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”
Arieh Kovler
Rob, if you’re the sort of person who frequently compares people and governments to Nazis, then it might not be antisemitic for you to do the same about Israel – though it is a generally hurtful attack on the victims of the worst atrocity in human history. The EUMC working definition says that, considering the context, equating Israel to Nazi Germany can sometimes be an antisemitic attack. This sounds right to me.
When you say that the occupied territories have been “occupied now for 65 years”[sic], what do you consider “occupied territory”? As you can’t mean the West Bank or Gaza, which were captured by Israel 44 years ago in the Six Day War, I assume you mean the whole State of Israel is “occupied territory”?
Will van Peer
Anti-Semitism is a horrible and vile crime. But a friend of mine (himself Jewish) once said that what the greatest danger to Jews nowadays was not anti-Semitism but SEMITISM: the notion that nothing that Jewish people do can be wrong… I could not agree more!….
Rob Brookes
“when you say that the occupied territories have been “occupied now for 65 years”[sic], what do you consider “occupied territory”? As you can’t mean the West Bank or Gaza, which were captured by Israel 44 years ago in the Six Day War, I assume you mean the whole State of Israel is “occupied territory””
OK I mean 44 years, does it make a difference? Why can’t I compare some Israeli and Uk policies to Nazi policies without being racist. Of course I could be racist but that does not make me racist/antisemite. What is the point of saying a policy could be anti-semite? It could be fascist, stalinist,informed, hurtful, supportive or ignorant. I just don’t see the point of the statement.
George McLean
@ 16 and 17 Arieh Kovler
I don’t think I did say that I “couldn’t believe that UCU wouldn’t recognise antisemitism when confronted by it” (at all), and nor did I say that the UCU could “explain away” your examples (I said they may be explicable, but you have still not given me the relevant links so I can’t check the context and accuracy of them). I don’t need to define anything – the EUMC is the organisation that wants a definition that the UCU has to agree to. I’m saying the definition as it stands is unworkable and I asked whether an expreseed support for a single, secular state of “Israel-Palestine” would be anti-semitic under the EUMC definition. You accept that the “working definition doesn’t answer the question definitively. In fact, it doesn’t answer very many questions definitively.” I agree – that is why I do npot find the definition helpful, and would find difficulty in adopting it. However, you then say “that sometimes denying Jewish self-determination could be antisemitic in certain contexts”. If, by “Jewish self-determination” you mean that there will be a state that must remain “Jewish” (in religion, culturally and ethnically) then I think (a) you disagree with my wish for a secular state; and (b) democrats would be nervous: for example, if Jewish people in such a self-determining state were to become the minority and Arabic people a majority, and the majority no longer wished to have Judaism as the state religion, would the majority view be allowed to prevail constitutionally? Or should such a state have some mechanism for ensuring Jewish people are always in a majority (and if so, how large)? What would that mechanism be?
Don’t Distort Macpherson Report’s Recommendations on Racism to Attack the UCU « Antony Lerman
[…] since the vote, a similar and perhaps even identical strategy is being advocated. For example, Adam Langleben, writing on the Left Foot Forward website, says: [The 'working definition's] widespread adoption would appear to be in line with the […]