The government’s free speech tsar has written to universities to clarify how they should protect Jewish students from harassment while safeguarding the right to express lawful anti-Israel viewpoints – a balance he acknowledges can be difficult to maintain in fast-moving campus disputes, not least given the complexities of language and interpretation.
The intervention from Professor Arif Ahmed, the Office for Students’ (OfS) Director for Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech, follows a series of incidents in which Jewish and Israeli students have reported intimidation, disruption to teaching and the suppression of pro-Israel speech. Although the regulatory framework established by the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 already sets out how institutions should manage contested expression, the letter signals a renewed expectation that universities apply those duties with greater clarity and consistency.
In his letter, Ahmed notes that “recent accounts” have highlighted serious concerns about the experiences of Jewish and Israeli students and staff, “highlighting the need for institutions to respond decisively where necessary and appropriate”.
Regulatory Advice 24 (RA24), issued by the OfS, explains how universities should give effect to their duty to take “reasonably practicable steps” to secure lawful expression. Issued following commencement of HEFSA on 1 August, the guidance also makes clear that this duty operates alongside long-standing obligations to prohibit harassment and ensure student safety. Ahmed emphasises that “robust” anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies are therefore not only compatible with the free-speech duty but required, particularly amid rising antisemitic incidents linked to campus protests.
“It may be appropriate,” the letter states, “in addressing intimidation of Jewish students, and/or chilling of pro-Israel speech, for institutions to regulate the time, place and manner of protests.” RA24 lists a range of “appropriate and proportionate” steps that providers may take where conduct risks intimidating Jewish students or interfering with the ordinary functioning of academic life.
Universities, Ahmed points out, are not obliged to secure speech that crosses into unlawful support for proscribed organisations, nor must they host speakers who have previously endorsed such groups and are likely to do so again. Where protests take place near synagogues, halls of residence with large numbers of Jewish students, or active teaching spaces, institutions should consider relocating demonstrations or intervening where classes are disrupted. Enhanced security may also be necessary where Jewish or pro-Israel speakers face credible risks.
While acknowledging that managing live situations can be “complex” and demand rapid decisions, the letter nevertheless stresses the need for precision in distinguishing between speech that is merely offensive and speech that crosses a legal threshold. “We would expect that these measures, in intent or effect, do not disproportionately restrict legally expressible viewpoints… including legally expressible pro-Palestinian viewpoints.”
Ahmed’s intervention comes amid a series of incidents that illustrate the complexities universities have faced in recent months and the varied responses adopted when protests intersect with teaching, events and staff safety. In several cases, institutions have acted in ways that broadly align with the adjustments outlined in his guidance, while in others the line has been more difficult to draw.
At City St George’s, part of the University of London, Israeli-born economics professor Michael Ben-Gad was targeted over his service in the Israel Defence Forces in the early 1980s. City Action for Palestine branded him a terrorist and vowed it “will not allow evil to roam free on our campus”. Protesters later stormed his lecture theatre, one allegedly threatening to behead him. The university, however, responded unequivocally. It said Ben-Gad “has the full support of the university and its senior management team”, a point he also made publicly, praising the backing he had received from senior leaders. Security was increased at his lectures, in line with the kind of measures Ahmed identifies as appropriate where intimidation risks interfering with teaching.
At the LSE, an event on sexual violence committed by Hamas during the 7 October attacks proceeded despite efforts by some staff and students to have it cancelled on the grounds that it “traded in longstanding racist beliefs about Palestinian and Arab men”. The lecture, titled A Quest for Justice: October 7 and Beyond, took place on 16 October under significant security arrangements, with the venue disclosed only at the last minute after details were leaked internally. Pro-Palestinian protesters gathered outside, and several Jewish students who had planned to attend in person said they opted to watch online. Despite the disruption, the event went ahead, with LSE covering the security costs – an approach broadly consistent with the “time, place and manner” adjustments outlined in Ahmed’s guidance.
A more ambiguous case arose at UCL, where a planned lecture by the American political scientist and prominent critic of Israel, Norman Finkelstein, was cancelled in mid-November. One source has told CAF that the withdrawal may have been linked to UCL’s suspension of all activity by the student society involved in the separate incident where a speaker made antisemitic remarks about the historic blood libel. If so, the cancellation may have been a consequence of that broader suspension rather than a judgment on the lecture itself. But in the absence of any public statement, the reasons remain unclear. While Finkelstein has made inflammatory comments about 7 October – including writing that it “warms every fibre of my soul” to see what he called “arrogant Jewish supremacist oppressors” humbled – his remarks do not, on the available evidence, amount to unlawful support for a proscribed organisation or cross any other relevant criminal threshold. That places the cancellation in a more ambiguous position under Ahmed’s framework, where institutions may impose proportionate safety reasons but must not allow such assessments to become a de facto bar on contentious but legally expressible speech.
This article forms part of the Committee for Academic Freedom’s monitoring of developments in UK higher education. To receive monthly updates and analysis on cases affecting academic freedom, click the link and subscribe to our newsletter.