish students are resilient and won’t let themselves be defined by the prejudice of others. In spite of the odds, Jewish life on campus continues. Our answer to those who would uproot our thriving student communities is to ensure that they continue to grow and flourish.”
Read the full report on Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2020-2022.
israel-academia-monitor.com 