The controversy shrouding the In- ternational Holocaust Remembrance Agency’s (IHRA) definition of anti- semitism has resurfaced at UCL.
In February, 2021, an academic board at UCL voted to reject the IHRA guidelines, citing “potentially deleteri- ous effects on free speech, such as insti- gating a culture of fear or self-silencing on teaching or research or classroom discussion of contentious topics.” The definition is brief: “Anti-semitism 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 com- munity institutions and religious facilities.”
Despite its apparent simplicity, the definition has proven a source of bit- ter disagreement at UCL and beyond. Opponents challenge the accompany- ing illustrative examples, seven out of eleven of which refer to Israel. They in- terpret these as conflating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism, suppressing criti- cism of the state of Israel.
The dispute heated up in October when education secretary Gavin Wil- liamson warned that universities who do not adopt the definition in full will face cuts to their funding. Many criticised this move as a threat to free speech and debate on campuses, with some prominent lawyers questioning its legality.
At UCL, the definition has been enshrined since 2019 when the ad- ministration adopted it in full. Yet, in a report in December 2020 a group of senior academics at UCL resolved that “this specific working definition is not fit for purpose within a university set- ting and has no legal basis for enforce- ment.” These findings paved the way for the recent resolution of the academ- ic board to reject it.
The move was welcomed by UCL’s Students for Justice in Palestine. They wrote that the definiton served to “di- vide our community and suppress free speech” and urged the university to “re- place the IHRA definition with a defi- nition that protects both Jewish and Palestinian students.”
However, the Jewish Society was “disturbed by the decision.” They see it as the work of “a small group of aca- demics who are more interested in the- oretical discussion of antisemitism than practically supporting their students.” The society also claimed that Jew- ish students have made clear that the IHRA definition offers them the great- est protection on campus. Their stance is supported by nineteen members of the UCL academic board who signed an open letter defending the definition as “an important safeguard.”
Yet, the decision now falls onto UCL’s governing council who stated that they will “now consider this rec- ommendation and will continue to consult and listen to the views of the entire UCL community on this and other issues.”
Now, pressure is mounting from all sides on Dr Michael Spence, the new Provost, to make a final ruling that will satisfy the disparate sides of such a con- troversial debate.