After Corbyn, Israel lobby turns its guns on UK academia

The lack of detail in Bristol’s reason for firing David Miller is deliberate. By hiding behind a vague form of wording, the claim that Miller “did not meet the standards of behaviour we expect from our staff and the University”, allows them to hint that he might be guilty of acts of depravity that the University chooses for some reason – possibly legal — not to itemize. Their adoption of this profoundly duplicitous tactic leads to the suspicion that no such evidence exists. In much the same way the EHRC chose to find members of Labour guilty of two fairly innocuous acts that might (and might not) be interpreted as mildly antisemitic, while hinting that these were only the tip of the iceberg – that certain constraints prevented them from exposing the true extent of poison in Labour’s bloodstream. One of the report’s authors lent further credence to this point by suggesting to The Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland that many of the omitted examples were truly hateful – so hateful, it seems, that they were unable to spell them out. Those who have looked into this matter in depth will have a good idea that the bulk of the iceberg is either not antisemitic at all, or consists of antisemitic acts and messages that – like much of the behavior complained of by Luciana Berger – had nothing to do with the Labour Party.

I am afraid that JVL itself has not helped David Miller’s case by suggesting, it its original report of Miller’s sacking, that he had at some point exaggerated the Israeli government’s global reach. This is a matter where absolute precision is called for if Miller is to be able to defend himself in a court of law, which many think he should.

Teasing out this wretchedly complex matter reduces us to the condition of pedants furiously arguing about the number of angels that can be accommodated on the head of a pin. My mother suffered from antisemitism all her life – her parents were among the six million murdered by the Nazis. She would not have needed to refer to the EHRA definition to tell you what kind of behavior constitutes antisemitism. Similarly I gravely doubt that she would have felt threatened either by David Miller’s work at Bristol, or the lifelong commitment to anti-racism demonstrated by Jeremy Corbyn.

Kuhnberg “The lack of detail in Bristol’s reason for firing David Miller is deliberate. By hiding behind a vague form of wording, the claim that Miller “did not meet the standards of behaviour we expect from our staff and the University”, allows them to hint that he might be guilty of acts of depravity that the University chooses for some reason – possibly legal — not to itemize.”
_______________________________________________________________

Okay. But this will, with absolute certainty, end up in an employment tribunual, and probably, ultimately, in a court of law. It seems likely that the UCU, the lecturers’ union, will also pay for Miller’s legal defence.

At that point, Bristol University will no longer be able to hide behind vague statements, and will have to say exactly why it sacked Prof. Miller. And at that point, too, I suspect the University will lose the case.

Before anyone starts claiming David Miller hasn’t received any support from fellow academics, and complaining of their failure to show solidarity with him (as one poster did in another recent related thread), the following letter has been signed by over 500 people:

Educators and researchers in support of Professor Miller

Public intellectuals, educators and researchers speak out against the censorship campaign targeted at Bristol’s David Miller

https://supportmiller.org/educators-and-researchers

All things have a reaction in equal and opposite form, what will be the general outcome of these attacks on free speech, and even if we do not speak, we think. There is still time for Israel to become kind.

What horrible, sad and frightening events at Bristol University. What nasty people and their crass supporters who have pushed for this. What cowards or worse or dimwits in charge at the University. The vague reason for David Miller’s dismissal is of course similar to the expulsions by the Labour Party, contrary to normal thinking in civilised countries and against established legal procedures. I wish David Miller good luck in his appeals. We are living through evil times. So many people in high positions without the ability to think for themselves and to actually consider the facts. What chance do we have in averting the consequences of climate change? It is sadly evident.

The great danger for Jews is that the assertion that all Jews support the Israeli attacks on the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank is calculated to create prejudice against Jews. It is an anti -Semitic slur.

In answer to Michael Levine, As we can see Jewish people oppose what is happening, but the leverage used by the government of Israel could force Jewish people to the forefront of the global mind and from that springboard devilish people may divide us yet again.

It’s interesting that the mainstream media are currently squealing about academic freedom of expression in relation to transphobia, but are suspiciously silent when it comes to Prof Miller’s academic freedom of expression.

Clearly there is a hierarchy of opinions when it comes to academic freedom of expression.