We’re still no closer to clarity over antisemitism on campus

On Friday a letter from a significant number of student leaders and student groups to the National Union of Students (NUS) was published criticising its position over and approach to the war in Gaza and manifestations of pro-Palestinian activism.

That NUS represents a body inside of which there are opposing groups over aspects of the Middle East is nothing new – although aside from the ways in which the Overton window on the war in Gaza has shifted, arguably the most notable section concerns the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.

The basics of the letter’s position is that the “institutionalisation” of the IHRA definition of antisemitism has come to represent campus repression – a definition that the authors argue has been repeatedly weaponized to silence criticism of Israel on university campuses, mainly via conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

It’s a conflation that the letter argues paradoxically reinforces antisemitic tropes by suggesting all Jews are inherently aligned with Israel while simultaneously recasting those who oppose Israeli policies, particularly racialized and Muslim students, “as purveyors of hate”.

Its persistence, the letter argues, constitutes indirect and potentially direct discrimination against muslims and those with anti-Zionist philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010, “betraying” the foundational principles upon which NUS claims to stand while “failing to reflect” the spirit of the students it purports to represent.

Nothing of the kind

It’s not hugely dissimilar to the view once taken by Arif Ahmed. Writing for HEPI back in 2021, the man who would later emerge as OfS’ Director for Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech said:

Although every rational person sympathises with his motives, I am (like the UCU) strongly against Gavin Williamson’s requirement that universities adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

This ‘definition’ is nothing of the kind; adopting it obstructs perfectly legitimate defence of Palestinian rights. As such it chills free speech on a matter of the first importance. I hope the Secretary of State reconsiders the need for it; but these new free speech duties ought to rule it out in any case.

We’ve been over before Ahmed’s strange softening of the above position – including a Times op-ed on the day he announced his own appointment to the role that said it must not restrict legitimate political speech and protest – only to be edited within hours to include the following:

I have had concerns about this in the past. Since then, I have seen at Cambridge how in practice the working definition can accommodate robust support for free speech and academic freedom. More recently, the report of the parliamentary task force on antisemitism in higher education indicates that none of the 56 university adopters who were asked reported that its adoption had in any way restricted freedom of speech.

It’s not clear how Ahmed might weigh 56 responses from universities to a parliamentary task force on antisemitism versus a letter from “180+ sabbatical officers and student groups across 53 campuses”, but it at least suggests there is more of a debate than he’s these days suggesting.

But it’s the other thing that happened at the weekend that could bring things to a head.

A seal of quality

You might recall that back in February 2024, then universities minister Robert Halfon set out 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.

At the time, 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.

Things then went quiet – until last October, when new Secretary of State Bridget Phillipson announced that the government was “resuming” the procurement after the number of incidents of antisemitic abuse nationwide more than doubled in the first five months of 2024.

Notably, the proposal for a “quality seal” had been dropped – and IHRA wasn’t mentioned in the notice for the “Engagement Event” for potential bidders at all.

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

On Friday, news emerged of who had won the bids – Scholarships & Active Learning Network and Training (Lot1) and Resources for Universities (Lot 2).

For Lot 1, the contract of £1,327,119 has been awarded to Place Yard Events Limited – an SME founded by Natascha Engel, who was the MP for North East Derbyshire from 2005-2017. Meanwhile Lot 2 has been awarded to the Union of Jewish Students (aka B’nai B’rith Hillel Foundation) for a total value of £998,691.

In many ways, that makes perfect sense – since 2019, UJS has delivered over 400 sessions of antisemitism awareness training to thousands of SU staff, student leaders, and university staff in order to “equip them with the knowledge and skills to call out antisemitism on campus” and “support their Jewish students”. UJS has been expanding its delivery of the training, “particularly in the wake of October 7th and the increase in antisemitism that followed.”

But on its “Combatting Antisemitism” webpages covering that training, there’s also a reference to its campaign for universities to adopt the IHRA definition – which sets out its criteria for adoption in “three simple and clear steps” universities must take:

It must be public on their website (this demonstrates to Jewish students that they are openly committed to tackling antisemitism on campus).

It must include all the examples of antisemitism which are a part of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

Universities must commit to using the definition as a supporting document within their complaints processes (this is key as it is important for staff dealing with complaints and incidents to understand what antisemitism is).

That raises a couple of questions. The first is whether UJS intends to centre the definition in its training, and advocate for the three steps – including its usage in complaints processes.

And the second is whether, if it does so, doing so would be compatible with the Office for Students (OfS) regulatory framework over both harassment (E6) and free speech, both of which go live on August 1st.

The sandbags on the see-saw

On the former, despite government repeatedly referencing the way E6 should cause providers to tackle antisemitism, it’s not mentioned at all in the Condition or accompanying guidance. The consultation response refers to the definition in footnotes without actually endorsing it – and stops a fair way short of advocating its usage in complaints procedures.

Meanwhile the OfS free speech guidance doesn’t explicitly mention antisemitism either – although there is a box out that argues as follows:

For instance, frequent, vociferous and intrusive anti-Israel protests across campus, including outside lecture blocks and accommodation, may have a chilling effect on pro-Israeli speech or Jewish religious expression. Students may self-censor support for Israel, and Jewish students might be chilled from expressing their religious beliefs on campus. Regulation of the time, place and manner of such protests may be a reasonably practicable step to take to secure the speech of students.

This time the consultation response does mention antisemitism – noting that some respondents worried that antisemitic behavior below the legal threshold could continue, with perpetrators exploiting guidance to express anti-Jewish views under legal protection, while others worried that without specific regulatory protections, Jewish students would face increased harassment and discrimination.

Setting aside holocaust denial, OfS’ response was that antisemitic harassment and discrimination would not be protected; that institutions should not implement free speech measures that obstruct education for Jewish students; and that providers must balance free speech duties with requirements to protect students from harassment under the Equality Act 2010.

And in another section, bets are hedged as follows:

We do not comment in this guidance on the IHRA definition of antisemitism or on any other proposed non-legally binding definition that a provider or constituent institution may wish to adopt. Nonetheless, we have adopted the IHRA definition because we believe that it is a useful tool for understanding how antisemitism manifests itself in the 21st century.

The IHRA definition does not affect the legal definition of racial discrimination, so does not change our approach to implementing our regulatory duties, including our regulatory expectations of registered providers. A provider that adopts any definition (of anything) must do so in a way that has particular regard to, and places significant weight on, the importance of freedom of speech within the law, academic freedom and tolerance for controversial views in an educational context or environment.

The message there seems to be – adopt what you like, but don’t chill free speech in the process, and don’t go beyond the legal definition of harassment when restricting speech.

If we then turn to the Regulatory case report for the fining of the University of Sussex, various statements were defined as problematic because of a chilling effect – the potential for staff and students to self-censor and not speak about or express certain lawful views.

And other parts of that case report condemn Sussex because the definitions used by the university in its Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement were not strictly limited to existing prohibitions in law and were therefore sufficiently broad to restrict lawful speech.

At least for the students signing the letter referred to initially, and for Arif Ahmed back in 2021, it’s hard to see how a university adopting IHRA, and engaging UJS to deliver training on antisemitism, would not amount to remarkably similar “offences” as those Sussex was singled out for.

Let them eat Cakeism

Where we have ended up here for everyone concerned may be convenient. Arif Ahmed manages to save face on his previous opposition via a series of contortions that just about allow him to say that all of this is fine as long as universities don’t chill or ban legal free speech. DfE gets to save face by getting OfS to mention holocaust denial and funding a programme of training on what antisemitism is in pursuit of the harassment duty.

But back on campus, Freshers is coming. If anyone thinks for a second that the messages emanating from the DfE, its partners and its regulator are coherent on antisemitism, they haven’t spent more than 5 minutes with opposed student groups on campus or the frazzled SU and university staff attempting to discern from the guidance what on earth the rules are or are supposed to be.

In comparison to what happened on October 7th, or what’s been and is still going on in Gaza, maybe these are piffling little first world problems – and maybe these are the sorts of tensions that are inevitable over issues of this sort. But to the extent to which they set up expectations of protection that can’t be met, or cause disciplinary action that can’t be legally justified, the failure to develop coherence stinks.

One day, we may get close to clarity over what students can and can’t say, can and can’t do, and what their university can and can’t adopt as a position on that saying and doing. For the time being, DfE and its regulator couldn’t be further from clarity if they tried.