Dear Vice-Chancellor Broderick,
Find the below that we wish to submit for the consultation on UEL’s antisemitism statement.
CAMERA UK expresses serious concern regarding UEL’s sudden decision to review its adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. In the UEL statement announcing the consultation, it is evident that this decision is based on several mistaken understandings.
First, the statement cites “submissions and correspondence from staff” expressing vague, unspecified concerns about “the potential stifling of freedom of speech.” There is simply no substantive evidence to support such concerns. In a report by the Parliamentary Taskforce on Antisemitism in Higher Education, it was found that of the 56 universities consulted, “None knew of or could provide a single example in which the IHRA definition had in any way restricted freedom of speech or academic research, or where its adoption had chilled academic freedom, research or freedom of expression.”
This leads to the next point. UEL states it “considers that the function of any definition of antisemitism should be educative and not prescriptive.” The IHRA working definition is precisely that: educative. Indeed, in adopting the working definition in 2016, the IHRA Plenary specifically stated it was adopting a “non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism.” It does not seek to prohibit or punish speech. To the contrary, it leaves such considerations to the authorities, specifying that “[a]ntisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law.” The IHRA working definition even includes contemporary examples of antisemitism purely as “illustrations” – i.e., they serve to “illuminate debate and discussion of what constitutes antisemitism,” to borrow the words of the UEL statement.
Third, the UEL statement says it has been advocated that an antisemitism statement shouldn’t be singled out as a separate issue within a policy and statement on antidiscrimination. Such a position ignores the singular nature and extent of antisemitism in society. According to the Home Office, Jews – who account for only a fraction of a percent of the population – were the target of 33% of all religious hate crimes in the year ending March 2024. That amounts to 121 religious hate crimes per 10,000 Jewish citizens, a rate over 12x as high as the next most targeted religious demographic.
Fourth, UEL states it is also considering “a range of definitions of antisemitism.” No other definition of antisemitism has the level of acceptance as the IHRA working definition, which is widely adopted not just by the vast majority of Jewish institutions, as well as hundreds of government entities, universities, and various other organizations around the world. On the other hand, alternative definitions, including those like the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism advanced by unmistakably antisemitic individuals like Richard Falk, have been widely rejected.
UEL states that it “is not stepping back or reducing in any way its approach to tackling antisemitism.” If this is accurate, UEL will reject attempts to dilute and relegate efforts to combat antisemitism precisely as the scourge of hatred against Jews is reaching historic levels.
