The University of Leeds has withdrawn a formal written warning issued to Professor Emeritus James Dickins and restored academic privileges associated with his emeritus status following settlement of Employment Tribunal proceedings arising from a protracted dispute over his calls for a “co-ordinated response” to a pro-Israel campus event.
In a significant vindication of the principle that academics should not suffer detriment for engaging in lawful political advocacy within the university community, the Russell Group institution agreed to dispose of the claim on the first day of a Tribunal hearing concerning Dickins’ allegation that he had been discriminated against because of his pro-Palestinian beliefs.
The Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF), which supported Dickins throughout his ordeal, welcomes the outcome.
CAF was among a number of organisations that argued that the university’s response to complaints about his actions, and to calls for it to cut ties with him, was disproportionate and difficult to reconcile both with the robust protection afforded to political expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and with the university’s sector-specific statutory duty at the time to secure freedom of speech within the law.
As well as raising these concerns directly with Leeds, CAF promoted a public petition and helped build a wider campaign opposing disciplinary action against Dickins that ultimately persuaded the university to reconsider its position.
Dickins, a former Professor of Arabic at Leeds, brought a claim against the university after being disciplined over his response to an event organised by the university’s Jewish Society (JSoc). In January 2024, JSoc advertised an event at which Noah Shufutinsky, a hip-hop musician, would speak as part of a UK campus tour by StandWithUs, an advocacy organisation that seeks to increase support for Israel through educational events and information campaigns.
The event was being promoted against the backdrop of heightened tensions on university campuses following Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 and the subsequent war in Gaza.
On 2 February 2024, Dickins, a critic of Israel’s military campaign in the territory, sent a number of messages to the WhatsApp chat of the Palestine Solidarity Group (PSG), a Leeds University Union society. Having forwarded an advertisement for the event together with a suggestion that it would be held at Hillel House – the Jewish Chaplaincy centre at Leeds and a building routinely used to host JSoc events – he wrote: “I think a co-ordinated response is needed from Leeds PSC, Leeds University PSG, and staff at Leeds University”.
Less than a week later, on 8 February, Hillel House was daubed with the slogans “Free Palestine” and “IDF off campus”. The latter slogan appeared to refer to Zecharia Deutsch, an Israeli citizen and Jewish chaplain at Leeds, whose recent return to the university following service in the Israel Defence Forces had attracted attention among pro-Palestinian activists and students.
It was in this context that screenshots of Dickins’ messages subsequently found their way to Jewish News, which published them online. Following their publication, Emma Levy, President of Leeds JSoc, was quoted as saying that “her main priority was ensuring the university cut ties with James Dickins”, whom she accused of having “leaked the address of Hillel [House] and encouraged pro-Palestinian activists to protest against the appearance of an Israeli rapper on campus”.
A complaint was subsequently submitted to the university, which launched a formal investigation into Dickins’ conduct.
Perhaps inevitably, the relationship between Dickins’ messages and the subsequent vandalism at Hillel House became a point of contention during the controversy. Dickins maintained that, by using the phrase “co-ordinated response”, he did not intend to encourage a demonstration, still less violence or unlawful conduct, but had in mind an open letter. The investigation nevertheless proceeded on the basis that his messages had encouraged protest activity connected with the event and Hillel House more generally, and recommended that Leeds consider removing his emeritus status.
Supporters argued that this conclusion amounted, in effect, to punishment for lawful political expression connected with a contested campus issue and was difficult to reconcile with the university’s statutory duty at the time under section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 “to secure freedom of speech within the law for members, students, employees and visiting speakers”.
After the investigation report was produced, more than 10,000 people, including 21 fellows of the British Academy, signed a petition promoted by CAF opposing the proposed sanctions. The campaign also attracted support from the University and College Union at Leeds and a number of free speech and academic freedom organisations.
This public pressure appeared to have had an impact, since Leeds ultimately chose not to follow the recommendation to remove Dickins’ emeritus title.
While that sounded like the end of the matter, the outcome was more complicated. Despite Dickins retaining the title of Professor Emeritus, he was also issued with a formal written warning and stripped of privileges normally associated with emeritus status, including the supervision of PhD students, use of university facilities and access to a university email address. In effect, Leeds had left him as Professor Emeritus in name only.
As CAF pointed out at the time, this “revocation without revocation” approach appeared designed to retain much of the substance of the originally proposed sanction while avoiding the public criticism that would have accompanied outright removal of his emeritus title. A related concern was the precedent this might set for other retired academics who become involved in contentious public debates.
As the dispute continued, Dickins took legal advice and commenced proceedings in the Employment Tribunal. The pleadings have not yet been made public, but Dickins has said that he challenged Leeds under the Equality Act 2010 on the basis that it had discriminated against him because of his pro-Palestinian beliefs.
Understood in this light, the case had the potential to raise important questions about the legal position of emeritus academics more generally. Although Dickins was no longer a salaried employee of the university, the sanctions imposed upon him were directed at privileges associated with his continuing status as a Professor Emeritus, including his ability to participate in aspects of academic life through activities such as PhD supervision and academic research.
One issue may potentially have been the extent to which Equality Act protections continue to apply after a formal employment relationship has ended. In particular, section 108 of the Act prohibits discrimination where it “arises out of and is closely connected to a relationship which used to exist” between the parties. Whether the removal of emeritus privileges could constitute a detriment sufficiently connected to Dickins’ former employment relationship was therefore a potentially significant question, particularly since the privileges in question existed precisely because he had formerly been employed by the university.
Fortunately for Dickins – though perhaps less fortunately for those of us with an unhealthy interest in obscure questions of Equality Act jurisprudence – those questions never needed to be determined by the tribunal. On 1 June 2026, the first day of the hearing, the parties reached a settlement under which Leeds agreed to revoke the formal written warning and restore Dickins’ emeritus privileges.
In a statement seen by CAF, Dickins expressed his delight at the settlement and thanked “the many individuals who have supported me on this difficult journey for justice”, including CAF for its support throughout the dispute.
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.
Support CAF’s research, advocacy and casework defending academic freedom and free speech rights for staff and students across UK higher education.