Pears Institute academic claims ‘chilling impact’ of universities adopting IHRA
►A LEADING British expert on anti semitism has criticised Education Secretary Gavin Williamson for trying to force universities to adopt the IHRA definition.
Professor David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at B irk beck College, University of London, called the minister’s action “misguided” and “reckless” in an opinion piece for the Guardian.
“The secretary of state for education intends to rid universities in England of antisemitism, but his intervention not only threatens to provoke strife and confusion – it also places academic freedom and free speech on campus at risk,” he said.
Professor Feldman described as“strategically ill-considered” Mr Williamson’s letter to vice-chancellor sin October warning of robust measures against universities that failed to adopt the IH RA definition of antisemitism.
The academic argued “structural racism in universities is profound, and racial harassment on campus is widespread. These are problems that universities must address. The imposed adoption of the IHRA working definition will not meet this challenge.
“It will, however, privilege one group over others by giving them additional protections, and in doing so will divide minorities against each other.”
Professor Feldman said Mr Williamson’s claims that the IHRA definition was straightforward and that universities which refused to adopt it showed they were willing to tolerate antisemitism were untrue.
“The IHRA working definition is anything but straightforward, and universities already have some tools to deal with antisemitism,” he said.
“In fact, the IH RA working definition ‘was never intended to be campus hate-speech code’, as one of its original authors has explained. It was drafted as a tool for data collectors….
“But it is one thing for monitoring agencies to adopt the working definition as a rule of thumb; imposing it on universities, which have a duty under law to uphold academic freedom and free speech within the law, is something altogether different.”
For some, Professor Feldman argued, the IHRA definition “provides helpful guidelines; for others it inhibits legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies and practices.
“But in the light of the secretary of state’s letter, the key point is that it is impossible to know which of these interpretations is correct. And in this context, uncertainty brings danger.”