SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
academic freedom
UK Court Rules Fired Professor's Anti-Zionist Views Are 'Not Antisemitic'
David Miller was terminated by the University of Bristol for expressing beliefs including that Zionism is "ideologically bound to lead to the practices of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide."
Oct 15, 2024
An employment court in the United Kingdom this week published its full ruling in the case of David Miller, a University of Bristol professor whose firing due to alleged antisemitism was deemed wrongful by the same tribunal earlier this year.
In February, the Employment Tribunal found that Miller was unjustly dismissed in 2021 from his position as a professor of political sociology at the University of Bristol following complaints by Jewish students who felt "unsafe and unprotected" on campus.
Miller argued before the tribunal that Zionism—the movement for a Jewish homeland in Palestine—"necessarily calls for the displacement and disenfranchisement of non-Jews in favor of Jews, and it is therefore ideologically bound to lead to the practices of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide."
Employment Judge Rohan Pirani wrote in the tribunal's new unanimous 120-page judgment that Miller's views on Zionism are "worthy of respect in a democratic society," are "not incompatible with human dignity," and are not in "conflict with the fundamental rights of others."
Pirani said Miller's stance "amounted to a philosophical belief" and that while it was "ill-judged to express himself in the way he did," his actions were legal, "not antisemitic, did not incite violence, and did not pose any threat to any person's health or safety."
In a social media post on Tuesday, Miller welcomed the tribunal's finding that his beliefs are "protected" and are not—as the University of Bristol attempted to argue—"akin to Nazism."
"It is self-evident that racism is wrong and offensive to human dignity," Miller added. "Zionism, being inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial, is therefore also offensive to human dignity. It is because I believed this and was 'prepared to say it out loud' that I believe I lost my job."
In the tribunal's ruling, Pirani wrote that Miller's views on Zionism were "related to his area of academic expertise and research and were informed by that research and expertise."
According to the decision:
The claimant went on to explain what he regards as the overtly racist and colonial framing within the works of Zionism's founding ideologues. He also references the fact that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have found Israel to be "an apartheid state." The claimant gave examples in his evidence of what he regards as "racist laws" which he claims are a necessary corollary of Zionism and Israel's laws regarding emigration or "return."
"We conclude that [Miller's views] have played a significant role in his life for many years," Pirani wrote. "We are satisfied that they are genuinely held. He is and was a committed anti-Zionist and his views on this topic have played a significant role in his life for many years."
Numerous pro-Palestine academics, artists, media professionals, and others have been fired or otherwise punished in Western nations since before the current war on Gaza for which Israel is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice. Such incidents have increased dramatically since last October. Jews who support Palestinian liberation and oppose Israeli crimes in Palestine and beyond have not been spared from such repercussions.
The U.K. tribunal's judgment stands in stark contrast to a pair of bills passed since last October by the U.S. House of Representatives declaring that anti-Zionism is antisemitism and affirming the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) controversial working definition of antisemitism, which, while not explicitly mentioning anti-Zionism, includes "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination" and "claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor."
Pirani's ruling cites a professor who noted that the IHRA definition is "controversial," with "some believing that it is imprecise and can be used to conflate criticism of the policies of the Israeli government and of Zionism with antisemitism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bridging Academia and Activism: Meet the 2024 Freedom Scholars
From poetry to policy, these scholar-activists are illuminating a path toward a more just future.
Sep 18, 2024
Today, Marguerite Casey Foundation welcomes the 2024 Freedom Scholar cohort. This year we are celebrating visionary scholar-activists at the forefront of transformative social change as well as a total of $9.5 million in awards to 38 scholars over the last five years—a powerful investment in ideas that accompany movements for collective well-being and social change.
Our Freedom Scholar awards, launched in 2020, are a testament to the critical role scholarship plays in supporting social movements. By awarding $250,000 in unrestricted funds to each scholar, Marguerite Casey Foundation (MCF) is supporting research, writing, and teaching that bolsters our collective belief in a better, more just world.
Freedom Scholars: Bridging Scholarship and Social Movements
The Freedom Scholar awards are more than simply an acknowledgment of academic excellence—they are part of MCF’s mission to build a country where our government prioritizes the needs of excluded and underrepresented people. These scholars play a vital role in bridging the gap between academic theory and grassroots organizing.
Consider the recent surge in student-led protests on campuses across the U.S. From Princeton to UCLA, Freedom Scholars have been key supporters of student-led efforts to demand divestment and win a cease-fire, bringing with them years of research and strategic thinking to help activists push for transformative demands and envision systemic change. Their work is fundamental to contesting power and developing new models of governance that serve the many, rather than the few.
The 2024 Freedom Scholars continue this tradition. These are no ordinary academics—they are change-makers who understand that the work of liberation doesn’t begin and end in the classroom.
Meet the 2024 Cohort: Visionaries for Justice and Equity
This year’s Freedom Scholar cohort reflects extensive expertise across disciplines and is united by their collective commitment to a more just world.
Take Natalie Diaz, for example, a poet and professor at Arizona State University whose work examines the intersections of Indigeneity, language, and power. She invites us to rethink how language can either perpetuate violence or reclaim histories. In a time when Indigenous languages and cultures are under threat, Diaz’s scholarship is particularly urgent, illuminating the vital role language plays in advancing collective liberation.
Then there’s Dr. Daniel Martinez HoSang from Yale University, whose research unpacks the politics of multicultural right-wing extremism. Dr. HoSang’s work sharpens our understanding of how racist dynamics operate within seemingly inclusive frameworks, highlighting the deep-rooted systems of inequality that continue to shape society. His work is not just a critique but a call to action, urging movements to confront these structures wherever we see them.
The Freedom Scholars of 2024 are not just theorists—they are strategists, organizers, and visionaries.
Dr. Nadine Naber from the University of Illinois Chicago brings to the cohort a community-engaged scholarship that draws important connections between global struggles for liberation, with a particular focus on Palestinian freedom. Dr. Naber’s work in solidarity movements teaches us the power of linking our struggles—showing that the fight for justice is always interconnected, whether it’s in Chicago, Gaza, or beyond.
Finally, Dr. K. Sabeel Rahman, a legal scholar at Cornell Law School, has been instrumental in helping policymakers and organizers engage more critically with the concept of public goods. His research explores how we must rethink public goods—such as healthcare, education, and housing—not as commodities, but as essential components of a thriving, equitable society. By leveraging legal theory for practical policy solutions, Dr. Sabeel’s work helps movements craft a vision for governance that prioritizes the well-being of our communities over corporate profits.
A Commitment to Transformative Change
The Freedom Scholars of 2024 are not just theorists—they are strategists, organizers, and visionaries. Their work represents the bold ideas and imaginative thinking essential for any social movement to succeed. And it’s precisely this kind of visionary work that Marguerite Casey Foundation is committed to supporting.
What sets the Freedom Scholar awards apart is the financial freedom they afford recipients. The $250,000 prize comes with no strings attached, allowing scholars to invest in the work that matters most to them. Some have used MCF funding to launch nonprofit organizations, while others focus on building movement infrastructure by supporting existing nonprofits, publishing movement-oriented literature, or opening retreat houses where organizers can strategize and recharge. This flexibility ensures that the scholars can meet their needs and goals in real time, without the bureaucratic constraints that often accompany traditional funding models for academics.
Looking Ahead: Building a Future of Justice and Liberation
As we celebrate the contributions of the 2024 Freedom Scholars, it’s clear that their work will have a lasting impact not just in academia, but in the communities they serve. Their scholarship is grounded in real-world struggles and solutions, and their commitment to justice is unwavering. They are the thinkers and doers helping to fuel the next generation of liberation movements.
I look forward to seeing the ongoing impact of the 2024 cohort and am proud that MCF remains steadfast in its commitment to amplifying transformative scholarship for meaningful change.
Together, with these visionary scholars, we are building a future where equity, justice, and liberation are not just ideals but lived realities for all.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Universities Welcome Students and Staff Back to School With Repression
Administrators, driven by fear, political pressure, and donors, have engineered a power grab bypassing the established structures of governance to securitize campuses and restrict free speech.
Sep 17, 2024
In the 1960s, social critic Paul Goodman offered a parable to describe what had gone wrong with American higher education.
He wrote:
Millennia ago, there were wise people who knew many things that they were eager to share. Young people came to them and asked, “Would you teach us?” And they did. Over time more students came to learn. And after learning, there were many more wise ones able and willing to teach. The enterprise grew with more students, more teachers, and more subjects to teach. It became so complicated that the wise ones hired clerks to keep track of who was teaching, what they were teaching, and which students were with which teachers. The problem today is that the clerks are running the show deciding who will teach, what they will teach, and who is qualified to learn.
The lesson conveyed by this parable is relevant to understanding worrisome developments unfolding on U.S. college campuses. Israel’s assault on Gaza, following Hamas’ attack of October 7, spawned a nationwide revolt of the young. While organised groups helped mobilize demonstrations demanding a cease-fire and Palestinian rights, the breadth and depth of the effort was more akin to a spontaneous eruption.
In this regard, it was not unlike earlier spontaneous protest movements that sprang up over the past decade: the Women’s March, the “Welcome immigrants” demonstrations that filled U.S. airports in response to the “Muslim ban,” the student-led “March for our Lives” after repeated mass shootings, and the Black Lives Matter movement that erupted after the murder of George Floyd.
The cease-fire/pro-Palestinian movement had much in common with these earlier efforts. Its politics skewed left, it was youth-led, and it was racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse. The difference was that a main locus of its activities was college campuses.
While many have expressed concern that these polices are similar to McCarthy-era repression and intimidation, equally worrisome is what all of this means for the future of the university.
It began with demonstrations, teach-ins, and vigils. But as the war continued into the spring and the world became aware of the mass killings and devastation inflicted by Israel—and the Joe Biden administration’s unconditional support in the face of the enormity of human loss and suffering—the intensity of the student response grew as well. This gave birth to the “encampment movement” that rapidly spread to hundreds of campuses across the country.
From the early stages, the campus anti-war protests were confronted by a number of malign actors who sought to silence or discredit the dissent. Charging that administrations weren’t acting to quash the protests, a number of pro-Israel donors and trustees at some elite universities withdrew their financial support.
While most of the early protests were self-policed, there were often instances where students on both sides of this emotionally charged conflict engaged in hurtful or threatening behaviors. At this point, a second group of malign actors entered the fray.
A few prominent pro-Israel Jewish organisations drummed up an exaggerated campaign charging that the entire protest effort was at its core antisemitic and should be stopped to protect Jewish students who felt threatened or excluded. They published reports, conducted a huge media campaign, and testified before Congress making their case. While some examples they used were clearly hurtful, the bulk of the instances they cited were not, by any reasonable standard, antisemitic.
This effort was enough to provide the impetus for a third group of malign actors: Republican members of Congress. For the GOP, this was “a perfect storm.” The cast of villains were “elite” universities with their spoiled upper-class students, those who oppose Israel, and Democrats who tolerate, or even encourage, disruptive behaviors.
Ivy League university presidents were summoned to testify before congressional committees, where they were badgered and confronted by deceptive and misleading questions designed more for media hits than information. The pressures placed on these presidents after they bungled their confrontations before different committees resulted in many feeling compelled to resign.
Republicans sensing victory and smelling blood in the water went further in their campaigns of harassment—threatening funding for colleges that didn’t act as the GOP saw fit and demanding more oversight. They also moved from maligning the movement as antisemitic to also supporting “terrorist ideology.”
Confronted by these multi-layered challenges and fearful of the pressures from donors and congressional meddling, many universities reacted by inviting in police to dismantle the protests—often using brutal force. In a few weeks, police arrested more than 3,000 students nationwide, with universities suspending many and banning several student groups from operating on campus.
When students and faculty returned to their campuses this month, they discovered that college administrators had been hard at work during the summer revamping policies with regard to both allowable protest activity and acceptable speech. While there were some differences from campus to campus, the new regulations had enough in common to lead researchers to uncover an industry of “security consultants” who had been brought in to advise on changing campus policies and practices.
The new procedures place limits on time, place, and duration of protests and require that sponsoring groups secure permission for protest activity and, in some instances, the content of signs to be used. Some faculty have been required to submit their curriculum for review (not only by administrators but by requesting members of Congress). More problematic has been the fact that all of these changes have been made without involvement of the schools’ faculty or student senates or the established faculty/student judicial committees. Instead of dealing with infractions internally, they involve external police enforcement.
While many have expressed concern that these polices are similar to McCarthy-era repression and intimidation, equally worrisome is what all of this means for the future of the university. And this is where Goodman’s parable is relevant, because what we have is a situation where the clerks, driven by fear, political pressure, and donors have engineered a power grab bypassing the established structures of governance and have securitized campuses, restricting both academic freedom and freedom of expression.
And all of this was done to silence a new awakening in support of Palestinian human rights.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular