‘Not fit for purpose’: UCL Academic Board rejects IHRA definition of antisemitism

UCL’s governing body will have to reconsider its implementation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism after academics opposed it last week.

Source: UCL ImageStore

On Friday, UCL’s Academic Board voted for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism to be retracted from use at the university, stating that “a more precise definition of antisemitism” was necessary. The university’s governing body will make a decision on whether or not the IHRA definition will remain in use.

The meeting and vote took place following a report issued by the UCL Working Group on Racism and Prejudice in December 2020, citing the idea that the definition was “potentially conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism,” which leads to the possibility of “suppression of legitimate speech and academic research.” In 2019, more than 40 academics at UCL voted against the implementation of the IHRA definition.

Last year, Education Secretary Gavin Williamson called for the majority of universities to adopt the definition under the threat of suspending “funding streams”. Williamson suggested that it was “frankly disturbing” that the definition had not yet been overwhelmingly adopted by universities in a letter to vice-chancellors. As of September 2020, one in five of UK universities had implemented the definition, with many still objecting due to concerns that it conflicts with existing freedom of speech requirements.

The IHRA definition is as follows: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Despite the UCL Working Group’s concerns about the perceived lack of specificity and vagueness in this definition, the areas of the definition which are most disputed in the report are the 11 examples which the IHRA use to illustrate the definition in further detail, as seven of these examples relate to Israel. The report spotlights this as problematic despite the IHRA specifying that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

The core of the justification for their decision in the report and in explanations on the UCL website is that it does not address any discriminatory practice that isn’t already covered by the Equality Act and the UCL codes of conduct. Instead they contend that it is actively harmful due to serving a “symbolic” purpose, standing in for greater regulation of speech on campus. The crux of their opposition to the IHRA definition, and the area of controversy, is its condemnation of the definition as “a ready tool for curtailing legitimate speech and debate on Israel.” 

Kenneth Stern, who wrote the IHRA definition, stated that he viewed it as harmful in an academic context and that he did not intend it for use on university campuses. This information was used by the UCL Working Group in their report. He says that the definition was “never intended to be a campus hate speech code.” He further clarifies this sentiment in an open letter on campus antisemitism, saying that “deciding whether a given remark is antisemitic can require careful attention to rhetoric, context, and even intent,” suggesting that the definition lacks the specificity required for this assessment. Stern suggests that the definition cannot stand alone as a steadfast way of evaluating potentially antisemitic discourse.

The report also raises the issue of the definition potentially posing a threat to Palestinian students on campus, stating that, “Were UCL to adopt the IHRA working definition, it could find itself unlawfully victimising Palestinians for making complaints of racism – complaints that are supposed to be protected by the Equality Act.” This again raises the concern of the definition conflicting with existing university policy on racism and equality. In November 2020, 122 Palestinian and Arabic academics signed an open letter which argues that the IHRA definition “conflates Judaism with Zionism” and that it constitutes a “suppression of Palestinian rights”.

However, members of the Jewish community have provided counterarguments to the reasoning given by the UCL Board. The Union of Jewish students, which represents 8500 students, have been campaigning for a long period of time for the IHRA definition to be adopted. They state in a letter, also signed by several Jewish academics, that “the IHRA definition acknowledges that antisemitism can be subtle, and our experience confirms this. The abuse we face is often cloaked in political discourse.” In their view, current university codes of conduct do not go far enough in acknowledging the role that “political discourse” and language around discussion of Israel can play in masking antisemitic behaviour.

The Union of Jewish Students’ letter argues that the UCL Board is not taking into account the “lived realities of Jewish students” in their rejection of the IHRA definition. They write: “We believe that this definition affords Jewish students the best possible protection, and we are the people best equipped to make that judgment.” 

Additionally, some questions have been raised about the way this decision was reached by the academic board. The President of the UCL Jewish Society, Samuel Goldstone, has made a statement in The Jewish Chronicle saying that he “thought it was absolutely shameful and disgusting that they hadn’t invited one member of the JSoc or one Jewish student to speak on a discussion about antisemitism,” referring to the discussion in December 2020 of the Working Group’s report.