By Michael Rubenstein

Date:
01/07/2008

Issue No:
178

The University and College Union is facing charges of institutional racism and antisemitism after the union adopted a motion at its national congress on 28 May 2008 calling on union members “to consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions”.

The resolution noted “the apparent complicity of most of the Israeli academy” in the “continuation of illegal settlement, killing of civilians and the impossibility of civil life” in Palestine. It pointed to “legal attempts to prevent the UCU debating boycott of Israeli academic institutions” and affirmed that “criticism of Israel or Israeli policy are not, as such, antisemitic”. Although the motion carefully avoided directly using the word “boycott”, it resolved that “colleagues be asked to consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions, and to discuss the occupation with individuals and institutions concerned, including Israeli colleagues with whom they are collaborating.” In addition, the union was asked to “promote a wide discussion by colleagues of the appropriateness of continued educational links with Israeli academic institutions”.

The resolution adopted appears to be inconsistent with the requirements of the Race Relations Act and potentially unlawful in a number of respects. The Act makes it unlawful to directly or indirectly discriminate against a person on grounds of ethnic origins by subjecting him to a detriment or to subject a person to harassment on grounds of ethnic origins. These prohibitions are applied to trade unions by s.11.

The policy of asking UCU members “to consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions” inevitably will have a disproportionately adverse impact on Jewish members of the UCU, who are much more likely than non-Jewish members to have such links. Implementation of this policy, therefore, is prima facie indirectly discriminatory and it is difficult to see how it could be regarded as objectively justified.

The union itself is potentially liable for procuring, inducing or knowingly aiding an unlawful act. It is also potentially liable for racial harassment of its Jewish members, who are to be disproportionately singled out by other members and asked to justify their links with Israeli universities. This may well be regarded as unwanted conduct on grounds of a union member’s ethnic origins that has the effect of creating a hostile, humiliating or offensive environment for that member.

Moreover, Israeli academics themselves have rights under the Race Relations Act not to be directly or indirectly discriminated against on grounds of nationality in connection with actual or potential employment in Great Britain. The substance of the union’s motion can be seen as amounting to an encouragement to members – many of whom are in hiring positions – to discriminate against Israeli academics, or at least those who fail the UCU’s McCarthyite political test relating to their views on the “occupation”.

Does this make the UCU, or its leadership, institutionally racist? In its response in March 2007 to the All-Party Parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism, the Government said that it “currently uses the Stephen Lawrence inquiry definition of a racist incident, which is an incident that is perceived as racist by the victim or any other person, and this would include antisemitism”. The furore created by the UCU resolution in the Jewish community and elsewhere suggests that the union’s conduct is widely perceived not just as unwise, but as antisemitic.
Doubtless, backers of the resolution are sincerely motivated by the plight of the Palestinians, and it is absolutely correct that “criticism of Israel or Israeli policy are not, as such, antisemitic”. But the UCU has gone well beyond criticism of Israel and Israeli policy. It is criticising the conduct of Israeli academics and trade unionists, and questioning the conduct of British academics who collaborate with them. The academics of no other country in the world are singled out for questioning or for potential punishment by UCU members, regardless of the human rights abuses of their regime: no sanctions are proposed for the academics of Zimbabwe, Iran, Burma, China, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, for example, for any complicity in the conduct of their governments.

There is also the stance adopted by the union’s leadership. The resolution was put forward by the union’s national executive committee itself, and the only objections so far heard from the UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, have been to “constant misreporting” of the media, rather than to the substance of what the resolution says. It is striking, also, to the outside observer, that whereas the UCU conference debated and passed a motion about Israeli discrimination against Palestinians, there was apparently no consideration of the findings of the Parliamentary inquiry, which concluded that “Jewish students feel disproportionately threatened in British universities as a result of antisemitic activities” on campuses, an issue one might have thought rather more relevant to UCU members.

The UCU motion has been condemned by politicians of all political parties. Higher Education Minister Bill Rammell told the UCU that: “Boycotting academics because of their nationality, I find deeply disturbing.” So far, however, the TUC has been conspicuous by its silence. TUC leadership has rightly been in the forefront of combating the British National Party’s attempts to infiltrate trade unions. The UCU resolution should not be sidelined by the TUC as an “international” issue. It is an equalities issue.