A Royal Holloway student is taking the university to court after being suspended and placed under campus restrictions for several weeks following a Freshers’ Fair exchange in which he compared a pro-Palestinian student’s keffiyeh to a “tea towel”.
Brodie Mitchell, 20, who has described himself as a non-Jewish but “fiercely pro-Zionist” student, claims the university acted unlawfully by subjecting him to what he describes as “unfair” disciplinary measures after the incident. The university, meanwhile, has said the conduct was found to be harassment following its disciplinary process.
The second-year undergraduate in politics and international relations is now challenging the university’s decision to suspend him under its student conduct regulations in the High Court, arguing that the measures imposed disrupted his studies and placed significant restrictions on his participation in campus life.
Mitchell, who according to his witness statement had previously clashed on a number of occasions with students from the Friends of Palestine Society, became involved in the Freshers’ Fair confrontation last September after Huda El-Jamal, the society’s president, allegedly described him as a “wannabe Jew” and asked why he was not wearing a yarmulke or kippah.
His statement continues: “I began filming the interaction as I realised I didn’t have any witnesses and said, ‘You’re wearing a tea towel on your head’, referring to her keffiyeh, which I considered at the time to be a fitting off-the-cuff retort to what I regarded as a racist and antisemitic remark.”
The day after the exchange, following a complaint from Ms El-Jamal, Royal Holloway informed Mitchell that he had been suspended “for alleged conduct that could be considered hate speech and for filming of individuals without their consent”. He was subsequently told that he would appear before a university major misconduct panel to face allegations of breaching its student conduct regulations.
Shortly after the incident, Mitchell emailed the university to say that his response had been “poorly expressed and inappropriate” and that “it was only about politics, not about race or religion”. He also offered to apologise to Ms El-Jamal. However, Royal Holloway has said that, following its disciplinary process, the conduct in question was found to be harassment.
It is not immediately clear what meaning of “harassment” the university was applying. On one university webpage dealing with harassment, the term is defined in the language of section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 as “unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the individual”. In that statutory formulation, a single incident may be sufficient – although, where “effect” is relied on, the Act requires regard to be had not only to the complainant’s perception, but also to the other circumstances of the case and to whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have had that effect.
Elsewhere, however, in Appendix 1 to the Student Conduct Regulations invoked in the case, harassment is described as conduct “which has arisen on at least two occasions”, alongside the same Equality Act language. That formulation appears to introduce a requirement of repetition not found in the statutory definition, and is closer to the “course of conduct” language associated with the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, a framework more commonly encountered in criminal law.
Mitchell is also understood to be the subject of a Surrey Police investigation arising from the same incident.
During the university’s investigation, Mitchell was also made subject to a Campus Exclusion / Restriction Order, or CERO. Under Royal Holloway’s Student Conduct Regulations, such an order “places conditions or restrictions” on a student “that they must meet to continue attendance at the University or reside in University accommodation”. The regulations also state that a CERO may remain in force either for a shorter period or for the remainder of a student’s registration.
Mitchell claims he was forced to leave his student accommodation for several days, although this has been denied by the university. He has also said the dispute between himself and Ms El-Jamal, a third-year student, could have been resolved informally.
He further claims that, as a result of the suspension and subsequent disciplinary proceedings, he lost seven weeks of tuition – amounting to 68 teaching hours.
In December 2025, a High Court judge rejected an application by Mitchell for a mandatory injunction against the university in relation to his suspension and loss of teaching time, noting that a number of issues raised by his barrister had by then been either partially or wholly resolved, including the extension of his essay deadlines.
The case is due to proceed to a full trial in June, where Mitchell is expected to argue that the disciplinary action taken by the university deprived him of the equivalent of seven weeks of teaching and may delay the completion of his degree.
Defending its procedures, Royal Holloway said it had investigated the incident and encouraged an informal resolution to the dispute.
Dr Nick Barratt, the university’s chief student officer, said: “Following a formal complaint from a student who described being targeted with a comment from another student they found discriminatory and distressing – and which was reported to the police as a hate crime – the university was obliged to follow its established conduct procedures.
“The student at the centre of the conduct process has not denied the behaviour that was under investigation. No formal complaint has been made against the reporting student, and no evidence has been provided to support one, but we are clear that any such allegation would also be investigated.
“This case is about addressing conduct that was found to be harassment. For us, that means defending every student’s right to a university experience free from discrimination.
“We respect the court process, and welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that our actions were in line with our duty to protect students from harassment and discrimination.”
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.