Has the government dropped the IHRA definition of antisemitism in its approach to HE?

She notes that the “right to peaceful protest” is enshrined in law, and that “universities are a place for ideas to be shared and debated”. She adds that “wherever there is abuse and hatred”, the government will “act to protect students and staff.”

Meanwhile in the Jewish News, Phillipson says that she’s taking action over the “alarming rise” in anti-Jewish hate in universities.

She says the Office for Students (OfS) must ensure that universities are “honouring their responsibilities” and acting when that isn’t the case:

But the government has a responsibility too. That’s why I’ve refocused the regulator – the Office for Students, and set a different direction in terms of approach.

Incidentally, we still don’t have any written details of the government’s “refocusing” of OfS in terms of formal guidance to the regulator issued under the Higher Education and Research Act. But I digress.

Fine lines

The key issue facing universities and their SUs for a long time now, but especially since October 7th 2023, has been conflict over what amounts to antisemitism.

The last government had tended to downplay racial and religious harassment in general, adopting a minimalist and legalistic definition of it – while adopting a maximalist definition of free speech in rhetoric and legal weight.

But they then found themselves having to argue the opposite over antisemitism – and outside of egregious cases, the danger was that a maximalist definition of antisemitism and a minimalist definition of free speech over Israel was not compatible with the legislation they passed.

Universities, their SUs and their legal advisors have been wrestling with treading the fine lines all year, and the University of Bristol Miller case’s processes found problems with the interpretation and application of the IHRA definition of antisemitism and its compatibility with free speech and academic freedom.

Just a couple of weeks ago, DfE slipped out some research into the Prevent duty that included calls from both university and SU staff for better support on discerning the line between freedom of speech and harassment or extremism.

But instead of offering support over the fine lines and judgement calls – potentially saving universities and SUs tens of thousands in legal costs and clarifying things for students and staff – the framing of the previous government’s approach tended to be “they need to understand antisemitism and take it seriously”.

Hence at last year’s Autumn statement, then Chancellor Jeremy Hunt pledged £7 million over three years to tackling antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities.

Then February of this year, universities minister Robert Halfon proposed plans to introduce an antisemitism “quality seal” to ensure safety for Jewish students and staff on campuses in response to the increase in antisemitic incidents reported by the Community Security Trust (CST).

The tender notice for the project confirmed that it would require a commitment to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.

But then a group called the Diaspora Alliance, which has argued in the past that the definition has been used to “repress free speech”, “silence those who campaign against Israel’s government’s actions” and is “really an attempt to create a speech code about Israel”, issued judicial review proceedings over the scheme and its centring of IHRA.

And the Office for Students (OfS) New Condition E6 on Harassment and Sexual Misconduct – which doesn’t kick in until September 2025 – barely mentioned antisemitism at all, and when it did, was decidedly lukewarm on IHRA.

So is the new approach…new?

Resumption

Bridget Phillipson has now announced that the government is “resuming” the procurement after the number of incidents of antisemitic abuse nationwide more than doubled in the first five months of 2024.

Notably, IHRA isn’t mentioned in the notice for the “Engagement Event” for potential bidders at all – and it’s clear that the proposal for a “quality seal” has been dropped too.

Instead there will be a “scholarship programme” for university administration and SU permanent staff which “explores antisemitism in-depth” and “how it relates to the current experience of antisemitism in England today”.

There will also be a programme of “training and resources” aimed at university administration including student support, SU permanent staff and elected officers, and campus security.

DfE told FE Week the pause was due to “stakeholder concerns” – it said smaller Jewish or Holocaust education groups claimed the format and style of the procurement favoured larger organisations for various technical reasons. It also said that the pause had “nothing to do” with the judicial review launched by Diaspora Alliance.

So far, then, while IHRA seems to be conspicuous by its absence, there’s still no sign of the sort of support that universities and SUs actually need over the day to day management of conflict on campus.

Extra antisemitism training won’t be unwelcome, and nor will the pausing of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act – but the lack of a strategy to actually assist with the questions that keep coming up remains a problem.