Report of the Warwick University Assembly Working Party on Antisemitism

JVL Introduction

A report was adopted by the Warwick University Assembly on 28 February 2024 on the issue of Antisemitism and Racism.

It arose out of work commissioned by the Assembly in 2021 after allegations of antisemitism at the university had been made following its decision not to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

The result is a nuanced, thoughtful consideration of the issues involved and we pleased to draw readers attention to it. It is a very useful addition to debates on these issues.

For reasons developed in the report, it believes that “extreme caution should be used when applying definitions of antisemitism in university disciplinary processes.”

Among its recommendations is that “The University should clarify and publish the legal position that in almost all cases, the only proper basis of a complaint based on an allegation of antisemitic expression is a violation of the civil or criminal law, such as the law of harassment, discrimination, or incitement to racial hatred.”

To understand the context we post a background paper explaining the work of the Assembly, written for JVL by David Mond. We also post the Working Party’ general summary as well as its summary of its disciplinary conclusions, and a link to the full report

RK

Background on the Warwick Assembly Working Party on Antisemitism

David Mond, March 27th 2024

1 Adoption of the IHRA definition

In 2019 and 2020 the University of Warwick came under pressure from the Secretary of State for Education, and, within the University, from the student Jewish-Israeli Society and the Jewish Chaplain to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The Vice-Chancellor, Stuart Croft, at first resisted, but in October 2020 agreed to adopt it. Pressure against adoption had come, in particular, in the form of a letter from seventy-five members of academic staff, and a letter from five student societies.

The University was attacked in Parliament by two Conservative MPs, for its failure to adopt the IHRA definition, and for the tolerance of alleged antisemitism that this failure allowed:

1. In October 2020, Christian Wakeford MP said(1)

“The University of Warwick has refused to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism and has no plans to change its view. In August, it found that a lecturer who said “The idea that the Labour party is antisemitic is very much an Israeli lobby kind of idea” had not been antisemitic, despite that being contrary to the IHRA definition.”

His words were echoed(2) at the same event by Jonathan Gullis MP:

“[. . . ] students were left feeling unsafe, attacked and gaslit. The process of complaint has now been exhausted. It is unimaginable and unacceptable, and such people should be removed from our university sector.”

2. Gullis renewed his attack in April 2021 in a session of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Edu- cation (video here), calling for the sacking not only of the lecturer referred to by Christian Wakeford, but of the head of department, for failing to support the complaint against the lecturer, and of the Vice Chancellor, for failing to act against the lecturer and the HOD. Gullis was backed by Robert Halfon MP, the Chair of the Select Committee.

2. Complaints and Disciplinary Processes

At the same time as these parliamentary developments, at the University of Warwick a disciplinary process was being conducted following complaints of antisemitism by a former student, this time against four members of staff. Two of the accused were Jewish. One of them was the lecturer referred to by Christian Wakeford. All four had signed the above-mentioned letter opposing adoption of the IHRA definition. The complaints concerned postings and “likes” on social media.

The university decided on a “Level 3” disciplinary process, which could result in dismissal. The accused’s solicitors suggested they should argue that their social media postings were protected by the principal of academic freedom. A hearing of the University of Warwick’s Academic Freedom Review Committee, at which the university was represented by Rachel Crasnow QC, rejected this defence, but at the full disciplinary hearing, held in June 2021, all four were completely exonerated. Even so, they had suffered months of anxiety and significant expense. If they had been dismissed for antisemitism, it is unlikely that they would have been hired again by any university.

Neither the complaints, nor the conclusions of the disciplinary committee, have been made public. Staff under accusation are warned that to divulge the details will incur further sanction.

3 Meeting and Resolutions of the Warwick University Assembly

In June and October 2021 two meetings of the University Assembly(3) were called and held online to discuss these issues, after a petition raised the necessary signatures. They were attended by more than 200 members of staff, and, as usual, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor. Three motions were debated and approved by overwhelming majority, the first deploring the parliamentary attacks, the second setting up an Academic Working Party on Antisemitism and Racism, AWP, to consider the competing definitions of antisemitism, and the third calling on the University to uphold its statutory commitment

“to ensure that Academic Staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs and privileges.”

In the academic year 2021-22 the AWP held a series of internal discussions, and two awareness-rising sessions on antisemitism. During this period it learned that eleven other members of staff and students had been investigated following complaints of antisemitism, but no further details were provided by the University. In 2022-3 it heard from a wide range of academics and institutions, both Jewish and Palestinian. It was agreed at the outset of this process that none of their names would be published. Its final report was issued in February 2024. The report was endorsed by a meeting of the Assembly on February 28th 2024, with 91% of those present voting to approve it.

(1) Hansard, IHRA Definition of Antisemitism: Universities, October 6th 2020, 4:02pm

(2) Hansard, IHRA Definition of Antisemitism: Universities, October 6th 2020, 4:13pm

(3) The Assembly is an official body set up to make recommendations to the Senate and Council of the University. It has no formal power but some moral authority. All academic and administrative staff of the university are automatically members. Its meetings can be called by the Chair (the Vice-Chancellor) or at the request of at least twenty five members of the Assembly.

007-A280224 (Public)

Report by the Assembly Working Party on Antisemitism and Racism (AWP)

Summary

At the Assembly held on 21st June 2021, our working party was tasked with making recommendations, overseen by the Race Equality Taskforce, on the handling of allegations of all forms of racism, including antisemitism, against staff or students. More specifically, it was asked to consider recommending that the University adopt the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA). This mandate describes the point of departure of our work; it does not determine its outcome.

Our aim has been to provide a document that can support the work already being done of creating an ethos of inclusion and mutual respect in our community. To this end, we conducted a year-long series of in-depth conversations with educators, community organisers, and legal experts as well as experts on antisemitism and racism across the sector, as well as with Warwick students and affected colleagues. We have from the outset been entirely independent, with no financial or administrative support from the University.

In keeping with our brief, we focused on three issues: (1) national and international debates around the JDA and the IHRA definitions of antisemitism, and ways to counter antisemitism and create links between work against racism and against antisemitism on campus1, (2) the University’s disciplinary processes; and (3) the inclusion of consideration of antisemitism in new and emerging antiracism initiatives and policies at all levels of our University.

With regard to the first: we interviewed academics in this country and abroad, who had been tasked with formulating policies for their own universities on the question of which, if any, definitions should be adopted by their institutions, what it means to ‘adopt’ a definition and so forth.

With regard to the second: we interviewed some who had been through disciplinary processes as a result of alleged antisemitism as well as legal experts with knowledge of those processes, and offered recommendations on how the University could improve the same, including the introduction of a new triage stage.

With regard to the third: the Race Equality Task Force, delegated by Assembly for oversight of the AWP, appointed three members (Mark Hinton, Professor Sotaro Kita, Professor Stephen Shapiro) to the AWP. The RET was kept informed of the AWP both through these representatives and by several RET agenda discussions.

The fight against racism and antisemitism poses urgent challenges for Universities across the country and internationally, given that the rise in both racist and antisemitic attacks has been accelerating in recent years. Combating antisemitism faces particular problems in this context, given widespread ignorance about its history and nature.

Though we are a broad church, we have all, from the outset, recognized the huge importance some have attached to the IHRA definition as for many Jews it has been the only visible action or policy taken by universities in response to antisemitism, and seems the only bastion against its worrying rise.

We have, at the same time, been mindful of the passionate views of those who have in some instances been threatened with silencing through the misapplication of the IHRA outside of its express purpose as a non-legally binding guide – and of those who are against the IHRA because in their view, it fails to appropriately distinguish between antisemitism and criticisms of the Israeli government.

We have, throughout, been keenly aware that debates around the IHRA are politically charged, with support for the definition seen either as essential to tackling antisemitism, or as a failure to respect the right to free speech, especially in support of Palestinian rights and interests.

But as most of those with whom we consulted agree, existing definitions of antisemitism all have limitations. They seem to promise the removal of ambiguities and to offer an easy decision mechanism but are in fact unable to meet that promise. For example, the IHRA and other definitions currently in widespread use in a university setting (e.g. JDA and Nexus) emphasise that their application requires consideration of context, which highlights the continued necessity of informed judgment and interpretation in applying any of them. This limits the usefulness of definitions, if applied on their own, independently of other criteria, in proscriptive, disciplinary contexts, most especially in the context of growing pressures on the exercise of freedom of speech. Maintaining the right balance has become increasingly urgent.

We therefore hold that extreme caution should be used when applying definitions of antisemitism in university disciplinary processes.

At the same time we believe, more strongly than ever, that there is a great deal we can and must do as a community to combat antisemitism and its consequences. We hold that antisemitism, like all other forms of racism, is not just a concern for the individual well-being of the targets of that hatred, but that it is in the interest of the entire campus community to create an environment free of such hatred. We believe that all leading definitions of antisemitism have an important role to play in this endeavour. This report sets the foundation for future institutional work on its highlighted issues. We present it for Assembly’s endorsement in order to inaugurate further and ongoing efforts to ensure diversity, respect, and the enshrinement of academic free speech within Warwick.

1 We will continue to use “antisemitism” in this report, but some members of the AWP prefer to replace the term with, “anti-Jewish racism.”007-A280224 (Public)

Summary Recommendations on Discipline

We have three key recommendations concerning disciplinary processes based on speech where there is an allegation of antisemitism that naturally flow from the legal framework discussed above.

1) The University should clarify and publish the legal position that in almost all cases, the only proper basis of a complaint based on an allegation of antisemitic expression is a violation of the civil or criminal law, such as the law of harassment, discrimination, or incitement to racial hatred. For the University to uphold complaints that are not based on a violation of the law risks violating its legal obligations to protect free speech. The obligation to make this express also flows naturally from the duty to promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom contained in the s.1 (A3) of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 that has recently come into force.

2) Any definition of antisemitism, including any definition that is adopted or endorsed by the University, is normally relevant to a disciplinary process only insofar as it is relevant to establishing that the civil or criminal law has been breached. Definitions of antisemitism do not provide an independent or free-standing ground of complaint concerning expression. Furthermore, whilst the IHRA may be helpful in some ways in determining whether the law has been breached, using some elements of it even in that context threatens free speech and academic freedom.

3) A body for assessing whether complaints made against members of the University have a legal basis should be established. This body should consider all complaints concerning expression or academic scholarship, and should have a robust understanding of the rights of academic freedom and free expression and legal limits on those rights. No disciplinary proceedings should commence against members of the university on the basis of expression where there is no reasonable prospect of finding that there has been a violation of the criminal or civil law. Such a body should be given training on domestic and international obligations with respect to free expression and academic freedom, as well as training on the proper role of definitions of antisemitism and other forms of racism and discrimination in interpreting the law. Given the stringent protection of academic freedom by the ECtHR, the body identified above should apply especially strict standards to considering complaints that are based on academic scholarship, including communication that draws on that scholarship, either within the University or in the broader public domain. But it should also dismiss claims that are protected by the broader rights of free expression. This body should also develop and publish a code of practice to reinforce the University’s commitment to academic freedom and freedom of speech as will soon be required by s.1 (A2) of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

You can download the full report here