University & Colleges Union (UCU) - an organisation that has suffered a series of resignations by Jewish members claiming institutional antisemitism - is fanning those fears
Adam Langleben is a Political Adviser to Labour peer Lord Janner of Braunstone
Last weekend, the University and College Union (UCU) – an organisation that has suffered a series of resignations by Jewish members claiming institutional anti-Semitism – fanned those fears by actively voting to ignore a definition of anti-Semitism increasingly accepted on UK campuses.
A motion put forward by the UCU executive committee stated:
“Congress notes with concern that the so-called ‘EUMC working definition of antisemitism’, while not adopted by the EU or the UK government and having no official status, is being used by bodies such as the NUS and local student unions in relation to activities on campus.”
“Congress believes that the EUMC definition confuses criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine antisemitism, and is being used to silence debate about Israel and Palestine on campus.”
However, it would seem as if the UCU have not even read the definition as the document clearly states:
“Criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.”
The motion went on to propose:
1. That UCU will make no use of the EUMC definition (e.g. in educating members or dealing with internal complaints);
2. That UCU will dissociate itself from the EUMC definition in any public discussion on the matter in which is involved;
3. That UCU will campaign for open debate on campus concerning Israel’s past history and current policy, while continuing to combat all forms of racial or religious discrimination.
This motion follows a spate of resignations over the past six years by Jewish members, with many citing institutional anti-Semitism as the reason. Following these resignations (the most recent of which happened yesterday), the UCU did not investigate these claims and has continued to ignore accusations from Jewish members.
A motion to look into the resignations was voted down by UCU’s Congress in 2009; this latest motion at UCU congress takes this a step further. The UCU can no longer be accused of simply being complacent about anti-Semitism, they can now be accused of blocking action on it.
The EUMC definition is by no means a definitive definition of anti-Semitism – anti-Semitism by nature changes with the times. The EUMC definition is one definition for our time, and the definition that the democratically elected representative bodies of the Jewish community broadly agree on serves as a useful guideline for understanding what anti-Semitism is and how it can manifest itself.
Its widespread adoption would appear to be in line with the recommendations of the MacPherson Inquiry, whose report following the death of Stephen Lawrence stated that an incident is racist if:
“…it is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.”
The MacPherson Inquiry goes on to define institutional racism:
‘The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin.
“It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.”
This seems to be exactly what has occurred in the UCU. The UCU have continually ignored accusations of discrimination against Jewish members. In 2007, Gert Weisskirchen, then SPD member of the Bundestag Parliament in Germany and personal representative of the Chairman-in-Office on Combating Anti-Semitism, requested a meeting with the UCU. UCU refused to meet him.
When David Hirsh of ENGAGE and Goldsmiths College made a complaint about institutional anti-Semitism to UCU in 2008, the union’s response in dismissing his complaint made no mention of anti-Semitism. More recently, in December 2009, UCU invited Bonganu Masuku, a South African trade unionist who had just been found by the South African Human Rights Commission to have made anti-Semitic remarks, to the UK to speak about boycotting Israel.
When challenged about Mr Masuku’s comments, UCU defended him by saying the claims against him were “not credible”.
Last week, The Board of Deputies of British Jews, The Jewish Leadership Council and the Community Security Trust jointly signed a letter to general secretary (and Left Foot Forward contributor) Sally Hunt asking her to drop this motion and to take the concerns of Jewish members seriously. These organisations also wrote to Trevor Phillips of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
Phillips stands by the MacPherson Inquiry and stated:
“…if the object of harassment or attacks regards her treatment as being anti-Semitic, even if the perpetrator maintains that their action is politically motivated, the presumption is that the victim’s perception is what defines the incident.”
He went on to suggest that legal problems could arise under the Human Rights and Equality Acts if the motion was fully implemented.
All trades unions ought to take note: Accusations of racism, of any kind, need to be taken seriously and not simply ignored or written off. Any political party or a trade union faced with accusations of racism or discrimination should, at the very least, properly investigate them rather than pass motions denying there’s a problem.
Jewish organisations are now calling for an EHRC formal inquiry, a demand supported by John Mann MP. For the UCU, not only to ignore the concerns of its Jewish academics and community members – but to actively vote to dismiss them out of hand – disgraces the Left.
50 Responses to “UCU is actively alienating its Jewish members”
George McLean
@7. Arieh Kolver
Please provide a link showing the context of the UCU “policy … that ‘Criticism of Israel cannot be construed as anti-semitic’, ever”. The “ever”, incidentally, appears to be your word, not the UCU’s, so you’ll need to produce evidence that that is really the UCU position, not yours. In the substantive line of debate, I am waiting for a response to my example at comment 6 above: sc. whether my support for a single, secular state is anti-semitic in terms of the EUMC definition (and please show your working :-)). (I can’t comment on the UCU position on the other situations you cite as I am not a member of the UCU, and again don’t know the context of the statements you report. That does not, however, mean they are not explicable.)
Arieh Kovler
@George
You said you couldn’t believe that UCU wouldn’t recognise antisemitism when confronted by it, so I gave you several examples. You respond that you don’t know the cases but it’s possible that they could all be explained away. That, itself, is a troubling position. It’s always possible to explain away particular racist incidents – that one was a joke, that one a mistake, that one wasn’t a big deal, he was drunk that one time, you should lighten up, you’re not offended, you’re just faking it to get what you want. We’ve all heard these claims before in the context of fighting discrimination.
The EUMC working definition doesn’t answer the question definitively. In fact, it doesn’t answer very many questions definitively. It’s supposed to provide a framework for discussing antisemitism. The relevant excerpt from the working definition for your question is below, and I have added emphasis:
I read that as saying that sometimes denying Jewish self-determination could be antisemitic in certain contexts. Simply stating (as you do) that you support one state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean sea isn’t antisemitic, any more than noting that young black men are proportionately more likely to commit gun crime is racist. But in both cases, there are contexts in which those statements can be made in a racist fashion and used in a racist way.
Arieh Kovler
@George
One other point – what do you mean when you say that Arabs and Jews are both “Semites”, as you do at 2 and 6?
Is that an ethno-racial claim? Do you consider East Africans to all be Hamites? Is it a linguistic claim? When you say that Jews and Arabs are “Semites”, what do you mean by a “Semite”?
Arthur Weiss
. @UCU is actively alienating its Jewish members: http://bit.ly/kYxjSw writes @AdamLangleben
Rob Brookes
Is the ECU alienating most Jews or most Zionist jews? I think as is common the Zionist lobby is trying to define criticism of Israel policy as antisemitic to try to discredit the views of increasing numbers of people (many of them Jewish)who are appalled at Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.
Israel is a state. To criticize a state rightly or wrongly is not racist though the criticisms of its people may be.
Eg “Comparing Contemporary Israeli policies to the Nazi’s is antisemitic.”
one of the EUMC examples. Why is it racist(antisemetic). I would say the imprisonment, torture, repression and indiscriminate killings of Palestinians on the occupied territories (occupied now for 65 years, how long can a territory be occupied?) is akin to Nazi policies. I do not accept that I am racist. I could compare some of the UK policies to Nazi ones, eg the use of information gained from torture.
Rob