The University of Southampton has bowed to pressure to cancel a highly controversial conference debating the legitimacy of Israeli statehood, it has emerged today, citing “Health and safety”.
UPDATE 01/04/2015: Contrary to the statement released by the organisers of the conference on the 31st, the University maintains that the review process is still ongoing and that the only reason for potential ‘withdrawal of permission’ is health and safety of the staff, students, and public.
The University also maintains that the final decision for cancellation will be up to the organisers of the conference, despite the organisers’ statement saying that the University has withdrawn permission for the conference to go ahead.
Communities Minister Eric Pickles has been among the conference’s several high profile critics
The conference, titled “International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism” was to take place in just three weeks time, from the 17-19th of April.
It had drawn near universal criticism from Jewish and Israeli interest groups both in the UK and abroad, with the Zionist Federation calling it “a kangaroo court”.
According to The Jerusalem Post, The Jewish Leadership Council, Board of Deputies and the Union of Jewish Students sent a letter to the university to cancel the conference in October 2014.
Research by pro-zionist think tank the Fair Play Campaign Group has identified 80% of the 56 speakers as “anti-Israel activists”. This has lead the board of deputies to previously state:
If the conference cannot be re-structured to revise its tendentious subject title and focus on delegitimising the State of Israel, and to feature a balanced line up of academic contributors, it cannot be treated as a serious and genuine academic study and should be cancelled.
Conservative communities minister Eric Pickles has also weighed in on the debate, advising the University against holding the conference. Pickles told Jewish News:
There is a careful line between legitimate academic debate on international law and the actions of governments, and the far-left’s bashing of Israel which often descends into naked anti-Semitism.
As a result Board of Deputies VP Jonathan Arkush has headed a delegation to meet with the University’s vice-chancellor Don Nutbeam. The delegation and the vice-chancellor have agreed that the conference cannot go ahead on grounds of “Health & Safety”.
The University acknowledges that there will be several parties interested in protesting the conference, for which the security staff cannot be be provided, nor be guaranteed to control the crowds effectively.
Organisers of the conference released a 973 word statement regarding the cancellation, which repudiates this claim, as this short excerpt demonstrates:
As the law stands, the University is legally obliged to uphold freedom of speech, and- unlike in some engineering projects for example where health and safety may be the only legal obligation– the requirement of minimising risk should also fall onto the police as the agency that is entrusted with the enforcement of the law (freedom of speech) and the provision of security.
The mitigating measure should therefore include policing in addition to what the university can reasonably provide using its own security resources. We are therefore extremely dissatisfied with the risk assessment conducted by the University which seems to lack consistency…
The statement goes on to state that legal emergency measures which will prevent the university from cancelling the conference are being explored. The organisers have called for the “widest and most intense public campaign possible that would urgently encourage the university to reverse its decision”.
876 Academics from across the UK and internationally have signed a declaration of support for the conference to go ahead. The cancellation was announced only yesterday.
With the conference and perhaps Southampton’s academic integrity hanging in the balance, the University and its leadership are certain to come under a great deal of international media pressure and scrutiny in the coming days and weeks.
Should the conference have been cancelled? Vote in our Poll and let us know in the comments below!
MAGGOT on the MANGE TOUT served at Connaught Halls
If Oren Ben Dor had tried, even a tiny little bit, to hide the hate and create even something close to resembling an academic conference – this would still be going ahead. In the end, when it was stripped bare, there was nothing on display but anti-Semitism.
Reply
Well we’ll never actually know what the content would have been, seeing as it’s been cancelled and all
Reply
There actually a paper online which breaks down the whole conference. Pretty one sided.
Reply
But antisemitic?
Reply
I never said it was antisemitic. It would have been a very unbalanced conference about the Israel/Palestine debate.
Reply
Questions of free speech aside, which alone mean we should accept the conference, it seems a rather one-sided affair. I would imagine that more would be gained and it would be less of an echo chamber. Perhaps the way in which Israel is held to a different standard to the rest of the world is unfair, but the main question is that should we allow it through questions of free speech, even though it’s unlikely to be a serious academic affair?
Reply
The law concerned with securing freedom of speech within the law does not require balance. To quote the VC, ‘you are not expected invite the head of McDonalds to a conference on public health.’
Nevertheless, we went out of our way to invite academics from Israel and elsewhere to speak at the conference in support of the pro-Israel view. Most turned down the invitation. But we will still have a very diverse range of views, and we expect a very lively debate. Most of the speakers are eminent academics in International law and will focus on the philosophical aspects.
For me freedom of speech is more important than Palestine. The issue of Palestine-Israel will be resolved if people are empowered to express their views and act without fear of intimidation and violence.
Reply
Very glad to see the conference has been prevented from going ahead, but I suspect “health and safety” is the University’s way of backing out after the controversy and negative publicity without back tracking on it’s original statement.
I would have been for a revised version of the conference allowing a proper two sided debate – but it’s clear the conference organisers would not have backed down and agreed to that. I agree with David, this was just anti-Semitism and I can’t believe the university were going to allow it to happen.
Reply
I just spoke to the VC and he told me no decision has been made yet, and it’s the toughest he’s had to make.
I don’t envy him.
Reply
I don’t see why there is an assumption the organisers wouldn’t have backed down. Throwing the anti-Semitism card in here is a foul move and only raises tensions. Should I remind that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are different?
On the other hand, I completely agree that a balanced speaker lineup is necessary.
Reply
Would you demand that a anthropogenic climate change conference had a balanced speaker lineup?
What about a vaccination workshop?
Reply
Climate change and vaccinations are scientific debates, not philosophical ones.
Reply
This was a conference organised by a Professor of Law. If the law underpinning the issues under question is unbalanced, then the speakers list is likely to be equally unbalanced.
C. Gutteridge – Of course it’s difficult for him, this isn’t a financial issue. He’s very good at coming to a quick decision when there’s money involved!
Reply
The legitimacy of a state and the legitimacy of a religion are totally different subjects. Trying to broadly tie people who don’t agree with Israel to being Anti Semitic is not only lazy, but also insulting.
Reply
The problem is that in actual fact they are not. These tensions and arguments are ultimately based upon religion, and therefore it will always be intertwined. Unfortunately most of the world’s problems are based on religion and we’d be much better off without it, but that is an another argument for another day.
(Or perhaps another equally controversial conference….?!)
Reply
Cool. I guess we know the strategy climate change deniers need to take the next time the NOC wants to host a climate change workshop. Just pay for some people to hold signs on campus and *poof*, controversy managed, courtesy of bullshit ‘elf and safety’ concerns.
Reply
If AIPAC can have a conference with 100% people pro-zionism, whats the big deal about this conference of 80 % who are anti-zionist?
Reply
The big deal is that AIPAC it a Pro-Israel organization hosting its’ own conference. This is an apolitical university that is, in some sense a government body hosting a conference with a biased speaker line-up on a political issue.
Publicly funded institutions should not attempt to influence political views or engage in any form of discrimination.
Reply
As a general rule I tend to disagree with any stance the human gherkin Eric Pickles takes – the conference now has my full support!
Reply
What a shame!! I was always proud to be a graduate from Southampton university. But seeing such a conference being cancelled this way is really sad..!!
Reply
You were ever proud to be a graduate from Southampton?! Do share your reasons to be proud – the conference aside, I can find no reason to be proud of ever studying at this institution.
Reply
Feel free to leave mate, nobody will mind I promise.
Reply
As Jam hasn’t replied yet here’re my reasons to feel proud:
1) I got a degree and that opened up the job market to me
2) I met some great people, built lasting friendships and I tried new things in life, sports/cultural stuff that broadened my horizons and outlook on life
3) I was supported and encouraged by the academic staff and support staff in the enabling and careers services
You’re welcome to not feel proud if you want, but try not to be a douche and take that away from others! + I’m with Col. James Bapworth on this, If you don’t like it leave.
Reply
The top two could have been achieved at any institution. The third I’m very surprised you’ve given as reasons – although fair enough if you received a positive experience – because given my experience with both departments they’ve only added to my continued frustration with this institution.
Oh don’t worry James, I’ve already started plotting my escape – keep your fingers crossed for me! Hopefully I won’t be judged for attending a university willing to host such an awful conference. (As several employers have already said they would view Soton graduates negatively as a result)
Reply
The conference should have gone ahead – people can only judge content once they have viewed it. All these Zionist lobby groups have one thing in common and that is that they try and hide behind the Anti -Semitic card every time there is a tangible debate or criticism of Israel. Israel does get held to a different standard because it claims it is Democratic and for this reason it should be open to public scrutiny – if not then let’s just call it what it is – Apartheid!
Reply
This is the conference organisers’ statement:
As organisers of the conference ‘International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism’ due to take place on the 17th of April, we are shocked and dismayed by the Vice Chancellor’s decision, to dismiss our internal appeal, thus confirming the University’s Senior Management withdrawal of permission for the conference to go ahead on University property. The reasoning for this decision is said to be the University’s legal obligation to provide safety and security to participants, students and employees in the conference venue and all over the campus. The Senior Management claims, based on their risk assessment, that they will not be able to effectively reduce the level of residual risks to an acceptable level. Accordingly, the Senior Management judged that the health and safety risks outweigh the University’s legal obligations and duty to secure freedom of speech within the law for which the Vice Chancellor asserts an unswerving commitment.
The greatest risk to health and safety that was identified by the Senior Management was that arising from a by and large peaceful demonstration against the conference and possible counter demonstrations by pro-Palestinian groups during the third day. The intelligence about extreme groups that may appear was greatly inflated. We have brought evidence to the VC from pro-Palestinian groups that they in fact have never intended to hold any demonstrations or counter protests during the conference. The general sensitivity following recent terrorist events in Europe was further misused to inflate the risks. In its risk assessment the Senior Management simply assigned a high level of residual risk despite specifying effective measures to reduce it and assurances by the Police that they are able to manage the demonstrations.
Crucially, and tellingly, the Senior Management was provided with intelligence asserting that the cancellation of the conference will in itself result in similar and possibly larger demonstrations. These demonstrations would present similar, if not greater levels of risk to health and safety. It is therefore astonishing – given the University’s legal duty to secure freedom of speech within the law – that the Senior Management chose to ignore the risks to health and safety arising from the cancellation of the conference, and instead focus on the risks associated with holding it in fulfilment of its legal obligation to securing freedom of speech within the law!
The Senior Management dismissed the Police’s commitment to providing protection as a supplement to what the University can reasonably provide using its own security resources despite the fact that the Police stated clearly their ability to curb such risks. Simply put, the Senior Management caved in to security risks all too easily which even if, for the sake of argument, were founded, is not justifiable. They left it till 16 days before the conference to reach this assessment and organise a response to it and now claim, unacceptably in our view, that it is too late to arrange proper protection.
We feel that the Senior Management behaviour in relation to risk assessment and to providing proper response to it is symptomatic of resorting to a simple weighing process of two legal obligations. They have failed to see the virtually unconditional nature of freedom of speech and the full extent to which security argument ought not to be used to curtail it; appropriate security measures should be used to facilitate it. This shows that the Senior Management fundamentally misunderstood its duty to securing freedom of speech at this great academic institution. We have little doubt that the safety and security argument is used to rationalise the surrender by the Senior Management to political pressure exerted on it by the pro-Israeli Lobby.
If the decision by the University’s Senior Management is not overturned, the University will lose its uniqueness in providing a public space for creating the kind of rupture in the public sphere that can, within the conference and beyond, generate public debate that overcomes its current uncritically accepted conventional confines. It will fail in its sacred mission to make itself a unique public space: that of guarding the linkage between truth-seeking in every discipline to the pursuit of justice within the wider political community from any political, economic or security threat. This extremely sad and short-sighted decision will send a shameful message to the University’s existing and prospective students.
This decision by the Senior Management cannot be allowed to stand. The stakes for academic public space, for academic freedom and for freedom of speech are too high. The message it sends to other academic institutions and to students all over the world is grave and depressing. It will potentially make campuses obedient and depoliticised, distant and docile corporate spaces. We have therefore, with very heavy hearts, decided to mount an immediate legal challenge to urgently overturn the Senior Management’s decision, to demand that the conference is allowed to go ahead while deploying sufficient security resources including the Police, in the right way, to curb risk to health and safety and security that may arise.
This decision by the University is wrong in law, wrong in morality and wrong for the University of Southampton in particular and for all academic spaces all over the country and the world generally.
Two of the conference organisers are senior academics at the University of Southampton, and one of them is a graduate of the University. They are very proud to be academics at this great institution and care passionately about it. We hope that immediate legal action will help save the reputation of the University which has sadly been thrown into serious doubt by this decision.
Professor Oren Ben-Dor – University of Southampton
Professor Suleiman Sharkh – University of Southampton
Professor George Bisharat – University of California, Hastings College of the Law
Ms. Juman Asmail LLB (Soton)- Independent writer and political activist.
Reply
Open letter to students and colleagues at the University
Dear Friends, Colleagues and Students
As some of you may know, I am one of the organizers of the conference: “International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism.” The conference was approved by the university back in July 2014 and we followed all the procedures and collaborated fully with the university’s administration from the start. We have been transparent throughout about the nature and the aims of the conference.
Some of you may wonder why I, an engineering professor, am involved in organizing a law conference. The obvious answer is that understanding the law is essential to engineering and it is indeed part of our curriculum – it is a requirement of accreditation by the Engineering Council. My own research on smart electricity grids and smart metering involves understanding the legal issues that arise from the development of the technology, particularly with regards to privacy of the data collected by the smart meters and its human rights implications.
Also, as many of you know, I am a Palestinian. I grew up in Gaza, but my family is originally from a town called Majdal Asqalan (now called Ashkelon by Israel). In November 1948, six months after the establishment of the State of Israel and after the wars had ended, the town was bombed and many people were killed. Those who survived were herded towards Gaza, crawling on their hands and knees in the thorny fields. Since then we have lived in squalid refugee camps. I walked around barefoot in the sand soiled by open sewage. I got my first shoes when I went to school at the age of six.
International law was responsible for our misery. It was used to legalize the theft of our homes and it continues to be used to legalize the ongoing oppression of my people by the State of Israel. The questions asked by the conference are therefore questions that I have been asking all my life. They are important questions that need to be answered.
However answering these questions risks exposing the true face of the State of Israel, and risks reminding the world of the uncomfortable truth about the crimes that were and continue to be committed against the Palestinian people. As a result, the pro-Israel lobby exerted huge pressure on the university, which has resulted in the withdrawal of the permission to hold the conference.
The attached statement explains our point of view, and why the university’s senior management’s decision is wrong in law. This decision will have a direct impact on you and your freedom of speech.
I am a Southampton graduate. This is my university. Studying and working at Southampton is the best thing that happened to me. It broadened my mind, it showed me that there are alternatives to violence and hatred, namely respectful debate and love. I care greatly about the university and its reputation and hence the reason for deciding, with a very heavy heart, to take legal action to reverse the decision to cancel the conference.
The main press may give you the impression that this was going to be an anti-Semitic conference. This is absolutely not true. My fellow organizer, Professor Oren Ben-Dor is a Jew. We have many Jewish supporters. And I am glad that many Jews immigrated to Palestine to be in a safe haven and I welcome more Jews to live in Palestine. My main aim is to achieve justice, freedom and equality for my people to live side by side with Jews and all people in historic Palestine. I want it to be a safer haven for Jews, a safe haven for all people who live there. I hope the conference will be a small step in that direction.
Finally, I want to assure you that there will be no spontaneous demonstrations or any violence from supporters of the conference as suggested by my colleague the chief operating officer, Steve White. We will conduct our protests in a very dignified manner, within the law, with full collaboration with the police and the university. I will never accept any harm to be done to the university and the wonderful people who work and study here, who keep it the fantastic place of scholarship and learning that it is.
Please express your support for freedom of speech by signing the online petition.
https://www.change.org/p/the-university-of-southampton-uphold-free-speech-allow-the-conference-on-israel-and-international-law-to-proceed
Yours sincerely,
Suleiman
Reply
“I will never accept any harm to be done to the university and the wonderful people who work and study here, who keep it the fantastic place of scholarship and learning that it is.”
Unfortunately I think the damage is already done, regardless of which side you are on. If you support the conference the university looks bad for cancelling it, and if you are against the conference the university looks bad for agreeing to host it in the first place. Either way it’s not been a good move for Southampton.
Reply
I can’t help but feel people are missing the point here. Israel exists and that isn’t changing – for it to no longer exist would require the displacement of millions of peopl – the whole atrocity this conference was debating in the first place. Surely we should be discussing the existence of Palestine instead, and how it can exist if not harmoniously, but safely side by side with Israel?
Reply
Daily Echo: “Academics have failed with legal action against the University of Southampton after it cancelled a conference on Israel on safety grounds”
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/12888993.High_Court_throws_out_controversial_Israel_conference_case_against_Southampton_university/
Reply