The children’s minister has insisted that the implementation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in education will not stifle “legitimate political debate” about the conflict in the Middle East.
The Department for Education is urging schools and colleges to formally adopt the definition after accepting the move as one of the 27 recommendations issued by Sir David Bell, a former top civil servant at the department, in his landmark review on antisemitism in the sector.
Sir David’s report found that three in five Jewish sixth form pupils have faced antisemitism, but that many have not reported it as they did not believe the allegation would be taken seriously.
As well as adopting the IHRA definition, the report also recommended that the department issue new guidance for teachers and learning materials for pupils on the Israel-Palestine conflict, as well as limits on teachers’ political expression, such as in the form of pro-Palestine badges.
The recommendations led to some pushback, including from teaching unions, suggesting that such measures would prevent both teachers and students from engaging in challenging conversations around the topics of Israel, Palestine and Zionism.
This has been a longstanding criticism of the IHRA definition by pro-Palestine activists, particularly focused on provisions which label comparisons between Nazi Germany and Israel, the denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination and the labelling of the State of Israel as an inherently racist endeavour as examples of contemporary antisemitism.
The National Education Union (NEU), Britain’s largest teaching union, specifically rejected the IHRA element, with its general secretary, Daniel Kebede, saying: “Recommending the IHRA definition for schools risks deepening the problem rather than tackling it, and actively undermining efforts to confront antisemitism. It is the wrong approach…
“A young person’s opposition to the Gaza genocide and scrutiny of the Israeli government are not, in themselves, antisemitic.”
However, Josh MacAllister, the minister for children and families, disputed such claims as “misleading” in an op-ed for trade publication Schools Week.
“We need to be plain about what antisemitism is,” he wrote.
“Sir David Bell’s review into antisemitism in schools and colleges spotlights the scale of the problem we face.
“Fixing this requires action on a range of fronts. But it starts with defining antisemitism clearly, in a usable way.
“The [IHRA] working definition must be adopted in a way that means that schools and colleges can meet their legal duties, including on equality and free speech.”
“I have already seen misleading suggestions that adopting the IHRA definition will prevent discussion of Israel or suppress legitimate political debate. That is simply not true,” he went on.
“The IHRA definition has been adopted by 47 countries, and countless public bodies. The working definition spotlights the insidious and often subtle form that antisemitism can take, and provides a practical framework that helps teachers and pupils spot and tackle it.
“It opens up, rather than shuts down, essential conversations. It also explicitly states that criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
And, addressing some of the common criticisms of the definition, he said: “Throughout history, Jewish people have been denied agency stemming from antisemitic ideas that they are an untrustworthy or malicious minority.
“Those who find this example uncomfortable should reflect on how denying a different minority group their right to self-determination would be experienced by that group. Worse still, what are the ideas that would lead one to label this right to self-determination itself as “racist”?
“This example in the working definition in no way limits criticism of the State of Israel. The UK government itself has criticised recent action by the Israeli government in Gaza, and it is perfectly possible to do this without denying Jewish people’s right to self-determination.
“The claim that the IHRA definition makes criticism of Israel impossible is a lazy misrepresentation.”
MacAllister concluded by insisting that the definition’s adoption will “give teachers the confidence to protect legitimate political expression and tackle antisemitic behaviour,” befor concluding: “Education is the most powerful disinfectant against the disease of antisemitism. Acting on Sir David’s review is a task for all of us.
“And it starts with being plain about what antisemitism is. Only then can we work together to root it out.”
To get more Politics news, click here to sign up for our free politics newsletter.