4 December 2025
Five years ago, Professor Arif Ahmed of Cambridge University understood that the IHRA definition of antisemitism was a tool for suppressing free speech on Israel. He warned the then Minister for Higher Education Gavin Williamson, “I am strongly against [the] requirement that universities adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. This ‘definition’ is nothing of the kind; adopting it obstructs perfectly legitimate defence of Palestinian rights. As such it chills free speech on a matter of the first importance. I hope the Secretary of State reconsiders the need for it; but these new free speech duties ought to rule it out in any case.” Yet now, as “Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom”, and speaking for the Office of Students which provides university funding for teaching, Professor Ahmed has instructed universities to apply the substance of the IHRA definition including its eleven “illustrations” and thus suppress criticism of Israel. In short, the official Director of Freedom of Speech is directing universities to suppress freedom of speech. BRICUP’s challenge to Professor Ahmed follows.
Professor Arif Ahmed
Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom Office for Students
Westward House
Lime Kiln Close
Stoke Gifford BRISTOL BS34 8SR
28 November 2025
Dear Professor Ahmed,
We have concerns about your recent communication to university leadership entitled “Harassment and intimidation of Jewish students and staff” which we hope that you will address. We share your aspiration that all students and staff should have “a higher education experience free from harassment within an institutional culture that values open dialogue and debate”. Your letter, nonetheless, undermines that shared aspiration and raises a number of concerns, each of which we address in turn below.
Evidence Base and Proportionality: Under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, universities and the Office for Students itself have a statutory obligation to secure freedom of speech within the law. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires any interference with lawful speech to be “prescribed by law”, “necessary” and “proportionate”. Therefore, in the interest of transparency, please specify the incidents or evidence that prompted your letter. You cite ”recent accounts” but provide no detail. Please also clarify if all universities have been sent this letter, including those that already have in place robust anti-harassment policies, and if so, explain why a blanket letter was warranted.
Remit and Authority: Please explain how your letter falls within the official remit of your role to promote and secure lawful free speech, not to obstruct and deter it; and to do so in a non-partisan manner, uninfluenced by Government policy or external pressures. Please also explain why recommending training on antisemitism lies within the remit of your role.
Primary Legislation and Definition of Antisemitism: Although not explicitly stated, your letter is underpinned by the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, whose conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism is well-evidenced to disproportionately impact on the freedom of speech of students and staff who call for justice for Palestinians and engage in evidence-based criticism of Israel. Furthermore, your letter appears to elevate the non-legally binding IHRA definition of antisemitism above primary legislation, in direct contravention of the Office for Students’ own Regulatory Advice. Please confirm that primary legislation continues to take precedence, and that subjective appeals to “offence” to justify a restriction of lawful free speech remain irrelevant.
Intersections with the Equality Act (2010): The focus in your letter is on the negative experiences of Jewish and Israeli students and staff, ignoring the entanglement of Zionism, Islamophobia and a demonization of pro-Palestine students and staff. Your letter thus hierarchizes different forms of racism (evidenced also in your recommendation of training on antisemitism but not on Islamophobia). Please confirm you have satisfied yourself that your letter is in line with the Equality Act (2010).
In short, we seek urgent assurance and clarification that your letter falls within the remit of your role, is proportionate and necessary, and not in violation of either the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 or the Equality Act (2010).
Thank you for your attention to this letter. We look forward to your response.
Best regards,
On behalf of BRICUP, British Committee for the Universities of Palestine
