2 August 2026
Lord Mann, the former right-wing Labour MP, friend of Israel and the government’s so-called independent advisor on antisemitism, recently claimed that in a survey of 56 UK universities “not one knew of or could provide a single example in which the IHRA definition had in any ways restricted freedom of speech or academic research, or where its adoption had chilled academic freedom, research or freedom of expression. All these 56 institutions were using the definition and were seen to be listening to the Jewish community about how it experiences antisemitism.” Mann’s claim is comprehensively contradicted by this carefully prepared report by the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) and the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES), which cites 40 instances where the IHRA definition was used as the basis of complaints against student activists and staff. In each case, the complaints led to investigations or hearings and great stress for the accused before – in every case – the complaints were dismissed. The report concludes with practical recommendations for the government and university authorities. Here is the Executive Summary and principal Recommendations.
Executive summary
We are committed to the struggle against antisemitism and all forms of racism. Antisemitism exists
within UK society and incidents of anti-Jewish prejudice occur in higher education institutions, just as in other institutional contexts. Antisemitism must be addressed, and institutions should seek to prevent it. However, universities must do so in a way that does not discriminate directly or indirectly against others
or undermine academic freedom and freedom of speech. This report demonstrates that accusations of antisemitism levelled against students and staff in UK universities are often based on a definition of antisemitism that is not fit for purpose and, in practice, is undercutting academic freedom and the rights to lawful speech of students and staff, and causing harm to the reputations and careers of those accused. This report was produced by the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) and the British Society for
Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES), Europe’s leading scholarly association concerned with the study of the Middle East and North Africa. The report is based on an analysis of 40 cases that were reported to the ELSC and in which UK university staff and/or students were accused of antisemitism on the basis of the ‘IHRA working definition of antisemitism’ (‘IHRA definition’), between 2017 and 2022. In all instances, except for two ongoing cases, the accusations of antisemitism were rejected. The final two have yet to be substantiated. On the basis of these findings, this report recommends against the adoption and use of the IHRA definition in a higher education setting. However it is beyond the remit of the report to suggest alternative definitions while the Human Rights Act of 1998 and the 2010 Equality Act
provide the necessary legal tools to combat antisemitism and hate speech more generally.
In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a ‘working definition of antisemitism’, to which was appended a list of illustrative examples. Several of the examples conflate criticisms of Israel, its illegal policies, practices and the political ideology on which the state was founded, with antisemitism. These examples contradict the IHRA definition itself and reflect positions advanced by advocates of Israeli policies towards Palestinians.The definition and illustrative examples have been invoked in many contexts in the UK.
This report shows that since its adoption by UK higher education institutions, the IHRA definition has been used in ways that delegitimise points of view critical of Israel and/or in support of Palestinian rights, in violation of academic freedom and freedom of speech. It is noteworthy that the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, E. Tendayi Achiume, has warned against the use of the definition ‘owing to itssusceptibility to being politically instrumentalised and the harm done to human rights resulting from such instrumentalization.’ There is widespread agreement among scholars and legal experts (including the lead drafter of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern)3 that the IHRA definition is not appropriate for university settings where critical thought and free debate are paramount. Nevertheless, in 2020, the then Secretary of State for Education threatened university leaders with punitive financial consequences if their institutions did not adopt the IHRA definition.4 As a result, 119 universities (almost 75% of UK universities) have adopted some version of the definition as a basis for campus policies.5 Contrary to what many institutions seem to believe, it is simply not possible to use the IHRA definition to determine whether or not an individual incident or statement is antisemitic, whilst simultaneously protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom and preventing discrimination. To attempt to do so inevitably leads to damaging and iniquitous consequences for staff and students. 5
Key findings
This report highlights four major consequences of the IHRA definition’s adoption:
- Advocates of Palestinian human rights, critics of the Israeli
state and its policies and those researching and teaching about
the history of and current situation in Israel-Palestine have been
targeted with false accusations of antisemitism. - University staff and students are being subjected to unreasonable
investigations and disciplinary proceedings based on the IHRA
definition. These proceedings have harmed the wellbeing of the
staff and students subjected to false allegations of antisemitism.
Those falsely accused have felt their reputations to have been
sullied, and they are anxious about possible damage caused to
their education and careers. - The complaints have had an adverse effect on academic freedom
and freedom of speech on campuses, leading, in some cases, to
the cancellation of events or the imposition of spurious conditions
on the format of events. - From testimonies received, it is clear that these cases are creating
a chilling effect among staff and students, deterring individuals
from speaking about or organising events that discuss Palestinian
human rights and Palestinian self-determination out of fear that
they will be subject to complaints, or else will face considerable
bureaucratic hurdles and even costly legal action in order to allow
events to take place. Academics employed on temporary contracts
(who constitute a significant proportion of university teaching staff),
as well as students, are particularly susceptible to self-censorship
out of fear that any sort of accusations, even if not upheld, could
jeopardise their future ability to obtain permanent employment.
Hence, overall, we conclude that the adoption and deployment of
the IHRA definition in UK universities has already dealt a blow to
academic freedom and freedom of speech. This not only threatens
the ability of higher education institutions to meet their legal
obligations in this regard, but is also preventing students from
engaging in nuanced discussions about the Middle East, global
politics, and the question of Palestine, which are also necessary as
part of efforts to combat antisemitism.
