It is difficult to complain about the sentiments expressed by Bridget Phillipson, the Secretary of State for Education, in her article entitled ‘We will give teachers the resources to root out anti-Semitism for good’, published in the Telegraph on the anniversary of the Hamas pogrom in southern Israel. Universities have turned a blind eye to some atrocious behaviour by students who vocally support the call of Hamas for a ‘free Palestine’ stretching across the entire length and breadth of Israel. ‘Free’, if you look at Hamas propaganda, means free of Jews, though some Hamas leaders think it would be a good idea to keep science professors alive if Israel is destroyed, as their talents could prove very useful.
Why has Phillipson not agreed to meet a delegation of senior Jewish academics who strongly support the Act?
In her Telegraph piece, Phillipson tells us how much government money has been awarded to the excellent National Jewish Chaplaincy Board, which actively offers support to Jewish students in British universities. (Although in reality this money was pledged by Rishi Sunak.)
She goes on to assure us that the right to peaceful protest must be guaranteed, and ‘universities are a place for ideas to be shared and debated’. So far so good. Then we are told about Labour’s mysterious ‘government effort to upskill [ghastly word!] teachers and university staff to tackle anti-Semitism’. We can only hope that this effort, unlike a good many others that have been mooted by the Labour government, is more than pious words.
Oddly, though, there is one point missing. Bridget Phillipson makes no reference to her decision to suspend the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, signed into law in 2023. When ‘pausing’ its implementation, she insisted that anti-Semitism in universities was the key issue. One of her aides absurdly described the Act as ‘a hate-speech charter’, because it could open the door to all sorts of vile propaganda on campus, including Holocaust denial.
This is quite simply not the case. Not just Holocaust denial but threatening behaviour towards Jews by neo-Nazis or anyone else is covered by existing legislation. Far from unleashing a torrent of prejudice and abuse, the Act is intended to ensure that university authorities and student unions take responsibility for ensuring that campuses cease to be places where any group is aggressively targeted and free speech can be protected.
Bridget Phillipson has been influenced, it appears, by the strong views of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Union of Jewish Students (UJS), the latter of whom have spent the last couple of years entranced by the prospect of a Labour government. Starmer’s cohabitation with Corbyn in the shadow cabinet has been conveniently forgotten by them.
I have spoken with the President of the Board of Deputies, but I have to say that he did not, as far as I could tell, understand the terms of the Act. I have put my views to the new President of the Union of Jewish Students, but that too has led nowhere.
Most notably, with the active cooperation of senior Jewish academics – including four Fellows of the British Academy and eight Oxbridge professors – I have tried to secure a meeting with the Secretary of State to argue that the Board of Deputies and the UJS do not speak for the entire Jewish community, especially when it comes to free speech in universities. After all, Bridget Phillipson has been recorded saying, in an interview with The Spectator’s Katy Balls at the Labour conference, that she wants to listen to different views while deciding on what to do with the Act. Why then has she not agreed to meet a delegation of senior Jewish academics who strongly support the Act, and who understand that it will place an obligation on universities to ensure that Jewish and Israeli speakers are able to present their case in campus?
Our group of academics first contacted the Secretary of State on 11 August, requesting a meeting to discuss the Freedom of Speech Act. The wheels of Whitehall turn notoriously slowly, but eventually a reply was sent on 1 September, which alleged that the department was told by Jewish groups that the Freedom of Speech Act would make ‘acting against harassment more difficult’:
Dear Professor Abulafia,
Thank you for your correspondence of 11 August regarding possibly delaying the implementation of various parts of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.
We condemn the rise of antisemitism, as well as other forms of religious and racial hatred on our campuses. Every student, irrespective of their background, should feel safe to pursue their studies at university without fear…Last month, the department announced a refocussed role for the Office for Students to act in students’ interests, and it is focusing on tackling harassment of all kinds in our universities.
Universities, as well as Jewish groups and other stakeholders, told us that the last government’s Freedom of Speech Act made acting against harassment more difficult. This is part of the reason why we are pausing further commencement of the Act while we consider all options.
In reply, I explained why this response was unsatisfactory, noting that we were greatly puzzled by the idea that the Act would make acting against harassment more difficult. We stressed again that ‘the Jewish community does not speak with one voice, and it is important that you are fully aware of the diversity of opinion, especially when it emanates from senior academics with considerable experience of the issues involved.’
Again, we were rebuffed by the department, and told that ‘the Secretary of State’s office is aware of your request and if she is able to meet, they will be in touch to arrange a suitable time.’
This is not the only time it has been impossible to get anything other than a polite dismissal from a public body. At my own university, we have attempted to get a coherent answer out of the Vice-Chancellor and her deputies in Cambridge after they agreed to negotiate with the Palestinian encampment in King’s College about the university’s investments. Our correspondence was dogged by delays and all we ended up receiving were a couple of letters that failed to answer the points we made. We perhaps should not have been surprised. This is a university, after all, where no arrests have been made following the near-destruction of a portrait of Arthur Balfour and the staining of the Senate House with red paint.
The government’s position though is even more concerning. An Act of Parliament which would protect free speech and address harassment decisively is being cast as something that would promote it. Anyone who reads the Act can see that it is completely wrong to suggest it will encourage harassment. But for the time being at least the Secretary of State is refusing to listen to Jewish academics who support the Act. If this Labour government is at all committed to free speech, it should seriously reconsider.
Comments