College statement on Antisemitism and Islamophobia

Coventry College does not tolerate religious or racial harassment of any kind.

Our college is committed to meeting our responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 to prevent racial or religious harassment of all kinds. We take a zero-tolerance approach to harassment throughout our college, ensuring that all our students and staff feel safe on campus. We combine these responsibilities with our duty to protect freedom of speech as defined by the Education Act 1986 and Human Rights Act 1998.

Antisemitism

A particular class of such harassment is antisemitism, which is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism states:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

“Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g., gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

“Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

“Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

“Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.”

The IHRA notes that its working definitions “help raise awareness of how these issues may, taking into account the overall context, manifest themselves.” Such discussions are important for our community, and for society as a whole. Public discourses express a range of views on recognising antisemitism, in order to be in a position to act against it.

It is important to recognise that our zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism does not prevent criticism of Israel or the actions of the Israeli government, just as all other nation states and government are open to critical discussion. For example, as set out by the Home Affairs Committee in 2016:

• It is not antisemitic to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.

• It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli government to the same standards as other liberal democracies or to take a particular interest in the Israeli government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.

We will continue to actively engage our community to build awareness of antisemitism as a form of religious and racial intolerance.

Further resources on Antisemitism:

• Antisemitism Explained (Video)
• Antisemitism in the 21st century

Islamophobia

Another example of this type of harassment is Islamophobia. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPG) definition states:

“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

It is important to recognise that our intolerance of Islamophobia does not prevent criticism of Islam or Muslims, just as all other religions are open to critical discussion. For example, being critical of Islam or any religion does not automatically make you an Islamophobe. You are only an Islamophobe if you use the language of racism targeting expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness to express your views.

Contemporary examples of Islamophobia in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in encounters between religions and non-religions in the public sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Calling for, aiding, instigating or justifying the killing or harming of Muslims in the name of a racist/fascist ideology, or an extremist view of religion.

• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group, such as, especially but not exclusively, conspiracies about Muslim entryism in politics, government, or other societal institutions; the myth of Muslim identity having a unique propensity for terrorism and claims of a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims or of a ‘Muslim takeover’.

• Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.

• Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.

• Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

• Denying Muslim populations, the right to self-determination e.g., by claiming that the existence of an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour.

• Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, e.g., loyalty tests.

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g., Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies.

• Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic.