Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-259)
14 DECEMBER 2004
MR DANNY
STONE, MS
LUCIANA BERGER,
MR RAJA
MIAH MBE, MS
CAROLYN GOMM,
MS JOSIE
TYAS AND
MS KARINE
BAILEY
Q240 Mr Prosser: On that issue of some
lecturers or professors effectively preaching anti-Semitism at
whatever level, what happens in those circumstances? Are they
challenged by the students? Is there a row?
Mr Stone: Yes. Essentially there
are two levels of what happens. On one level the students usually
make a complaint. There is often some confusion as to who they
should make the complaint to. Making the complaint directly to
the lecturer is not necessarily an option. In some universities
it will be to their equality unit. We would advise them to go
to their Students Union or to the National Union of Students.
The problem is that a lot of the time on the other level, we,
as the Union of Jewish Students, try to represent their case,
but it is excused as freedom of speech or there is no procedure
in place to deal with that.
Q241 Mr Clappison: Picking up on that
last point, there is a clear distinction between the views which
people can legitimately have about the Middle East and, for example,
about the Israeli Government and what it does or does not do?
There is a distinction between that and expressing hostility towards
people because they are Jewish or because they are of Israeli
nationality. Do you feel that distinction is always observed?
Ms Berger: Maybe I can come in
with my personal experience on this. I have been in the student
group for five years, during which time I have never ever publicly
spoken on the Israel Palestinian conflict in the work that I do.
However, in the past year, to give an example, I have had a tirade
of abusive e-mails calling me, amongst other things, "dirty
Zionist pig". Obviously that has got connotations in relation
to the situation in Israel. So the distinction mainly is a kind
of vitriol of anti Zionist language. Definitions are slim, but—
Q242 Mr Clappison: Do you think the universities
could be more careful or vigorous in observing these distinction?
Mr Stone: Absolutely. One of the
things, which is a recommendation of ours, is that there is some
kind of review of the Education Act, which is, in principle, an
excellent Act which rightly protects freedom of speech on campus.
We are finding over and over again that that right is being abused
and that people are stepping beyond the mark. There was a lecturer
in York where, I think it was the Arch Bishop of Jerusalem—I
will get clarification—spoke about Israel against a number
of government policies. UJS has always been very clear on our
pro two-state solution. We have signed agreements with the General
Union of Palestinian Students and we are very open in our search
for peace. What we found is that this particular representative
talked about government policies and then went on to talk about
a Zionist conspiracy. That is the problem for us, where academics
cross the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and the
right of the existence of the state, or, of course, any Jewish
conspiracies.
Q243 Mr Clappison: There have been examples
recently of certain academics who have tried to move beyond criticising
Israel and the Israeli Government into organising a sort of boycott
of academics because they come from Israel and are of Israeli
nationality. Would you have concerns about that and its spill-over
effect possibly into international students of Israeli origin
or even Jewish students in this country?
Mr Stone: Absolutely. Again, we
came out very strongly against the academic boycott, not only
because it is an anathema to what academia is all about, it is
about sharing information and making the world a better place
based on being able to experience more together. Specifically
the case that comes to mind is that of Professor Wilkin at Oxford
who denied an Israeli student a place to study a PhD at Oxford.
That is one example where the boycott may have spilled over and
an Israeli student, an international student wanting to study
here, is denied a basic right because of his nationality, the
colour of his passport.
Q244 Mr Clappison: More generally, these
are pretty dangerous waters, are they not, because we have seen
from Europe that there have been a lot of problems for university
students and school students arising out of those who were trying
to import the Middle Eastern debate into the educational framework,
the educational situation, by taking it out on school students
and university students. That is something which has clearly happened
a great deal in Europe. Do you have concerns about anything similar
in this country or any experience of anything similar happening?
Mr Stone: In our submission we
talk a lot about motions, motions that have gone into student
unions, where there has been a call for a boycott of Israeli goods
or an anti-Zionist motion, as such. What has happened with almost
every single one of those motions, and we can prove it, is there
has been an anti-Semitic attack, Manchester being the best example.
A motion was put forward and the resident Jewish housing was attacked:
a knife in the door, a screwdriver through the letter box. That
is what we see when the Middle East debate gets brought up on
campus. There never seems to be a level discussion, a principal
discussion, it always seems to take that extra step where the
Middle East turns into these attacks on Jewish students.
Q245 Mr Clappison: Are you happy with
what has been done by the university authorities about this?
Mr Stone: Not particularly. We
have a number of concerns and a number of recommendations as well.
I mentioned before, the Education Act. Vice Chancellors, I think
rightly so, have been very frightened to tackle the issue of the
Middle East. They do not want to be seen to be taking sides. We
say there is a very clear line where you step beyond, as I said
before, the Middle Eastern debate and into anti-Semitism or into
incitement. Maybe Luciana can talk about the Race Relations Act.
Q246 Mr Clappison: Have you got anything
briefly to add to this?
Ms Berger: There is an anomaly
that student unions are not covered under the Race Relations (Amendment)
Act and their public duty to promote good race relations. Obviously,
they are also in receipt of funding, they have got grants from
either the college or university which is tax-payers' money, but
they do not fall under the bracket of a public institution. So
that is a problem. In itself actually a lot of student unions
have been very good in campaigning work they have done to hold
their own institutions to account under the Race Relations (Amendment)
Act—it is a big area that we are working on—but there
are also bad examples where groups within student unions have
taken liberties or they have organised events using university
resources for events where people have spoken against Israel or
there has been incitement to be anti-Israel.
Q247 Mr Clappison: Can I move on to PeaceMaker.
You have told us in the written evidence you submitted to us about
a general lack of awareness amongst young people about international
events and the international background of Muslim young people
you said that they do tend to be more politically aware but that
there does tend to be what you describe as a "them and us"
perspective on their part. Can you enlarge on that and say what
you think can be done to help, in the one case, to improve understanding
and international relations and, in the case of the Muslim young
people, what can be done to bridge that perception of them and
us?
Mr Miah: In terms of the understanding,
it is clearer and better education and education responsive to
current political debate in a way that people can understand and
engage in. What was really interesting was that in some of the
schools we went in the teachers had no understanding of what was
taking place, never mind the young people themselves, and we found
that surprising.
Ms Gomm: Some people that we worked
with, adults that we worked with, did not know the differences
between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It was at that level.
Q248 Chairman: So in fact it was not
just the young people that did not understand it, it was the people
you might have expected to understand. Can I ask one further question
to PeaceMaker in this group? Listening to what has been going
on in university campuses, and this is obviously organised groups
who are pushing for a particular view about the Middle East or
whatever, from the young people you were talking with, whose views
you gave us in your report, did you get the impression that any
of those young people were involved in any organised group, whether
Islamic extremist groups or extreme right-wing groups or mainstream
political groupings, or were they just young people who did not
have much involvement at all in any side of politics or movement
and you were just picking up their views?
Ms Tyas: It came across to me
that they were not part of any groups or really they should not
know anything if they are not taught anything. I think if there
were more organisations like PeaceMaker, then these problems of
confusion would be broken down.
Ms Bailey: It is the same really.
They all seem to have a basic knowledge but not that much. Even
if there were more organisations about terrorism or racism, like
PeaceMaker, in the school in school hours I think there would
be more cultural diversity. I think they would learn much more
and it would educate them.
Q249 Chairman: Raja Miah, can I ask you
specifically, because you have been involved in PeaceMaker for
quite some time, is the situation for the work that you are doing
worse now than it was in 2001 because of terrorism?
Mr Miah: Yes, it legitimises racism.
That was a clear message we were getting. Many of our white young
people felt 9/11 legitimised racism, and in fact many of our Muslim
young people also felt it legitimised segregation and a more insular
Muslim looking at things instead of promoting this concept of
Britishness. We have struggled with that.
Q250 David Winnick: Carrying on the answer
that was given by Mr Stone, can I be quite clear on this issue.
If universities, be it students or academics who totally condemn
the present policies of the Israeli Government, do not question
the right of Israel to exist but totally oppose the occupation
policies of what is happening as a result of the killing of Palestinians,
do you consider that perfectly legitimate, nothing connected with
anti-Semitism?
Mr Stone: The way that we set
it out is that there are certain red lines that have to be stepped
over in order for us to class comments as anti-Semitism, that
is that Israelis class as the ultimate evil which for us feeds
into demonisation and dehumanisation of Jewish students, that
means comparing Israel to Apartheid, that means calling Zionism
or Israel racist in its fundamental being or comparing it to Nazis
or the holocaust. If they are talking about government policies,
as far as we are concerned that is not anti-Semitism. In some
cases it may help whip up tension in the classroom, but we would
consider it anti-Semitism.
Q251 David Winnick: Because if you look
at the correspondence column in the Jewish Chronicle, which I
see from time to time, the criticism of Israel is quite clear.
There is no censorship, as far as I can see, in the Jewish Chronicle.
You can hardly describe that as anti-Semitism?
Ms Berger: I think it is the ramifications
of what is said and how it is said and what the results are of
that that we saw on campus, as Danny outlined, in Manchester.
I think in the evidence we have outlined quite a few examples
of when these debates happen and there is this vilification of
the country and this red line is crossed and what that then spills
over to the effects on Jewish students.
Q252 David Winnick: You mention a Dr
Queen at Birmingham University. You say that on his website favourable
reference was made to Irvine, whose reputation was totally destroyed,
whatever reputation was left in the recent court case. Do you
know what has happened to Dr Queen?
Mr Stone: It is a very grey example
of good practice from a university. What happened was that, following
a series of letters that we wrote and a series of letters from
students, the university decided that they would ensure academics
had only links on their websites relating to their course and
not to their own personal views and that personal websites could
be put up anywhere else on the internet, but not under the banner
of Birmingham University. The problem specifically with Dr Queen
was that we asked that he go through some form of advanced
equal opportunities training. That I know of, he has not had to
take that.
Q253 David Winnick: He continues to teach?
Mr Stone: Sorry.
Q254 David Winnick: The person in question,
Dr Queen, continues to teach?
Mr Stone: Yes.
Q255 David Winnick: As far as SOAS (School
of Oriental and African Studies) University of London, you say
Jewish students feel very uncomfortable. Have you taken that up
with the head of the college in response?
Mr Stone: Absolutely. I met with
Professor Bundy, I think it was last week, and we decided to keep
a channel of communication open. He has agreed to help us gain
contact within the Students Union there. There has been some progress
made. Unfortunately that was offset by a conference which was
aimed to reinstate the academic boycott held last Sunday where
a number of comments were made by people in the conference and
outside again comparing Israel to Germany in the 1940s. Professor
Bundy and I are in discussions because we have different takes
on how seriously those comments should be taken.
Q256 David Winnick: So it is an on-going
dialogue, is it, with the head of the school?
Mr Stone: Yes, we are trying to
ensure that we can do the best for Jewish students by speaking
with the school.
Q257 David Winnick: I have not heard
the accusation before that Jewish students feel intimidated by
SOAS. It is a very serious accusation.
Mr Stone: Absolutely.
Q258 David Winnick: But you are standing
by it?
Mr Stone: Absolutely.
Q259 David Winnick: Coming to the written
evidence, you mention the work you do with other students and
minority organisations. Have you drawn, either of you, any particular
lessons from this? Muslim students, presumably, as well.
Ms Berger: Yes. There is a lot
of very good ongoing and increasing work done on a grassroots
level in terms of interfaith relations. The Union of Jewish Students
has just appointed a full-time anti-racism and interfaith officer
working with Jewish societies on a local level to help them carry
out those activities. It is quite a new concept within the student
movement interfaith activities, but it is being taken very seriously
and it is being promoted. We do a lot of work with the interfaith
network in distributing their new Connective Eye which is offering
student unions useful advice on how to carry out those kinds of
activities, and in the New Year we are holding the first ever
religious understanding and interfaith conference for student
officers both raising the awareness of the religious deeds of
students and introducing the concept of interfaith activity on
campus.
| 
