Ronnie Fraser, director of Academic Friends of Israel, notified the University and College Union (UCU) in July 2011 of his intention to sue before the Employment Tribunal for violation of the Equality Act 2010, after it made the “indecent” decision to distance itself from the European Union’s working definition of anti-Semitism. The case was filed in September 2011 and is expected to be heard in summer of 2012.
The University and College Union (UCU) is the largest trade union for academics who work in Higher and Further education. The UCU has 120,000 members who work in Britain’s 120 Universities and 400 Further Education colleges.
On May 30, 2011 at the union’s conference, UCU delegates voted overwhelmingly in favor of disassociating itself from the internationally accepted definition of anti-Semitism. The motion stated:
Congress believes that the EUMC definition confuses criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine anti-Semitism, and is being used to silence debate about Israel and Palestine on campus.
Congress resolves:
1. that UCU will make no use of the EUMC definition (e.g. in educating members or dealing with internal complaints)
2. that UCU will dissociate itself from the EUMC definition in any public discussion on the matter in which UCU is involved
3. that UCU will campaign for open debate on campus concerning Israel’s past history and current policy, while continuing to combat all forms of racial or religious discrimination.
The EUMC definition was adopted in 2005 by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (now Fundamental Rights Agency) which stated: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.
It adds “such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” It also lists ways in which attacking Israel could be anti-Semitic, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor, or applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
The definition was disseminated on its website and to its national monitors and is used by law enforcement agencies all over the world. Units of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) concerned with combating anti-Semitism also employ the definition. The US State Department’s report, Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism, makes use of this definition for the purpose of its analysis.
Ronnie Fraser was the only Jewish delegate at the Congress who was willing to speak against the motion. The UCU didn’t just reject parts of the definition or propose changes to it, instead they decided never to use it again whether educating members or dealing with internal complaints of anti-Semitism.
Ronnie Fraser is a freelance Math lecturer who has been a member of the union for 11 years and formed the Academic Friends of Israel in 2003 to campaign against the academic boycott of Israel and anti-Semitism on campus.
Ronnie and his wife Lola have been members of Belmont Synagogue for over thirty years. Ronnie currently represents the United Synagogue on the Board of Deputies. He is also a doctoral student at Royal Holloway College in London, where his research focuses on the attitudes and policies of the British trade unions towards Israel from 1945 to 1982.
The motion at the UCU was carried overwhelmingly as only four people including Fraser voted against it. Fraser spoke in complete silence with no reaction at all from the audience. Following are excerpts from what Ronnie Fraser said:
“I, a Jewish member of this union, am telling you, that I feel an anti-Semitic mood in this union and even in this room.”
“Only yesterday a delegate here said: “they are an expansionist people.” It is difficult to think that the people in question are anything other than the Jews.”
“Instead of being listened to, I am routinely told that anyone who raises the issue of anti-Semitism is doing so in bad faith. Until this union takes complaints of anti-Semitism seriously the UCU will continue to be labeled as an institutionally anti-Semitic organization.”
“It’s true that anti-Zionist Jews may perceive things differently. But the overwhelming majority of Jews feel that there is something wrong in this union. They understand that it is legitimate to criticize Israel in a way that is, quoting from the definition, “similar to that leveled to any other country” but they make a distinction between criticism and the kind of demonization that is considered acceptable in this union.”
You & US interviewed Ronnie Fraser who said that UCU policy is decided by its annual conference and the UCU’s obsession with Israel is clear for all to see as nineteen (41%) of the forty-six International division resolutions adopted since 2007 have been about Israel and Palestine, an average of nearly four every year.
“The UCU continues to promote an academic boycott of Israel even though in 2007 they received legal advice advising them that an academic boycott of Israel was unlawful and could not be implemented. Their 2008 boycott motion can be considered to be an anti-Semitic motion.”
“In addition the UCU has failed to engage with members’ concerns relating to anti-Semitic and bullying comments posted on a UCU members ‘activist list’. In one two year period nearly 2000 messages were posted on this list relating to Israel, Jews and anti-Semitism.”
“In my opinion, by opposing the definition, the UCU is clearly saying that it is acceptable to deny the Jewish people their right to self-determination; to claim that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor; to apply double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation; to use the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism, including blood libels; to compare contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; and to hold Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.”
Ronnie Fraser wrote an article, entitled “The British Trade Union Movement, Israel, and Boycotts,” in which he said: Over the past thirty years the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and member unions have regularly adopted resolutions containing anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian rhetoric. A whole generation of British left-wing trade union activists has been raised on a diet of conference motions whose only mention of Israel is in connection with its “brutality” and “oppression” of the Palestinian people. The current political position held by the leaders of Britain’s working class reflects a historical bias and amnesia concerning the state of Israel.
The majority of the motions on Palestine that are submitted to annual union conferences in the UK tend not to represent the views of the general membership, but instead the political positions of the activists who are usually socialist and left-wing ideologues. This left-wing minority has made sure that in 2011 most of the major trade unions and the TUC have resolutions on their books supporting the BDS campaign against Israel as well as being affiliated to the PSC.
Anthony Julius, of law firm Mishcon de Reya, who is representing Ronnie Fraser, wrote to UCU general secretary Sally Hunt alleging the union’s stance breached equality laws. “This indecent, discreditable resolution was passed in active disregard of the feelings of Jewish members – a disregard amounting to a kind of inflamed contempt for all Jews other than that minority among them ready to abet a degraded and obsessive “anti-Zionist” activism,” said the letter.
The claim alleges that for several years the UCU, and its predecessor, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, harassed Mr. Fraser by engaging in an “unwanted course of conduct relating to his Jewish identity.” Mr. Fraser’s legal team said the alleged harassment had violated his dignity and created an “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him,” contrary to equality law.
It went on to say that without the protection of the otherwise widely-accepted definition of anti-Semitism, Mr. Fraser now faced an “intimidating, hostile, degrading humiliating” and “offensive environment”.
The lawyers added: “In simple terms, the UCU is not a place that is hospitable to Jews. This is not just a violation of equality legislation, it is also a scandal.” They said the situation was worsened by the fact that union was breaching “energetically fought-for laws against discrimination.”
The letter also accused the UCU of having been “inhospitable to Jews” since its inception. Julius listed some of the “institutionally anti- Semitic acts” by the union over the years, including annual Israel boycott resolutions, the calls to boycott Israeli academia and a failure to engage with Jewish members.
The UCU invited “committed anti-Semite” Bongani Masuku, international secretary of the Congress of South African Trade Unions to address the union in 2009 at a forum to discuss the “boycott, divestment, sanctions” campaign against Israel. In the same year, the South African Human Rights Commission found Masuku guilty of using inflammatory, threatening and insulting statements against the South African Jewish community after he issued threats against Jewish businesses and supporters of Israel – and pronouncements declaring that Jews who support Israel must leave the country.
A spokesman for Mr. Fraser said: “The union’s “institutionally anti-Semitic behavior towards its Jewish members” had left Mr Fraser with no alternative. UCU’s reply to the “serious letter” sent to Ms Hunt had “failed to take the charges seriously and as a consequence, Mishcon de Reya have now filed a claim to the employment tribunal”.
After the UCU vote against the EU definition of anti-Semitism, the union was branded “institutionally racist” by the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council.
Its decision was also heavily criticized by cabinet minister Eric Pickles, University and College Union Communities Secretary, who wrote that the Union’s rejection of the widely-accepted definition of anti-Semitism sent “a chilling message” to Jewish students and academics. “It says that Jewish academics and students who perceive that they are being harassed or bullied should understand that they will be held to a different standard. It says that they should expect to be fair game for invective, and learn to live with feeling more vulnerable.”
Writing exclusively for the JC, Eric Pickles says UCU now believes that Jews are “fair game for invective” and has become “a most unlikely champion of free speech.” “It has been boycotting visits by Israeli academics for a number of years. Their actions suggest that their true goal is not and cannot be to secure freedom of speech, but to silence dissenting opinion.” Mr. Pickles also cites UCU’s 2006 rejection of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism’s findings.
Jewish member of the House of Lords Baroness Ruth Deech, a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism, welcomed Mr. Pickles’ remarks. She said: “This is an appropriate and timely intervention. I am heartened by the seriousness with which he is addressing the actions of the UCU. This gives me some hope that the UCU will be forced to change. “Like the Secretary of State, I have asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate the UCU’s apparent institutional racism. It is simply not acceptable that Jewish students and lecturers are being denied rights that are available to others.”
The peer, a former principal of St Anne’s College in Oxford, launched a scathing attack on the union, during a debate on the subject in the House of Lords, for rejecting a definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the European Union. “The European working definition of anti-Semitism states that the singling out of the state of Israel for criticism not leveled at other countries, the denial of Jewish self-determination and comparison with Nazi policies may be anti-Semitic.” UCU had “spent years trying to establish an illegal boycott of Israeli academia. This is the union that would now deny Jews the ability to complain about racism by denying their perceptions of victimhood if the topic of Israel is in the frame.” She called on universities to consider breaking off ties with UCU.
