GUEST POST: A new year of campus anti-Semitism

The start of a new academic year raises again the question of tackling campus anti-Semitism. This relates to the vital matter of free speech but also dealing with disruption and even outright violence.

Until May, when the then Conservative government called a general election, it had been assumed the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act (HEFOSA) would provide the legal framework for campus debate. But one of the first acts of the new Labour government was to repeal the new law. Bridget Phillipson, the education minister, argued the standard Labour line that there was no free speech crisis at British universities. Neverthless it remains important to ask what impact such a framework would have had on free-speech and on tackling campus anti-Semitism.

To be sure there were notable opponents of anti-Semitism who expressed concerns about the HEFOSA framework. The government’s independent adviser on anti-Semitism, Lord Mann, warned that the removal of safeguards could allow anti-Semitism to grow. The Union of Jewish Students (UJS) argued that it could harm the welfare of minority groups.

In an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, Sami Berkoff, UJS president, and Danny Stone, chief executive of the Antisemitism Policy Trust, made three criticisms of the act. First, they claimed it would give a greenlight to Holocaust deniers to spread their lies on campus. Second, guidance to the act published by the Office for Students, an independent regulator, could be interpreted to mean that training deeming something to be definitively anti-Semitic could be blocked. Finally, they argued universities might conclude it was less costly to indulge anti-Semitic speech than to risk a £50,000 fine for infringing free speech.

There are good reasons to question such claims. Even if it were true that Holocaust deniers might try to use HEFOSA to spread their lies such views are not illegal in Britain. Thare are also more effective and proportionate ways of tackling it. If Holocaust denial or distortion was limited to a tiny fringe, debating societies could simply refuse to host debates on the matter. The ability of debating societies to shape their programme is integral to free speech. If, on the other hand, it became apparent Holocaust denial was a real problem on a particular campus it would need to be tackled openly. Then deniers and distorters would face the possibility of the same public humiliation experienced by David Irving. The historian was disgraced after his failed libel action against Deborah Lipstadt, the current Biden administration envoy on anti-Semitism, who had accused him of Holocaust denial. 

Then there is the question of whether anti-Semitism training would work stop statements which were deemed anti-Semitic. That would presumably revolve around arguments over whether criticisms of Israel spill over into anti-Semitism more generally. It would also depend on whether a university had adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. In her report on anti-Semitism in the National Union of Students (NUS), Rebecca Tuck, a senior lawyer, said adopting a particular definition of anti-Semitism would make little difference. There would of course be controversy over the chant “from the river to the sea”. Some disingenuously claim they are using it to say they wish Israelis and Palestinians to live in freedom rather than calling for a genocide of Israelis. However, there should not be any controversy about definitively stating that certain tropes are anti-Semitic. For example, that Jews only ever do good things to cover up their bad actions.

There is one argument made by Berkoff and Stone which does have some force. University authorities could hide behind legalistic arguments based on the act when faced with the need to tackle anti-Semitism. That might provide them with a way of avoiding the prospect of a fine. This is particularly the case where an institutional culture has developed based on woke ideas of Jews enjoying special (white) privilege.

There might also be a problem where a university has become a hotbed of anti-Israel activism of the sort that proclaims Hamas as freedom fighters. In such cases the costs of dealing with Gaza solidarity encampments and protests revealed by a freedom of information request submitted by the Jewish Chronicle are worthy of note. Queen Mary University, which is shedding academic posts in a cost-cutting exercise, reported having to spend £411,673. Other London universities incurred high costs: University of the Arts £117,143 and  Imperial College £83,085. Universities outside of London were also hard hit. Birmingham spent £246,999 partly because it had to find alternative venues for 28 graduation ceremonies. Cardiff University which expects its deficit for the year 2023-2024 to be £35m had to spend £125,522 and Sheffield University spent £137,945.

On the other hand, Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF) says that HEFOSA might help the struggle against anti-Semitism. It has written an open letter  to Bridget Phillipson arguing that English law provides safeguards against harassment and intimidation which override free speech rights. The only situation in which free speech rights cannot be overridden is an attempt to provide feelings of inner security. The letter puts HEFOSA in a broader context. It cites a report from the Index for Academic Freedom placing Britain 66^th in the global league table of academic freedom. That puts it lower than Burkina Faso, Peru and Georgia. It also notes hundreds of university staff and students have been hounded, harassed and sacked for the expression of legally held views. These notably include their views on transgender issues. It quotes Professor David Abulafia as saying that the act offered Jewish students and staff valuable guarantees. It would allow them to recover their role as the home of civilised debate.

AFAF’s letter is a perfect illustration of how the issue of anti-Semitism on campus has become mired in broader controversies. Nevertheless the arguments contained in the letter do have merit. That is especially when measured against two of the three most egregious examples of anti-Semitism in the higher education sector in the last academic year.

At the NUS national conference in April there was an attempt to get the UJS expelled from the conference. This in itself can be seen as an attack on free speech as it would bar the right of the UJS to be heard. That is in addition to the blatant anti-Semitism of such a ban.

There was also an attack on some Jewish students at Exeter University. They were trying to set up a stall putting the pro-Israel case when they were verbally abused and physically assaulted. HEFOSA would have given Jewish students at Exeter instant redress in the form of being able to claim damages in tort under the act. That would have been a quicker remedy than pursuing a harassment or assault claim. It is also worth noting that, at the time of writing, there were no reports of disciplinary or criminal proceedings having been brought. That is despite investigations by the police and university authorities. HEFOSA would probably also have acted as a deterrent to those thinking of disrupting future NUS conferences.

When viewed purely through the lens of tackling anti-Semitism the act was a mixed bag. It would have given Jewish students the means to get across their view on Israel and other matters. It might also have prevented universities from using the costs of extra security as a justification for cancelling a pro-Israel event. However, it also might have emboldened anti-Semites.

The outcome in the short term would probably depend on whether British university heads have learned lessons from the experience of their American counterparts. One example would be whether they had put in place the best of their time, manner and place guidelines governing protests and demonstrations. This, combined with the swift application of a penalty for breach of those guidelines, would be at least as important as any legislative change. HEFOSA is highly unlikely to be implemented in its original form. That is a shame as it was probably more advantageous than disadvantageous to Jewish students and faculty. Unfortunately there is no clarity on alternatives to HEFOSA currently under consideration. 

Of course tackling the roots of the anti-Semitic culture that has grown up in British universities, though a longer term project, is ultimately more important. The health of any institution is more dependent on its culture than on legislation.

Guy Whitehouse is a member of the Academy of Ideas and the Free Speech Union. His views do not necessarily reflect those of those organisations.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Radicalism of fools project.

PHOTO: Official portrait of Bridget Phillipson reproduced under a Creative Commons 3.0 licence.