Banning Debate: a strange way to promote freedom of speech in universities
The Office for Students, the funding body for teaching in English Universities, has told universities to limit the right of students and staff to speak freely on Palestine and Israel. BRICUP (the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine) has responded strongly to this restriction. They point out that the letter bases its view on the widely discredited IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. It seeks to portray as harassment the discomfort felt by some Israel supporting students at hearing factual criticism of Israel’s genocidal actions.
It is ironic that this restriction on debate is issued by the “Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom”. The pervasive government view that speaking in defence of Palestinian Rights is presumptively abusive was prominent when the Conservative administration established this directorate; this malign view has only intensified under the Starmer regime.
MC
Professor Arif Ahmed
Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom Office for Students
Westward House
Lime Kiln Close
Stoke Gifford BRISTOL BS34 8SR
28 November 2025
Dear Professor Ahmed,
We have concerns about your recent communication to university leadership entitled “Harassment and intimidation of Jewish students and staff” which we hope that you will address. We share your aspiration that all students and staff should have “a higher education experience free from harassment within an institutional culture that values open dialogue and debate”. Your letter, nonetheless, undermines that shared aspiration and raises a number of concerns, each of which we address in turn below.
Evidence Base and Proportionality: Under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, universities and the Office for Students itself have a statutory obligation to secure freedom of speech within the law. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires any interference with lawful speech to be “prescribed by law”, “necessary” and “proportionate”. Therefore, in the interest of transparency, please specify the incidents or evidence that prompted your letter. You cite ”recent accounts” but provide no detail. Please also clarify if all universities have been sent this letter, including those that already have in place robust anti-harassment policies, and if so, explain why a blanket letter was warranted.
Remit and Authority: Please explain how your letter falls within the official remit of your role to promote and secure lawful free speech, not to obstruct and deter it; and to do so in a non-partisan manner, uninfluenced by Government policy or external pressures. Please also explain why recommending training on antisemitism lies within the remit of your role.
Primary Legislation and Definition of Antisemitism: Although not explicitly stated, your letter is underpinned by the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, whose conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism is well-evidenced to disproportionately impact on the freedom of speech of students and staff who call for justice for Palestinians and engage in evidence-based criticism of Israel. Furthermore, your letter appears to elevate the non-legally binding IHRA definition of antisemitism above primary legislation, in direct contravention of the Office for Students’ own Regulatory Advice. Please confirm that primary legislation continues to take precedence, and that subjective appeals to “offence” to justify a restriction of lawful free speech remain irrelevant.
Intersections with the Equality Act (2010): The focus in your letter is on the negative experiences of Jewish and Israeli students and staff, ignoring the entanglement of Zionism, Islamophobia and a demonization of pro-Palestine students and staff. Your letter thus hierarchizes different forms of racism (evidenced also in your recommendation of training on antisemitism but not on Islamophobia). Please confirm you have satisfied yourself that your letter is in line with the Equality Act (2010).
In short, we seek urgent assurance and clarification that your letter falls within the remit of your role, is proportionate and necessary, and not in violation of either the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 or the Equality Act (2010).
Thank you for your attention to this letter. We look forward to your response.
Best regards,
On behalf of BRICUP, British Committee for the Universities of Palestine
Suggest they adopt Lord Stephen Sedley’s definition: “Antisemitism is hatred of Jews as Jews”. Seven words that sum up antisemitism. BTW, Sedley is Jewish.
Would the same individual have prioritised the comfort of German students in UK universities during WW2 over the right to protest at the Nazi genocide?
This is ironic since Arif Ahmed used to be a critic of the IHRA. As the Jewish News reported on 16.1.23: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/professor-lined-up-for-governments-academic-free-speech-role-is-ihra-critic/
“In a blog written in February 2021, Ahmed wrote: “I am strongly against Gavin Williamson’s requirement that universities adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.”
“This ‘definition’ is nothing of the kind; adopting it obstructs perfectly legitimate defence of Palestinian rights.
“As such it chills free speech on a matter of the first importance. I hope the Secretary of State reconsiders the need for it; but these new free speech duties ought to rule it out in any case.”
But the Campaign Against Palestinians got on the case and on 2 June 2023 reported that
‘New free speech tsar now acknowledges importance and actual effects of International Definition of Antisemitism’ having previously written on 19.1.23. that ‘Prospective director for free speech on university campuses denounced International Definition of Antisemitism’
Perhaps Arif should be reminded of his previous assessment of the IHRA?
The statistics in true antisemitic events in this country are securely skewed by the ridiculous IHRA conflation of Zionism and Istael and Judaism. In itself it is antisemitic as Starmer is, by disallowing Jewish beliefs that Israel and its reprehensible genocide, does not in fact stand for, or represent all Jewish people.
The curtailment of academic freedom and the misappropriation of Judaism support for racist ideologies like Zionism is disgraceful. These University heads have no place in modern society. The crushing of free speech, especially anti racist and anti oppressive sentiment is really on a pathway to totalitarianism. The UK under Starmer’s Israelphilia has become a draconian and sinister place for all who value compassion and humanitarianism.
To see the likes of Tommy Robinson siding with Israel tells you all you need to know about zionism. It is embraced by the racists. Stand firm in the knowledge that we hold the moral high ground, and even if we do not see the results of our sacrifices, they will pave the way eventually to a better future.