EDINBURGH University lecturers are calling on managers to U-turn on their adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
The institution took on the 40-word definition in summer 2020, with Glasgow University the only similar Scottish centre to have done so.
Members of the UCU union say the decision was made without proper consultation and has had a “chilling effect” on staff and students, “compromising academic freedom, freedom of speech, and the university position on anti-racism” and preventing them from criticising Israel’s actions towards Palestine.
And they question whether “political pressure from Westminster” contributed to its adoption. That’s after Gavin Williamson told universities he would “act” if the “overwhelming majority of institutions” did not adopt the 40-word definition.
READ MORE: Antisemitism row engulfs Labour after protests against Israeli ambassador
In a public letter addressed to Edinburgh principal Peter Mathieson, rector Deborah Kayembe and equality head Sarah Cunningham-Burley, UCU Edinburgh claims that the institution has ignored staff concerns and failed to answer questions.
Quoted anonymously, staff covering Israeli-Palestinian history and politics say they don’t know what comments are acceptable and are “scared and cautious” about what to include in lessons. One Jewish member of Israeli heritage says of the university: “I don’t think they care about antisemitism and I doubt they understand what racism is.”
Meanwhile, students and researchers say they fear sanction under the definition that may negatively affect their careers, and a Palestinian student says the university is “muzzling its own students”.
The definition states: “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.”
Accompanying guidance gives examples including stereotypes about Jews, Holocaust denial and claims that “the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour”. It also includes anything which holds Jews collectively responsible for Israeli state actions and comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
A university spokesman said: “We have been clear from the start that the university must interpret and apply the definition of antisemitism in a way which is consistent with the right to freedom of expression on campus.
“The university’s statement on freedom of expression further underscores our long-standing commitment to facilitating an environment where everyone is able to inquire, study, and debate in a respectful manner.”
A spokesman for the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities commented: “The IHRA definition is widely supported across the Jewish community, including the Union of Jewish Students, and has been adopted by both the Scottish and UK Governments.
“The definition was originally devised by the EU Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia and unambiguously protects criticism of Israel as protected speech.
“Rather than attacking a definition of antisemitism that is widely embraced by the Jewish community, UCU should devote its energy to dealing with those amongst them who have shamefully supported the perpetrators and giving unqualified support to the victims of antisemitism.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel