Antisemitism: Bristol University

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Christian Wakeford]

I find it hard to disagree with a single word that my hon. Friend says. It is an absolute disgrace that for more than two years, such antisemitic racist views were allowed to continue. What is more abhorrent is that even when she came in front of the Select Committee on Education, a representative of the university tried to hide behind the fact of having had a conversation and a dialogue with the Bristol Jewish Society—JSoc—as if that were the solution to all the problems. Again, that is not the case.

It is appalling that students felt that they had to choose whether to complain against an academic teaching racist conspiracy theory because they would inevitably face a backlash. The University of Bristol Jewish Society submitted its own complaint. In responding, the academic charged with reviewing the matter wrote in June 2019 that the internationally agreed definition of antisemitism, which the university later adopted,

“is a somewhat controversial definition, with some believing that it is imprecise and can be used to conflate criticism of the policies of the Israeli government and of Zionism with antisemitism”.

Instead, he decided to use

“a simpler and, I hope, less controversial definition of antisemitism as hostility towards Jews as Jews”.

He then ruled, regarding Professor Miller’s lecture, that

“I cannot find any evidence in the material before me that these views are underlain by hostility to Jews as Jews…I am unable, therefore, to find grounds upon which Professor Miller should be subjected to disciplinary action”.

That is completely contrary to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. It subsequently transpired that the person charged with investigating the matter was a close colleague who was notorious for holding similar political views to Professor Miller’s.

In 2019, the then Member for Bassetlaw, now Lord Mann, wrote to the university on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, asking it to review its disciplinary processes and consult antisemitism experts, but the institution refused. Following Bristol’s adoption of the IHRA’s definition in December 2019, a further complaint was made by CST, following further appalling, untrue and potentially dangerous allegations about the organisations, but this too was treated with utter disdain. The complaint followed Miller’s comments in an online meeting in which he described CST as

“people who must only be faced and defeated”.

CST is an organisation that looks after children going to school and people going about their daily worship and their daily Jewish life. To describe it as an organisation that must be defeated is absolutely abhorrent.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important Adjournment debate. As someone whose constituency contains the Community Security Trust, I am shocked by some of the comments made by Professor Miller. He claims that CST is actually controlled by the Israeli Government, but I can assure the whole House that that is certainly not the case. One thing that CST does, certainly in the London Borough of Barnet, is keep our citizens safe.

[Christian Wakeford]

I completely agree. I have had the fortunate privilege of working very closely with CST since my election. For those who look after the safety of the community to be treated with utter disdain is absolutely appalling.

When challenged on his comments by Jewish News, Professor Miller said that CST

“is an organisation that exists to run point for a hostile foreign government in the UK...This is a straightforward story of influence-peddling by a foreign state.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend pre-empts some of the comments I am about to make. I absolutely recognise that it is only a step on the journey and not the destination itself.

In October 2020, the previous Secretary of State wrote to all higher education providers, urging them to adopt the IHRA definition. He wrote again in May 2021, emphasising the importance of adopting the definition in the light of increased antisemitic incidences following the conflict in the middle east.

To support that, in the previous Secretary of State’s strategic guidance letter to the Office for Students last year, he specifically emphasised the importance of work on the IHRA definition and asked the Office for Students to undertake a package of work aiming to increase adoption levels across the sector. Last month, in response, the OfS published a list of providers that have adopted the definition along with case studies of where it is being used most effectively. I am pleased to see the progress made—my hon. Friend commented on this—with a marked increase in the number of providers adopting the definition from about 30 to more than 200, including the vast majority of universities.

Although that progress has been made, we are acutely aware that adoption of the definition is just a first step towards eradicating antisemitism in higher education. The Community Security Trust recently published statistics indicating that there is still much work to do. Some worrying examples were cited that demonstrate how much more needs to be done.

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful that the Minister raised the CST and the figures that it published, which I have in front of me. He will be aware that of the about 8,500 Jewish students at UK universities, about one in five suffers antisemitic abuse.

[Mr Walker]

Which is clearly far too many. I was going to say that while I welcome the fact that the CST found that the vast majority of Jewish students have a strongly positive experience at university, it is deeply troubling to hear that there were about 111 antisemitic incidents in the sector in the 2020-21 academic year. To see a number of high-profile universities, including Bristol, named by the CST as providers with high numbers of incidents shows that there is still much more work to do—even at providers that have embraced the IHRA definition.

Those worrying statistics follow the CST report on campus antisemitism between 2018 and 2020 that named six cities with five or more recorded incidents throughout the period, of which Bristol was one. It is even more concerning that many of the institutions named by the CST had already adopted the IHRA definition. I take this opportunity to echo the comments made in the debate and wholeheartedly express my support and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education for the work done by the CST. I recognise how it provides invaluable assistance to the UK Jewish community, including in schools, for which I am responsible, and I know that the Minister for Higher and Further Education and the Secretary of State are looking forward to welcoming the CST to the summit that they are leading later this month focused on tackling antisemitism in universities.

We know from the statistics mentioned that while our work to increase adoption of the IHRA definition is important, it is not enough on its own. That is why the Government have provided, via the Office for Students, £4.7 million to support 119 projects with a particular focus on harassment and hate crime, including 11 projects targeted at tackling religion-based hate crime. Those projects concluded in spring 2020, and an independent evaluation showed that they led to increased collaboration between the sector and external partners such as charities or community organisations aiming to tackle religious hatred.

In relation to steps that the OfS is taking on tackling antisemitism, as well as publishing on 10 November the list of providers that have adopted the IHRA definition, it has published supportive guidance for providers. In 2019, Universities UK published a briefing note on tackling antisemitism, with which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education has urged all providers to engage seriously. The OfS is also undertaking an impact evaluation on its statement of expectations on harassment and hate crime, which was published in April 2021. That work will take place from January to August. As part of the OfS’s next steps, it will consider options for connecting the statement of expectations to its conditions for registration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South raised the important question of how the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will apply in this context. The Bill will strengthen existing freedom of speech duties and introduce clear consequences for where these duties are breached. Recent incidents such as those at the London School of Economics show the importance of the work in this area. I am absolutely clear that the Bill does not give a green light to antisemitism and holocaust denial. In particular, any attempt to deny the scale or occurrence of the holocaust is morally reprehensible and has no basis in fact. I am categorical that nothing in the Bill in any way encourages higher education providers or student unions to invite antisemites, including holocaust deniers, to speak on campus. The strengthened protections for freedom of speech are likely to support students from minority backgrounds, who, on a number of occasions, have had their speech shut down by others.

The Bill provides for the appointment of a director for freedom of speech and academic freedom to the OfS board, with responsibility for overseeing its free speech functions, including championing freedom of speech and recommending redress via a new complaints scheme where speech is unlawfully restricted. This will place an appropriate focus on these fundamental rights.

The Bill will protect the freedom of speech of Jewish students, staff and visiting speakers, which has at times been under threat, as we saw recently with incidents in our universities. It will stop universities using security costs as a spurious attempt to cancel mainstream speakers, such as has been the case when a society attempted to invite the Israeli ambassador, and it will mean that universities and student unions have to take genuine action against those who use violence or threats of violence to shut down speech, including that of Jewish students.

In addition to the Bill, there needs to be cultural change, and we welcome initiatives by universities, academics and students to drive this, but as we have seen historically on issues such as gender equality, race discrimination and human rights, cultural change occurs more readily when backed by appropriate legislation.