There will be a one-hour debate this afternoon at about 4.30 in the
Grand Committee of the House of Lords on the report by the
Community Security Trust "Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2018–2020"
and the finding that the number of antisemitic incidents in
universities has increased.
The motion has been proposed by , who has provided us with the following outline of her
speech, which is under embargo until the debate takes place.
My Lords, I am particularly pleased to be able to welcome
[Justice Minister] to his new post in the Ministry of
Justice. The noble lord comes to us garlanded with the highest
praises that the Bar can bestow. Like other well known public
figures, he was once a prolific twitterer and showed a great
sense of humour and a rare knack for conciliating different
points of view. All those qualities will stand him in good stead
here and we wish him well and look forward to meeting in
person.
My Lords, I have spoken about campus antisemitism on previous
occasions and sadly there is a great deal more to report. It is
equally sad that an organisation such as the Community Security
Trust, whose report we are debating, should have to exist at all.
It is a charity that protects British Jews from antisemitism and
provides security. How regrettable it is that every Jewish
building and every Jewish gathering has to be protected by the
CST guards. Let me take this opportunity of thanking the
government for the funding they provide to help the CST to
continue to provide safeguards for the Jewish community.
The CST report uncovered the highest number of university
antisemitic incidents ever recorded, especially online. And
shockingly they included antisemitic action by university staff,
the very people who should be teaching students to reason and
tolerate. Nothing leaves a Jewish student more unprotected than
to find that the antisemitism he or she faces is from his or her
lecturer and that the panel set up by the authorities to
investigate it is peopled by colleagues and devoid of Jewish
members. The treatment meted out, the failure to discipline and
the reaction would not be tolerated for a moment by other ethnic
minorities. But somehow racist and religious prejudice against
Jews is given short shrift, and its specific nature glossed over.
Just as Jeremy Corbyn’s response to allegations of antisemitism
was that he was anti-racist, ergo could not be guilty, so the
university authorities and Universities UK are trying to disguise
this prejudice by folding it up into others. In November UUK put
out a report on antiracism in universities but relegated
antisemitism to a passing mention in a footnote.
The situation is not all bad. There is light at the end of the
tunnel, as under the exceptional leadership of the noble
more universities, about 51, are adopting the IHRA
definition of antisemitism, which has the effect of concentrating
minds on its expression as well as its definition. But first, let
me give you just a very few examples of the sort of behaviour
taking place in our universities. These are the young people who
will be our leaders in due course.
At Warwick University a student complained about a lecturer who
dismissed the notion that the Labour party could be antisemitic
as an attempt to discredit it by the so-called Israel lobby. The
lecturer emailed the entire class to suggest that claims of
antisemitism against Labour are orchestrated. Amazingly it was
the complainant who was then investigated by the University at
length and although that came to nothing, what a deterrent effect
that will have on any other Jewish student thinking of
complaining. It was the victim who was put on the stand.
The School of Oriental and African Studies maintains its
poisonous reputation for Jewish students. A Canadian student was
forced to abandon his studies there because of the toxic
atmosphere. He was branded a Nazi supremacist for disclosing his
support for Israel and was refunded his £15K fees. At SOAS,
others complained, being Jewish means you are called fascist. The
Malaysian PM was invited to speak at both the Oxford and
Cambridge Unions, was openly antisemitic and was greeted with
laughter.
Lecturers have spontaneously called the holocaust too Jewish, or
indulged in the old slander of over-powerful conspiring Zionists.
How ironic that the practice of no-platforming is so acceptable
in universities but not when it comes to antisemitic speech. What
an indictment of the failure to deal with the problem, that some
Jewish students choose a University not by the course content or
the quality of teaching – but by the extent of antisemitism that
they will encounter. Some of the academic staff have been shown
to work together to foster an atmosphere inimical to Jewish
students and teach and supervise others handing on the same
antagonism.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of
antisemitism helpfully draws the distinction between legitimate
criticism of the Israeli government, like any other government,
and antisemitic calls for Israel to be destroyed or compared to a
Nazi regime. Legitimate criticism of Israel is to antizionism
what literary criticism is to book burning. I mention the Israel
element because of the wise observations of the late . Antisemitism he
said, mutates – like a virus – it used to focus on religious
discrimination, then it was racial and now it focuses on the self
determination of the Jews in their only, tiny, state.
The IHRA definition is not intended to be legally binding but to
help perception and eradication of antisemitic activity. Why then
is it not more widely adopted and why have some academics pushed
back at it in a way that undermines their students’ protection?
Notable amongst those is University College London. The Academic
Board set up there to try to reverse the college’s adoption of
the definition did not even include a Jewish student – can one
imagine today a panel about campus racism without a black
student? The familiar arguments were heard, namely, that to
define antisemitism is exceptionalism and blocks free speech. But
My lords, antisemitism is exceptional in its length and breadth.
As for blocking free speech about Israel, there are no examples
ever of the definition having resulted in any reduction in
academic freedom or research.
IHRA itself is unequivocal about free speech. The irony is that
the rejectionists are the ones seeking to stop Israel connected
speakers and to block academic research cooperation.
What is to be done about this?
Holocaust education, which is compulsory for schoolchildren,
sadly has not worked. How is it possible that an entire
generation who have studied the holocaust can arrive at
university and behave in the ways I have outlined? It is because
they have studied the holocaust in a vacuum, as an example of
generalised hate, and have resigned it to history. They have
learned nothing about the contribution of Jews to civilisation,
about the millennia of persecution, and how that, and religious
teaching led to genocide; they have not learned of the
overwhelming need for a safe haven and how Jewish self
determination in Israel, along with other nations, is the best
protection in the modern world. All they know is that Jews were
killed in their millions and all they see is pictures of death
camps and bodies. It is not surprising that the brute reaction of
some is to replicate Nazi slogans when they vent their hatred at
universities. There is a need to widen holocaust education into
education about Jewish history. And that is why the planned
holocaust memorial in VTG at a cost of over £100m and a destroyed
park, is such a wasted effort. It will present the holocaust
again as something in the past, something over there not here. It
will enable alleged anti-Semites to continue to pay their
respects to 6m dead Jews, badge themselves as anti-racist and
then carry on attacking Jews of today and their only state,
Israel. How much easier it is to mourn the lost generation than
to respect the living Jews of today. It will give the impression
of “job done”.
So will the Minister take steps to ensure that more universities
adopt the IHRA definition and incorporate it in their codes of
conduct?
And will he promote a complete overhaul of holocaust education so
that students learn about Jewish history, why Jews were
persecuted and how unwarranted are attacks on today’s community?
