Mitchell apologised for the remarks, but nevertheless was suspended by the university, placed under investigation and banned from campus for seven weeks.
The 20-year-old was also reported to Surrey Police, accused of a hate crime and a file has been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service, meaning that he could face charges for his words.
Pro-Israel student Brodie Mitchell (Image: Brodie Mitchell)[Missing Credit]
Now, a group of MPs and members of the House of Lords have written to the London university to express concern about their treatment of the student.
“This response is not only completely disproportionate but is evidence of a failure to exercise common sense. Universities ought to be able to distinguish between serious misconduct and heated political interactions. Punishing students for engaging in robust exchanges about contentious issues will inevitably have a chilling effect on free speech”, say the parliamentarians including Claire Coutinho, the former energy secretary, Sir John Whittingdale, the former culture secretary and Tom Tugendhat, the former security minister.
Other signatories include former cabinet minister Esther McVey, former Labour MPs Baroness Hoey and Lord Austin, former Brexit Party MEP Baroness Fox, former pensions minister Baroness Altmann and former defence minister Andrew Murrison and theologian Lord Biggar.
They expressed concern that the university didn’t appear to “act consistently or even-handedly in its treatment of those involved.”
“The remarks made by the other student appear no less ‘offensive’, yet the University has not suspended or investigated her. Why the double standard?”, they asked.
The parliamentarians added: “That the university then threatened to spend more than £750,000 defending itself from a legal challenge rather than admit it had done anything wrong is equally troubling. At a time when students face rising costs and universities face financial constraints, this is an extraordinary sum.”
The MPs and peers said the case was part of a “deeply troubling pattern within higher education: the disproportionate and inconsistent disciplining of students for lawful freedom of expression” and demanded that the university answer questions about the incident.
Mitchell, who is not Jewish, has previously spoken to the JC about witnessing antisemitism on campus and said he had received threats because of his pro-Israel views.
Mitchell is being supported by the Free Speech Union, an advocacy group which defends the right of people to express themselves without fear of punishment or persecution.
The group’s director, Lord Young, told the JC: “It is bizarre and appalling that a dispute between two students was so badly handled.”
He continued: “Brodie should never have been suspended, let alone reported to the police, and given that the student who insulted him was allowed to get off scot-free, it seems clear that Royal Holloway was applying a double standard: it saw expressing hatred of Israel as protected free speech, but standing up for the Jewish state was considered to be a hate crime.”
A spokesperson for Royal Holloway, University of London said: “We can confirm we have received and responded to correspondence from Members of Parliament regarding this matter.
“The University does not accept that there is a single agreed set of facts. Differing accounts and material were considered through formal processes, which have now concluded. Throughout, our priority has been respecting the legal process and responsibilities to all students involved.
“The dispute has now been resolved through mediation without any admission of liability. A public statement has been agreed by the parties and set out the outcome and respective positions. Given the confidentiality provisions of the settlement, it would not be appropriate for the University to comment further on the detail of the case.
“The University supports its Jewish students and colleagues as part of a diverse community and takes a proactive approach to challenge antisemitism and all forms of discrimination. This work is embedded in our policies, reporting routes and wider student and colleague support arrangements. It is a core part of our responsibility to provide a safe and inclusive campus environment and our institutional values.”
