22 No. 59 JUSTICE to give an example of antisemitism, whether classical or contemporary, and had never heard of the "blood libel" or the "conspiracy libel." Indeed, she admitted to knowing nothing about antisemitism.13 Not only was there evidence of profound ignorance about antisemitism on the part of the Students’ Union, but it also became clear to me and David Lewis as we assisted Brian with his case that those who work for the Any University UK’s Students’ Union are pro-Palestinian in their political outlook and that this, presumably, colored their judgment and behavior. According to Jacob Williams, the Oxford University student who founded the free speech magazine No Offence, “[I]t’s well known that students’ unions are largely run by unrepresentative, politically extreme activist groups.”14 The absence of a working definition of antisemitism allowed the University to conclude that there was no antisemitism on the part of the Palestine Society and therefore there was no basis for any specific action to be taken. The University categorized all of the Palestine Society’s social media output as merely “controversial and provocative” and as “offensive to some people, in particular those who have strong opposite views about the issues involved.” 15 The characterization of blood libels as merely “offensive”trivializes antisemitism, denies its political importance, and constructs Brian as overly sensitive rather than as a victim of harassment. The OIA, however, understood the importance of defining antisemitism. After reviewing Brian’s case, it identified the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism as “of particular relevance” and described it as “more nuanced” than the University’s approach.16 It found that the University ought to have engaged with Brian’s request that it formally adopt the Working Definition, which was “relevant to the question of whether material that purportedly was criticizing the (alleged) actions of the Israeli state 'crossed the line' from being merely offensive or inflammatory to [Brian], to amounting (or potentially amounting) to material which might reasonably be perceived as anti-Semitic and likely to cause [Brian], as a student identifying as Jewish, to experience harassment.” For this reason, the OIA found Brian’s complaint of antisemitic harassment against the Any University UK to be "Justified."17 Lack of Constraints and Compliance Campus antisemitism also persists in the UK because universities do not comply with the laws that limit free speech on campus. This is because they are either ignorant of the relevant law, or they misunderstand how it ought to be interpreted and applied. There is also the tendency for UK academics to believe that freedom of speech on campus is absolute. This is because they subscribe to the traditional view that the university is a “marketplace of ideas” where views can be freely exchanged even if they cause offense. However, the “marketplace of ideas” metaphor is outdated and free speech on campus, including free political speech, is circumscribed by several UK laws designed to promote racial, religious, sexual, and disability equality on campus, to prevent harassment and discrimination, and to promote equality of educational opportunity. Many universities fail to consider these laws, or misapply them, allowing campus antisemitism to flourish. Much of the problem is due to the fact that UK academics tend to confuse the principle of "freedom of speech" with the principle of "academic freedom." Academic freedom means the right of universities to be free from state and political interference, the right of university academics to be free to test received wisdom and to express controversial views without being fired, the right of universities to be free to appoint staff and admit students, and to decide what to teach them and what research to undertake.18 It does not equate to absolute free speech as many academics think. The confusion between academic freedom and free speech means that views that are highly critical of Israel, Judaism, and Jews are regarded as merely “controversial” or “offensive” even when they are antisemitic, and are defended on the grounds of “academic freedom.” 13. This conversation between the Head of Student Engagement and myself was recorded in the minutes of the meeting and was included with the May 2015 complaint submitted to the University and the May 2016 appeal to the OIA. 14. Javier Espinoza, Anti-Rhodes campaign ‘depleted’ student union cash, THE TELEGRAPH, Feb. 3, 2016, available at http:// w w w . t e l e g r a p h . c o . u k / e d u c a t i o n / educationnews/12139220/Anti-Rhodes-campaigndepleted-student-union-cash.html (last visited March 26, 2017). 15. Any University UK’s Complaint Response, supra note 10, para. 21. 16. All references to the decision of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA), which upheld Brian’s complaint for environmental harassment, issued on Oct. 5, 2016, may be found at OIA reference number: OIA/611513/16 17. Further discussion of this aspect of Brian’s complaint may be found in the fuller version of this article on the IAJLJ website. 18. The Education Reform Act 1988, Sec. 22.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=