Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the statements by Professor David Miller about Jewish students;
and what discussions they have had with (1) the University of
Bristol, and (2) the police, about the steps being taken to
ensure the safety of such students.
(Con)
Universities are independent and autonomous organisations.
Accordingly, the Government have not intervened directly in this
case, but we consider that the University of Bristol could do
more to make its condemnation of Professor Miller’s conduct clear
to current and future students. Students also can and should
inform the police if they believe that the law has been broken.
Professor Miller has expressed some ill-founded and reprehensible
views and the Government wholeheartedly reject them.
(Non-Afl)
Academics do have freedom of speech, including to criticise
Israel, but Professor Miller does not have the right to attack
Jewish students as being part of an Israel lobby group that makes
Arab and Muslim students unsafe. Bristol should not be employing
someone to teach students wild conspiracy theories about Jewish
people. His behaviour has resulted in Jewish students being
subjected to weeks of harassment and abuse. Bristol must support
its students and take this much more seriously.
(Con)
The noble Lord gets to the nub of the issue with his questions.
Academics of course have the right to espouse views that many
might find offensive, perhaps even idiotic, and universities
should be places where such views can be rigorously and
vigorously debated. What makes this case concerning is Professor
Miller’s comments about his own students, suggesting that their
disagreement with his views is because they are political pawns
of a foreign Government or part of a Zionist enemy, which has no
place in any society. The International Holocaust Remembrance
Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism draws the important
distinction between legitimate criticism of the Government of
Israel and their policies and holding Jews collectively
responsible for them. We are glad that the University of Bristol
has adopted that definition and we hope that it will consider it
carefully.
(Lab)
[V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register,
including the fact that I am on the advisory council of the
Hillel foundation, which supports Jewish students at
universities. Does the Minister agree that the failure of the
university’s leadership to act to protect its own students, for
whom it has a duty of care, breaches three out of the four
regulatory objectives of the Office for Students? Can he provide
reassurance that that will be taken into consideration in any
evaluation by the Office for Students, which would also include
addressing and evaluating the performance of the university
leadership and confidence in its ability to continue to lead?
(Con)
The noble Lord is right to say that providers have a duty of care
to students, which the Government expect them to take very
seriously. All registered higher education providers, including
the University of Bristol, are subject to ongoing conditions of
registration with the Office for Students, which is responsible
for ensuring compliance with them. In addition, students can
notify the Office for Students of any issues that they think may
be of regulatory interest to it, and the OfS has provided a guide
for students to support them in that process.
(Con) [V]
In a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Austin last week, my
noble friend the Minister said:
“All higher education providers should discharge their
responsibilities fully and have robust policies and procedures in
place to comply with the law”.
So will he or the Universities Minister now write to universities
who employ the academics who signed a letter of support for
Professor Miller of Bristol University, asking them what action
they are taking in respect of those academics, who appear to be
supporting Professor Miller’s anti-Semitism, as defined by the
aforementioned IHRA?
(Con)
Universities and other providers are independent institutions,
responsible for their own staffing decisions and for meeting
their duties under the law, regarding both freedom of expression
and equality. However, the Government have been clear that we
expect universities to be at the forefront of tackling
anti-Semitism and ensuring that they provide a welcoming
experience for all students. That is why my right honourable
friend the Education Secretary wrote to providers, encouraging
them to adopt the IHRA definition, as a result of which, I am
pleased to say, more than 50 additional institutions have done
so.
(LD)
[V]
My Lords, on that point of a welcoming environment for Jewish
students, the University of Bristol, in a statement on its
investigation, said that its,
“clear and consistently held position is that bullying,
harassment, and discrimination are never acceptable. We remain
committed to providing a positive experience for all our students
and staff, including by providing a welcoming environment for
Jewish students”.
That is not happening at that university and, sadly, at all too
many other universities. In a debate in January initiated by the
noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who follows me today, she said that
some universities were becoming no-go areas for Jewish students.
This is surely intolerable. There is a systemic problem here and
I should like to hear the Minister say how he is going to tackle
that on a—
The Lord Privy Seal () (Con)
That is an extremely long question. Could I please ask noble
Lords to keep their questions short, as a lot of people want to
get in and express their views?
(Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to the important, if
dispiriting, debate held in Grand Committee in January this year,
looking at instances of anti-Semitism in universities. The
Government are very mindful of that, which is why my right
honourable friend the Education Secretary has, in his most recent
strategic guidance letter, asked the Office for Students to
consider a scoping exercise to identify providers that are
reluctant to adopt the IHRA definition.
(CB) [V]
Sadly, the situation at Bristol has been ongoing for over two
years since students first complained and the university has
stonewalled until this week. Jewish students have been verbally
and physically abused at that university previously. The failure
to act shows that anti-Semitism is not taken seriously. Had a
professor hurled similar abuse and conspiracy theories at black
students, he would have been off campus by the evening. Will the
Minister ensure that the relevant student bodies take
anti-Semitism as seriously as they do other forms of
racism—namely the OfS, the National Union of Students and
Universities UK?
(Con)
My Lords, the Government most certainly take anti-Semitism
seriously and my right honourable friend the Education
Secretary’s letter also asked the Office for Students to consider
introducing mandatory reporting by providers of anti-Semitic
incident numbers, with the aim of ensuring a robust evidence base
to make sure that appropriate action is being taken.
(Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of
interests. Does my noble friend agree that Bristol University
adopting the IHRA working definition on anti-Semitism is only the
first step? A work programme would reasonably seek to establish a
safe space for Jewish students so that they can learn in a free
and open environment. Bristol University has failed to offer
safety, reassurance or even the slightest suggestion of
competence. Does my noble friend agree that the university must
condemn Professor Miller’s statement that Jewish students were
directed by the Israeli Government and take the necessary action
to restore the public’s lost confidence in Bristol University?
(Con)
I first pay tribute to my noble friend’s work on the IHRA
definition and getting a number of bodies, including Her
Majesty’s Government, to sign up to it. He is right that adoption
of that working definition is only a first step. While the
Government think it is vital, it is not enough on its own. That
is why we continue to work with the sector to make sure that it
is doing everything it can to stamp out anti-Semitism.
(CB)
I draw attention to my registered interests and very much welcome
the Minister’s comments. Has he noted that Professor Miller has
suggested that by joining a university Jewish society, students
are thereby associating themselves with racism and Islamophobia?
Will the Minister note that many students join Jewish societies
because they wish to attend religious services or go to parties?
They may simply wish to have a nourishing and regular bowl of
chicken soup.
(Con)
I completely agree with the noble Lord. That suggestion is at the
heart of this issue because it implies that Professor Miller can
understand the motivations or the political views of Jewish
students at the University of Bristol who join a Jewish society.
We think that is wrong and very ill-founded, and that is what
causes us such concern in this case.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an appalling case, but does the Minister share
my concern that the Government’s proposals for free speech
legislation run the risk of protecting statements that are
anti-Semitic, offensive and dangerous? Will he clarify the role
that the Government expect the free-speech champion to play in
cases such as this? What protection and priority will be given to
student welfare under the proposals to ensure that Jewish
students do feel safe from anti-Semitic abuse?
(Con)
My Lords, people go to university to be provoked and challenged
and to come into contact with ideas and opinions that may be
different from those that they have encountered before. They
might find those ideas fatuous or even offensive, but that is
part and parcel of the academic experience. Our proposals for a
free-speech champion are to ensure that free speech is being
protected on campus, that that essential part of university
experience is maintained and that universities are balancing
their legal obligations to safeguard freedom of expression while
also tackling any abuse, harassment or intimidation of students,
which is contrary to the law.
