The University of East London (UEL) is carrying out a consultation on whether it should maintain its adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.

The consultation was drawn to the attention of UKLFI Charitable Trust (UKLFI CT) by a concerned student on 19 December 2024. UKLFI CT drew it to the attention of other community organisations on 20 December and submitted its own response on 21 December 2024.

UKLFI CT’s submission explained why the IHRA working definition of antisemitism should be retained by UEL in full. The reasons include:

• Since antisemitism is such a serious problem at UK universities, universities should use a widely accepted definition to facilitate recording, addressing and analysing it.
• The IHRA working definition has been widely accepted in the UK (including the UK, Scottish and Welsh governments, more than 75% of local councils and over 130 universities) and around the world (including 45 countries, the EU Council, Commission and Parliament, the Organisation of American States, the Parliament of MERCOSUR, the UN Secretary General and the UN Rapporteur for freedom of religion and belief).
• If UEL were to drop the IHRA working definition, this would embolden antisemites and dismay Jewish students, who already fear to make any complaints about the antisemitic hostility they face.
• Adoption of divergent definitions would cause confusion and result in incompatible data sets that could not be compared or aggregated, thereby impeding analysis, research and comparative monitoring.
• UEL’s adoption of the IHRA working definition did not mention the examples and other explanations which are an integral part of it. UEL’s review should confirm UEL’s adoption of the full IHRA working definition, including all of its examples.

UKLFI CT also observed that criticisms of the IHRA working definition have not been well-founded, in that they have failed to appreciate its structure, which identifies a central concept and explains it by reference to examples of conduct that could be antisemitic taking into account the overall context.

UKLFI CT added that other definitions of antisemitism are problematic.

• Professors John Hyman and Anthony Julius identified a series of fundamental objections to the “Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism” (JDA), including that it fails to address  contemporary antisemitism, the guidelines contradict the definition, and the JDA does not defend academic freedom.
• UKLFI CT set out other detailed criticisms of the JDA including the JDA’s assertion that BDS is a commonplace form of protest against States. UKLFI CT points out that it is in fact very rare against States. Furthermore, several of the JDA’s examples actually greenlight antisemitism and promote discrimination against the Jewish State.

Read UKLFI’s response to UEL’s Consultation on Definitions of Antisemitism HERE

Update 6 March 2025: UEL has decided to maintain its adoption of the IHRA working definition but also determined that “recognising other definitions of antisemitism for educative purposes can enhance the understanding of this matter” and referred to the Jerusalem Declaration and the Nexus document.