Student leaders should undoubtedly be free to hold and express political opinions. Universities are not meant to protect students from controversial ideas or disagreement, in fact discomfort with opposing ideas is part of life on campus. But when student leaders use their institutional authority to publicly endorse misinformation and rhetoric that legitimises violence, the issue moves from protecting free speech to individual responsibility.
Earlier this academic year, a student union officer at the University of East Anglia shared a story post on their personal instagram account describing the October 7th attacks as Palestinian resistance breaking out of a prison while accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing and referring to Jewish supremacist colonisers. Their account was publicly identifiable and their role as a student representative was well known. For many students, including hundreds of Jewish students, sharing posts with this kind of language demonstrates that the student union is not truly representative for all.
The distinction might be raised as a defence because the post was personal rather than official. But leadership does not switch off online. Student leaders carry their roles with them, particularly on public platforms where their position and influence are inseparable. When someone entrusted with representing the student community publicly endorses rhetoric of this kind, it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Their platforms reflect on the institutions that they represent. This matters because it sends a direct message about who is welcome on campus, and who is not.
The phrase “Jewish supremacist colonisers” is not a neutral political description. It draws upon long-standing antisemitic tropes that portray Jews as uniquely malevolent, racist, or conspiratorial. By collapsing Jewish identity and national expression into an accusation of supremacy, the language used is not simply criticising Israeli governmental policy. Instead it is radicalizing Jews and rendering Jewish self-determination as morally illegitimate.
For Jewish students, the damage caused by this rhetoric isn’t just theoretical. When bigoted terms like “Jewish supremacism” become normal on campus, Jewish students stop being seen as individuals,they are dehumanised as representatives of an oppressive force. This positioning manifests in so many ways: our grief is questioned. Our presence becomes inherently political. Their every participation is met with suspicion. This explains why there has been a 117% increase in antisemitic incidents on campus since October 7th.
It’s worth reminding everyone that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic by default, and pro-Palestinian humanitarian activism should not be censored. However, as with most conversation topics involving Jews, there is a definable line at which rhetoric ceases to be political critique and becomes antisemitic.There is a clear difference between criticizing a state and using language that defines Jews as inherently supremacist.
Freedom of speech within the UK is not unlimited and by sharing posts that utilise antisemitic rhetoric, the line between free speech and hate speech has been crossed. Universities have a duty to protect political speech across the spectrum including speech that many may find uncomfortable. But if it’s illegal to call for “globalizing the intifada” in the streets, it should also be illegal on campus.
The post did more than criticise Israeli policy. By reframing the October 7th attacks as “resistance” within Gaza’s “internationally recognised borders” the true horrors of what happened that day are erased. More than 1,200 were murdered in horrific attacks that included mass shootings, sexual violence and hostage-taking. Describing this as a prison-break obscures the atrocities that occurred that day.
When campus leaders amplify dangerous rhetorics like these, even on personal accounts, the impact goes beyond what is happening online. These are also the people that are responsible for shaping the wider student union messaging and setting the tone for campus politics. Jewish students are left wondering whether the people meant to represent them truly believe they belong on campus.
To defend behaviour like this, universities often retreat behind the language of free speech. But accountability is not censorship. Holding student leaders to a higher standard does not mean policing beliefs, instead it means recognising that leadership carries responsibility. When those in a position of authority endorse misinformation they directly shape the environment that others have to live within.
By treating political speech as separate from power, people in positions of power are protected. This creates standards that risk being turned against Jewish and Zionist students if the political balance on campus were to shift. Clear boundaries between personal activism and representative authority do not threaten pluralism. Instead they make it possible.
Free speech matters. So does responsibility. Pointing out where the lines blur is crucial in order to ensure university campuses remain spaces in which pluralism is encouraged.
This article was originally published in The UK’s Jewish News.
