On Warwick University’s refusal to adopt the IHRA definition
JVL Introduction
Recently the University of Warwick decided against adoption the IHRA definition of antisemitism, saying, in the words of the Vice-Chancellor Stuart Croft, that it did not have “any added value” and to “formally adopt individual definitions of specific forms of discriminatory behaviour” would “inevitably lead to the adoption of a whole series of such definitions”.
Not surprisingly, all hell broke loose. No-one is supposed to question the holy writ of the definition which the government is trying to ram down the throat of all academic institutions in the country
Here 80 members of staff explain why they are standing by their VC.
This article was originally published by The Boar on Thu 6 Feb 2020. Read the original here.
Open letter by Warwick staff urges vice-chancellor to “continue to refuse to adopt” the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism
An open letter urging the University of Warwick’s vice-chancellor to “continue to refuse to adopt” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s definition of anti-Semitism has been signed by almost 80 Warwick members of staff.
Loading article text…
“we expect our right as a minority community to define our own oppression to be respected”
Well – sauce for gander and goose. I’m a member of that minority community – the Labour Party. I find that my community is being oppressed by infiltration by right-wing interests and the Israel Lobby using ‘antisemitism’ as a cover for political acts of prejudice and defamation.
Meanwhile – stick with sanity, Warwick, and resist the sort of exploitation of anti-racism by groups manipulating the concepts of identity and victimhood for political ends.
Courageous.
It is bizarre that JSoc can say “To deny this right, uniquely, to the Jewish people is self-evidently an example of antisemitism” Have they really not noticed that this (denying the right to their own state) is what Israel is doing to the Palestinians?
I like the Churchillian spirit of these guys, who are fighting every inch of ground – the ground where we want our descendants to be able to exercise freedom of speech. They are not appeasing the bullies, or telling us (like we kept hearing at PSC’s last AGM), that the battle over the IHRA is “lost”.
Bravo – Doing what a University should do – Rigorous and clear reasoning.
This feels to me like a blow for the freedoms we need to protect – Minds need to be open and tolerant, not oppressed and suppressed by intolerance.
Well done Warwick. Time to challenge the IHRA definition in court.
In response to a comment I made on skwawkbox in response to a comment HE posted (regarding Jo Bird and Mo Azam being suspended), RH said the following:
‘Note how Warwick University has recently told the Israel Lobby to sod off, and has refused to adopt the IHRA mess of pottage.’
Needless to say, Warwick University did NOT tell the Israeli Lobby to ‘sod off’, and it didn’t ‘refuse’ to adopt the definition, but made a decision not to adopt it for a variety of reasons, and RH uses such hyperbole for the obvious reason, and DOESN’T use such hyperbole on THIS website ALSO for obvious reasons. Because he knows you would be highly unlikely to publish it.
And needless to say, he cites Warwick University’s decision not to adopt the definition so as to criticise the Labour Party/Jeremy Corbyn for not having done so, but omits to mention the hundreds of newspaper articles (let alone TV and radio coverage) over a period of several months criticising and bringing pressure to bear on Jeremy and the LP to adopt the definition and all its examples – which was relentless – none of which happened regarding Warwick University of course.
https://skwawkbox.org/2020/02/07/bird-azam-are-suspended-nec-candidates/
In these dark times, let us honour the courage of this group of academics, who have had the courage to take a stand against the deadly contagion of ethnic fanaticism sweeping across the world and absurdly justifying crimes of ethnic cleansing with vacuous references to “self-determination”. Not for them “la trahison des clercs”.