Two statements on the David Miller affair

JVL Introduction

We repost below two statements of support for academic freedom in the face of ongoing challenges to it.

Bricup stresses that the “right to teach and research without the threat of external intervention… a principle that is at the core of academic freedom” is now being challenged.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign is clear that it sees at stake “the rights of academics and Palestinian students amongst their body to speak of the history of settler colonialism that has led to their dispossession, to challenge the apartheid practices of the state that denies them their rights, and to describe as racist the ideology of Zionism that underpins this oppression.”

BRICUP Statement: the Attacks on Professor David Miller

The British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) has expressed its deep concern to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Bristol over the renewed attacks on the integrity of one of the University’s distinguished members of staff, Professor David Miller. It has also been in contact with Professor Miller to offer whatever support the Committee can provide.

BRICUP is not qualified to comment on Professor’s Miller’s scholarly work but affirms the responsibility of all academics, irrespective of discipline or political view, to defend his right to teach and research without the threat of external intervention. That is a principle that is at the core of academic freedom.This assault on Professor Miller’s character is an attempt to remove that freedom.

The accusations of antisemitism against Professor Miller result from his criticisms of Israel, of Israeli government policy, and of Zionism as the political ideology of the state. Such criticisms could, of course, issue from someone motivated by antisemitism. There is, however, no evidence that this obtains in the case of Professor Miller. Indeed, there is a body of evidence to show him to be a committed anti-racist.

Over the last decade, there have been repeated demands that Professor Miller be dismissed from his position. He has been a target, for reasons entirely unconnected with antisemitism, since 2011. That was the year in which he exposed the misleading information provided to the Government by the Community Security Trust in an attempt to prevent the admission to the UK of a Palestinian religious leader who was scheduled to speak at a Palestine Solidarity Campaign meeting.

As on previous occasions, the current attack on Professor Miller as an alleged antisemite relies on the highly contentious International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This is the definition that was rejected overwhelmingly by the Academic Board of University College London in February 2021. Any definition should provide clarity – but the IHRA definition whether by accident or design is so opaque that it requires examples to give it any content.It is these contentious examples that focus especially on statements that might be made about Israel.

Reliance on this definition to identify antisemitic speech without consideration of context or motivation is entirely inappropriate. Professor Miller’s accusers present no such evidence; and surely if they had any it would have been produced.Without such evidence neither the University nor the court of public opinion should take these accusations at face value.

The potential chilling effect of the IHRA definition on academic freedom and freedom of expression needs to be resisted fiercely by all academic staff and by all educators, and especially by those in positions of trust in our academic institutions.

This assault on Professor Miller is not an isolated case. Academic colleagues at a number of other universities are currently being targeted in just this way with the aim of securing their dismissal. In all of these cases, as at Bristol, student complaints against lecturers are being assisted if not coordinated by outside bodies. A related attack was made this month at the University of Oxford on the celebrated film director, Ken Loach, a life-long anti-racist and defender of the oppressed. The campaign to ‘no platform’ him alleged antisemitism. That accusation was grounded, of course, not in any evidence of hostility or hatred towards Jews but in his outspoken support for the struggle of the Palestinians, and his criticism of Israel. His attackers cited the IHRA definition as justification.

This widespread and deplorable activity is not simply designed to achieve the dismissal of individuals. Its aim is clearly to create an atmosphere in which all academic staff self-censor when it comes to any analysis of the nature of Israel, and of the consequences of its policies.

BRICUP has urged the management group at the University of Bristol to defend the academic freedom of Professor Miller, and to defend the integrity of theUniversity’s guarantee both of academic freedom and of freedom of expression, as it is duty bound in law.

Protecting Palestinian Rights and Academic Freedom

Palestine Solidarity campaign, 24 February 2021

PSC campaigns in support of the right of the Palestinian people and against the injustices they suffer because of the actions of the state of Israel. This injustice is manifest in the ongoing process of colonisation and ethnic cleansing that saw over 750,000 Palestinians forced to flee from their homes in 1948, and subsequently denied the right to return, the continued occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, and in the discriminatory policies embodied in Israeli legislation that denies equality under the law to Palestinian citizens of the state.  Numerous legal scholars and human rights activists, joined last month by Israel’s largest human rights monitoring agency B’Tselem, have described these laws and policies as meeting the legal definition of apartheid.

Against a growing international recognition of the injustices faced by the Palestinian people, the Israeli state and its allies have sought to deflect these serious and legitimate criticisms via a project of delegitmisation that seeks to reframe activism for Palestine as something hostile, sinister, and anti-Semitic. This project of delegitimisation has fuelled the introduction of laws in many states that seek to inhibit and even criminalise action in support of the Palestinian led, peaceful call for boycott divestment and sanctions against Israel until it ends its violations of the core rights of the Palestinian people. This project seeks to conflate efforts to hold Israel accountable under International Law and human rights conventions with anti-Semitism via the utilisation of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

As a broad coalition of Palestinian civil society organisations warned back in 2018, the discredited IHRA examples attached to the definition, conflate criticism of the constitutional order, ideology and structure of the Israeli state with anti-Semitism. They erase Palestinian history and shield Israel’s far-right regime of occupation and oppression from accountability.

A key focus of those lobbying to have the IHRA adopted and used to chill activism for Palestinian rights has been directed at universities. The pressure being applied on universities by Secretary of State, Gavin Williamson, and government advisor on anti-Semitism, John Mann, follows years of efforts by a range of pro-Israel groups to define motions supporting BDS or events that accurately describe Israel as a state practicing the crime of apartheid as inherently anti-Semitic.  The recent report by UCL’s Academic Board working group on racism and prejudice, even referenced a case study of attempts to cancel an art exhibition addressing stories of refugee displacement on the grounds of anti-Semitism because it contained exhibits focused upon the plight of Palestinian refugees. Mirroring tactics already used in the US targeting students and academics on campus, the delegitmisation campaign has seen the emergence of a website that claims to map incidents of anti-Semitism on campus, targeting individual lecturers for their academic output. Referencing Israel as a state practicing apartheid, calling for BDS or opposing the adoption of the IHRA are criteria for inclusion on this website.

This month saw the IHRA being cited by groups campaigning for an Oxford college to deny space for celebrated film maker Ken Loach to discuss his career. More recently we have witnessed calls from a range of groups, including student groups, for the sacking of David Miller, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Bristol. This followed Professor Miller condemning Zionism as a racist ideology, describing the role of the state of Israel in promoting and coordinating efforts to delegitimise activism for Palestine globally, and outlining the links between some pro-Israel groups and the promotion of Islamophobic narratives.

When addressing such issues, it is crucial to apply depth, context, and clarity, and to avoid narratives that oversimplify the interlinks between groups which oppose actions in support of Palestinian rights, and Israeli state actors. Doing so obscures our understanding of the way political actors’ function. At worst, it can risk drawing on anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish power.

Whilst some have criticised Professor Miller for lacking such depth and clarity in the way he has couched his remarks, those leading the call for Professor Miller to be sacked are straightforwardly asserting that to define Zionism as a movement and political ideology that is racist is inherently anti-Semitic. They similarly seek to define any narrative that speaks of a lobby seeking to shield Israel from accountability for its racist laws, policies, and constitutional order, as itself being an act of racism. This denies the right of Palestinians to criticise both the regime that oppresses them, and the ideology that informs that oppression. It therefore violates core principles of academic freedom.

It is regrettable that the University of Bristol is one of those that has adopted the IHRA working definition. PSC has written to all vice chancellors of UK universities, including Bristol, to bring to their attention to the UCL Academic Board’s decision to uphold the findings of its working group report and recommend that UCL rescind its adoption of the IHRA.

We call upon all universities, including the University of Bristol, to make clear that they will protect the rights of academics and Palestinian students amongst their body to speak of the history of settler colonialism that has led to their dispossession, to challenge the apartheid practices of the state that denies them their rights, and to describe as racist the ideology of Zionism that underpins this oppression. The rights of all other students and academics to debate and discuss these facts of historical injustice and to call for action to resolve them must likewise be protected.