The Experts: is the UCU antisemitic?
This is an expanded version of my latest post for The Times, which appears on The Experts blog today.
A few years ago I became involved in a race row on one university campus. The Jewish student concerned was so fearful for her safety and that of her friends, she asked for legal help. I did so, entirely pro bono. Ultimately in that case, the vice-chancellor of the university made a public apology to the Jewish students for the distress that had been, unwittingly, caused to them by a lack of understanding.
As it is half-term this week, I’d like to go slightly “off-topic” and return to this subject. I have written before of my concern about antisemitism experienced by Jewish youngsters on university campuses across the country, after an All Parliamentary report noted, with great concern, the prevalence of antisemitism on campus.
Students, like the rest of us, are protected by law. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to freedom of expression of religion. Section 91(2) (f) of the Equality Act 2010 requires that a University body must not discriminate against a student, more particularly by “subjecting that student to any other detriment”.
In this country, since the death of Stephen Lawrence and the publication of the Macpherson Report, the definition of a hate crime depends upon its perception by the victim, not the perpetrator. If something criminal occurs, which the victim perceives as antisemitic, the presumption is that the victim’s perception defines the incident.
Although there are universities where attempts are made to help the Jewish students on campus, antisemitism on campus remains on the rise. A recent National Union of Students report revealed that some 31 per cent of Jewish students in this country have been victims of hate crime. One in three! Would you be happy if that was your son or daughter at risk? You got the late night phone call?
So what is antisemitism? The working definition was set out by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), an agency of the European Union, in 2005:
Working definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong”. It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
A number of contemporary examples are then listed. They include:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
It also states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”.
This working definition is used by the National Union of Students and other bodies, to identify and combat antisemitism. As of this week, however, the University and College Union (UCU) is not amongst them.
The UCU is the UK’s largest trade union and professional association for university lecturers. This week the UCU held its annual conference in Harrogate, where its members voted (not for the first time) to adopt an academic and cultural boycott of Israel – and also to dissociate itself from the EUMC working definition of antisemitism.
I note that much of the Wikipedia page for the UCU is given over to its boycotts of and campaigns against Israel. No reference is made to any other conflict in the Middle East, nor the rest of the world. The hellholes of Libya and of Syria, where the face of a tortured 13-year-old boy has become a symbol of uprising? Nothing. Russia? China? Tibet? Again, you will find nothing. Only a preoccupation with Israel.
So is the UCU itself, comprised of our children’s teachers, inherently antisemitic? The general secretary of the UCU, in a letter to Jewish leaders, has stated that the UCU opposes antisemitism. I suppose that by voting to redefine the meaning of antisemitism amongst its members, the UCU somehow hopes to absolve itself of the charge. I do not believe that it can.
Some resignations from the UCU have occurred, but the union seems deaf to the protests of Jewish academics and to the loud protests from Jewish students across the country, who I fear could suffer even further from the backlash on campus.
Young Jewish students, fresh from school, look forward to three years of learning and fun at university. For the first time they have to learn to stand on their own two feet. Adjusting to university life isn’t always easy. Like all students from all backgrounds, they are entitled to express their religious and political beliefs.
My concern is that if the NUS report, the personal stories I have heard and these latest events are anything to go by, too many of them will experience what nobody should have to in a free and democratic society. Are the very people charged with educating them deliberately leaving them even more vulnerable and exposed on campus?
Contrast the lecturers’ actions with the new, public sector equality duties under the Equality Act 2010, which came into force in April 2011. The Equality Act mandates universities to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation. Higher education institutions are required to foster good relations. Protected characteristics are race and religion.
The universities might begin their work with their teaching staff.
(Update: comments on this post are now closed.)
Awards
Featured Posts
Popular Posts
Latest Posts
IAML
17 Comments
Marilyn Stowe on June 4, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Update: Raheem Kassam has written a good post on the subject at The Commentator. It’s well worth a read.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/199/hate_breeds_hate_who_knew_
JamesB on June 4, 2011 at 8:38 pm
It is not anti-semetic to criticise Israel. I have seen a 1947 map on it and the holy land is Palestine. Now it is Israel. No wonder the Palestinians are upset. Would be good if they could live in peaceful co-existance under a third name country and stop killing each other.
Alan Shaw on June 5, 2011 at 10:33 am
There is no need to even argue the history of the Jewish people in the Middle East thousands of years before the word Palestine was even attributed to the Arab population. By 1947 Israel was created by international recognition under the league of nations which proposed ‘one state for the jewish people and one state for the arabs’. The Jews accepted this and the Arabs refused and declared war on Israel in both 67 and 73 continuing up to this day. The Jewish people have always wanted peaceful co-existence, this is why it has made peace with both Egypt and Jordan. If the Arabs laid down its arms there would be peace, if the Jews laid down its arms there would be no Israel.
As you refer to the ‘holy land’ being palestine you realise that under Arab rule there was no religious freedom in the city of Jerusalem. Churches and Synagogues were burnt to the ground and destroyed. With Jerusalem as part of Israel it is the first time in its history that all groups have managed to exercise their right to religious expression freely. The only Arab people in the entire Middle East that enjoy full democratic rights are the 700,000 living in the State of Israel. This tiny nation is a beacon of light in an otherwise dark and depressing Middle East.
Alan Shaw on June 5, 2011 at 10:57 am
Some excellent FACTS recorded by Robin Shepherd (political commentator)
1. The Palestinians don’t need a revolution to get a state. They just need to accept Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people and put aside dreams – that word again – of annihilating it. It’s really that simple. The rest is detail.
2. A Palestinian state has been on offer from day one of the conflict. The Jewish/Israeli side accepted a Palestinian state under UN Resolution 181 – the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which was adopted in November 1947. The Arab/Palestinian side rejected it and opted for war and violence. That’s why there’s a conflict.
3. Up until the Six Day War in 1967 the so called “occupied territories” were ruled by Jordan and Egypt. “Occupation” took place after the Arab armies again went to war with the aim of destroying Israel.
4. Since 1967, Israel has tried numerous times to give the Palestinians statehood, only to be rejected, as in 2000 and 2001, by the Palestinian leadership.
5. The Palestinian leadership inculcates hatred of Israel on a daily basis in schools, in the mosques and on television. That is why the large majority of Palestinians oppose a two state solution.
6. A comprehensive poll by the Israel Project in November 2010 showed 60 percent of Palestinians supporting the proposition that: “The real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state”. 66 percent supported the proposition that: “Over time Palestinians must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian state”. And 71 percent said Yasser Arafat was right to reject Bill Clinton’s peace proposals in 2000 and 2001.
JamesB on June 6, 2011 at 12:01 am
1st saw the map again today and was 1949.
Also, seems you are anti arab.
Jews Christians and Muslims have exised side by side in the middle east for a long time. Sladin and the crusaders did a deal on making Jerusalem somewhere where all could worship.
Giddaffi’s Mum was Jewish. Jews are all over the place in the middle east.
You are also wrong about the laying down of the weopons. It was the displaced jews of ww2 that invaded. Think they would have been better off in Uganda.
The building of settlements on Arab land is not an act of peace, it is an act of war.
I’m sure if a load of boats of English landed in Calais and proclaimed it ours the French would not be too happy either.
JamesB on June 6, 2011 at 12:08 am
‘under Arab rule there was no religious freedom in the city of Jerusalem. Churches and Synagogues were burnt to the ground and destroyed. With Jerusalem as part of Israel it is the first time in its history that all groups have managed to exercise their right to religious expression freely’
This is complete nonsense. You can’t make stuff up, write iot down and and proclaim it as truth. Blimey you have to be a politician to get away with that.
Think it best we leave it there. This is not the place for it.
I was making the point that I’d rather have a cup of tea with a Yasser Arrafat than Nethanyahu. I think he was a nicer person and think the Israeli’s are pushing their luck, like nicking British passports and executing people in Dubai hotels with them. Then flying in more Russian Jews and nicking the Water from Jordan and Syria, etc.
JamesB on June 6, 2011 at 12:13 am
You’ve wound me up just as much as I have you.
I have no issue with a Jewish state, just claiming to be victims all the time does my head in and is wearing thin, like their claims to bring in more and more Jews from the rest of the world into a small disputed land. If the UN was decent they would sort the Israeli’s out. They have broke more resolutions than anyone else.
I can’t believe I’m arguing this. I am not pro islamic or racist. I just get fed up with Jews pleading hard done by. And what’s with the baby male genital mutilation also, bang out of order that. Yes I am aware the Arabs do that also and is out of order there too.
JamesB on June 6, 2011 at 12:26 am
Last point. More a rhetorical question. Why can’t they all live together in Palestine?
In Bosnia H the serbs and muslims have peace and have rejoined the army together, Both muslim and serb lands are represented in Government.
In Lebanon there are Christians and Muslims living side by side. And in Egypt.
I could go on and on, but no, apparently the Jews and the Pakistanis are separate and have to have a religious state. Well, seems to be more hastle than it’s worth.
Probably I am arguing more for a secular state than against the Israelis.
Didn’t appreciate the Pope’s words today on Marriage and living in sin either. think we’d be better talking about that.
There are moves the Israelis could take towards a lasting peace in the middle east. They do not take them. Giving the palestinians representation in the Kinest would be good. If they have already then I don’t know what I am talking about and you win the argument. Don’t hear many people say that. Perhaps a sign of how tired I am with the claiming of the moral high ground between the jews and arabs. Admiting a few errors and nice moves would be nice. Was pleased when they gave Sinai back to Egypt. More like that please.
JamesB on June 6, 2011 at 12:29 am
My idea. Scrap Israel. Keep the borders. Enforce them by the UN and let the people within them all have a vote on how to run the land there. Take the guns off both sides as they can’t behave. They can then have a vote on if they call it Israel Palestine or Um Bongo Land.
JamesB on June 6, 2011 at 11:06 am
I think I managed to not be anti-semetic or racist in my criticisms. I would criticise Pakistan the same.
That said, is not as easy as to just say Israel is fine in everything it does, it is not.
claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
Well, they ain’t doing their racist credentials any good with their treatment of the Palestinians. Is that comment makes me a anti-semetic then you need to look at your definitions. I am not a fascist and am not a big fan (understatement) of Hitler at all.
Lauren M on June 7, 2011 at 4:57 pm
As a Jewish student who graduated recently and suffered several incidents of anti-semitism during my 4 years at university, I feel I must respond to the comments that have been posted previously. I’m afraid you seem to have missed the point of Marilyn’s post. The post is not about the 1947 borders of Israel, nor is it about the Jewish covenant of circumcision. The point of the post seems simple to me and in fact I believe it is impossible to argue against it – is the UCU a blatantly anti-semitic organisation?
Why else would they vote to disassociate themselves from the internationally recognised definition of anti-semitism, which as Marilyn correctly points out, includes “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.” As a student at one of England’s most famous universities I was shocked to see a stand outside of the union building which read “Zionists = Nazis.” However I was more shocked when I complained to my union and was told there was nothing that could be done about this. I was also confronted with a poster of the state of Israel with a swastika drawn on it.
Whilst I fully support everyone’s right to protest, I also strongly believe that our universities have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that none of their students are left feeling attacked and victimised. Unfortunately I was not provided with this protection and as such when I look back at my time at university one of the overwhelming feelings I have is a sense of being let down by the institution. I do sincerely hope that people read and take notice to Marilyn’s post and that the UCU will be held to account for their policies.
Marilyn Stowe on June 8, 2011 at 8:02 am
I was saddened by James B’s replies to Alan. But I know from my involvement in the case I mentioned above that James B’s comments are trivial compared to what many Jewish students who have rights too, have to endure at University by hostile, well funded and extreme organizations.
And the authorities simply refuse to act and keep on pretending there is no enormous great elephant in the room. Their academic staff have compounded it with this appalling decision.
The result of my own involvement in the above case is that I was personally added to a boycott list by an extreme website who also illegally removed one of my firms photos from our website to accompany their boycott.
I am proud to be on it.
Many thanks for your contributions.
Marilyn
JamesB on June 8, 2011 at 4:32 pm
There are many extermist organisations. I think I heard some of the islamic ones being criticised also.
I do (is an English trait) have a habit of knocking those who put themselves forward as virtuous and worthy as a role-model. Like Ryan Giggs for example.
I am not sure what the well funded and extremist organisations are that are being referred to here? Perhaps the Jewish political lobbyists in Washington?
When I was at University someone was always calling someone else a Nazi. Is part of Godwin’s law.
There is one thing worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about. Perhaps this is a bit of a storm in a tea cup and what happened to freedom of speech anyway. If you have nothing to hide why ban people from talking. I do think banning people from expressing their views is moving in the wrong direction. Think that’s what happened in Germany in the 30′s. There we go with Godwinn’s law again. Worth looking it up.
Personally, as I have said already, I do think the Palestians at least as worthy of my sympathy as the Israelis. I also think the area was better ruled before the the Jewish state was formed there. Is that a racist comment? Surely the time for a peace is overdue. If it can be done in Bosnia, why not Israel. Trying to put the pressure on. I don’t want no Jihad / Interfada / terrorist bombs anymore.
JamesB on June 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm
One of the many articles on this, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10618638
If I’d been defending I would have probably cited it. I have no time for Hitler, he is and was a sick joke.
Marilyn Stowe on June 10, 2011 at 8:07 am
The LSE, one of the most famous of our London Universities, seems to be having trouble mapping the Middle East correctly. Which country doesn’t appear?
For the answer see this article:-
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/217/the_theatre_of_life_remapping_the_middle_east_at_the_lse_libyan_school_of_extremism_
JamesB on June 10, 2011 at 9:35 am
‘ the LSE whose heraldic animal is the beaver’
I liked that, made me smile. I’m all for Beavers
.
Wrt boycotting Israel, I am not quite at that stage yet (I like their fruit), but must admit to being quite close. Not that I would do it in such a deceitful manner as they appear to be from this article.
Still, it’s like Blair said on crime, tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. Same could be said of extremism also.
I do like my fruit though, probably safer than the German stuff also. I agree with you that it is a nice bit of land, in that at least.
Marilyn Stowe on June 10, 2011 at 1:02 pm
As a visitor to the country several times a year, perhaps I should point out, there is a population of circa 7.5 million people living in Israel. They live in a vibrant, modern,successful, thriving democracy.There are Israeli Arabs across the entire spectrum benefitting equally from the right to vote, to the law, to free health care and education. An Israeli Arab MK sailed on the flotilla to Gaza.
Furthermore the country as a whole has in its short lifespan contributed disproprotionately to the most significant medical and technological advancements that have benefitted the entire world. It has the highest number per capita worldwide of scienfitic papers and university degrees. The cell phone, Instant Messaging, Computer technology; Medicines and advanced medical equipment used to save lives across the world;– think Israel. Think of its citizens’ contribution to the arts. Its wines are winning world class awards. It has a greater size economy than all of its neighbours put together and more patents registered to Israelis than any othernationality worldwide.
So whats the point of delegitimising and seeking to destroy this tiny but fantastic country? Instead why not seek a sensible outcome, as the Israelis have offered time and time again, recognising, that what is there;- is there? How best to resolve the problem as it is? They dont want war. They want peace. They dont want separating Walls. They want peace.They dont want military checkpoints to stop terror attacks. They want an end to the suicide bombs, buses blown up on their streets, children blown up in pizzerias and discotheques, families slaughtered in cold blood. Their teenage children going off to the army for compulsory military service in life or death situations.
I question how it is possible to make peace with a group of people who steadfastly refuse ever to move forward towards a mutually beneficial, prosperous, peaceful future and instead despite their millions of dollars in aid, the most financial aid given to any people in the world, leave the majority of their people living in camps, poverty and hopelessness, fuelling hatred and murder at every juncture from infancy upwards, encourage their women and children to immolate themselves and remain insistent only on war, hatred and ultimately dream of wiping out 7.5million people?
Why do they keep firing rockets, making weapons, when they were given Gaza back, in yet another useless peace effort? With its spectacular coast line they could have a fantastic tourist industry and booming economy, living in peace with Israel?
It is truely shocking to read of intelligent people who think it is legitimate and politically and socially acceptable to perpetuate the delegitimisation and encourage those who seek the destruction of an entire country full of millions of people.
Yes there are problems. But those problems would resolve if the people who describe themselves constantly to the world as victims would lay down their arms and seek genuine peace, not peace at a price of the lives of 7.5million people.
Marilyn.
Comments are closed