The Union of Jewish Students (UJS) have asserted that \u201cA narrow legal finding on expressions of a philosophical belief in the workplace is not a moral endorsement of conduct or those beliefs\u201d.<\/p>\n
The Community Security Trust (CST) have warned the decision \u201cis utterly surreal and completely detached\u201d from reality.<\/p>\n
The judgement has been heralded by Miller \u2013\u00a0who intends to return to his post as a sociology professor \u2013\u00a0as a victory belonging to the \u201cfinal dismantling of Zionism\u201d.<\/p>\n
In February 2024, an employment tribunal ruled that Miller, who is also a regular commentator on Iranian state channel Press TV, had been discriminated against and unfairly dismissed by the University of Bristol in 2021 because of his antizionist beliefs.<\/p>\n
The university appealed the decision, but on Tuesday the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rejected that appeal, upholding the original finding that Miller\u2019s dismissal amounted to discrimination because it was a disproportionate response to his behaviour.<\/p>\n
While the EAT ruled \u201cit would have been proportionate to issue some disciplinary sanction against [Miller] short of dismissal,\u201d it agreed with the tribunal ruling that sacking him was unfair.<\/p>\n
The EAT result has sparked alarm in parts of the Jewish community.<\/p>\n
A spokesman\u00a0for UJS warned: \u201cWe must not allow activists to weaponise this judgment; to use it to validate antisemitic, hateful abuse and harassment.\u201d<\/p>\n
A\u00a0CST spokesperson said the decision is \u201ccompletely detached from how [Miller\u2019s] wildly inflammatory outbursts are viewed by many Jewish people.\u201d<\/p>\n
The EAT upheld the original finding that Miller’s dismissal amounted to discrimination because it was a disproportionate response to his behaviour.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt was disproportionate because the employer did not give the claimant the chance to respond to a warning in relation to conduct that did not – on the Tribunal’s analysis – justify immediate dismissal,\u201d the appeal ruling states.<\/p>\n
\u201cA less intrusive means than dismissal could have been used by the appellant,\u201d the EAT goes on.<\/p>\n
Bristol University could have given Miller \u201ca warning and could have set out more clearly and consistently what it regarded as acceptable in relation to a member of academic staff making public comments about students and student societies,\u201d it states.<\/p>\n
The EAT also rejected a ground of appeal advanced by Bristol’s lawyers that “political beliefs are outwith the scope” of the Equality Act, as per the original ruling.<\/p>\n
It concluded that the university had failed to overturn the tribunal’s finding that moving “straight to dismissal” was “disproportionate”, ruling that this conclusion was “within the legitimate parameters of judgement”.<\/p>\n
Considering the separate finding of unfair dismissal, the appeal tribunal found that the university’s argument was \u201cnot well founded\u201d.<\/p>\n
However, the EAT endorsed the tribunal\u2019s finding on the power imbalance between staff and students.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe claimant was not in a position of equivalence with the students and that there was a significant power differential. It considered that it was not appropriate for professors publicly to aim aggressive discourse at students or student groups,\u201d the EAT stated.<\/p>\n
It also recognised that Miller\u2019s references to students and student bodies \u201cwere not manifestations of any protected belief on which the claimant relied\u201d and upheld the tribunal’s ruling that there “was a realistic chance” that Miller would have been lawfully dismissed had he remained at the university, assessing that chance at 30 per cent.<\/p>\n
The appeal tribunal found that Miller’s comments “directed specifically at Jewish students and Jewish student groups” were an issue that “ultimately contributed materially to the decision to dismiss, but which was separate from the expression manifestation by the claimant of his protected beliefs”.<\/p>\n
The UJS said: \u201cUniversities must remain spaces of free speech and rigorous debate. No, academic freedom cannot serve as a shield against institutional responsibility, nor can it be invoked to silence Jewish students; to suppress them with hostility and intimidation.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is a clear distinction between criticism of the actions of a state and hateful rhetoric that casts Jewish students and their communities as the enemy.<\/p>\n
“Jewish students experience extreme hate and racism as real-world threats to their safety, as harassment, and as exclusion \u2013\u00a0compounded by the sense that speaking up on campus leads nowhere.<\/p>\n
\u201cUniversities must ensure they protect all students in an era where protests, social media and external actors amplify harm.<\/p>\n
“Jewish students are not asking for special treatment \u2013\u00a0they are asking for education without fear, identity without penalty, and institutions to act when they are unlawfully targeted.<\/p>\n
“The collective moral responsibility on campuses and beyond to protect all students against discrimination and abuse has never been greater.\u201d<\/p>\n
A spokesperson for the University of Bristol said: \u201cWe recognise the Employment Appeal Tribunal\u2019s judgment, although we are disappointed with its findings.<\/p>\n
“Our core objectives are to ensure all our students thrive at the University of Bristol and to protect freedom of speech and expression, a fundamental part of that care and consideration. At the same time, we have an obligation to make sure that these essential and important freedoms are exercised appropriately and in line with our codes of conduct and the expectation of the highest standards of behaviour.<\/p>\n
“We will continue to provide an environment where our staff and students can debate difficult and contentious issues, fostering a positive working and learning environment where free speech and academic freedom are championed.\u201d<\/p>\n
In repsonse to the EAT, Miller said: \u201cFor years, the University of Bristol capitulated to an intimidation campaign by genocidal Zionist groups to criminalise my sociological research.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe court has made it clear: universities \u2018ought to be prepared to face and to weather criticism and reputational damage which flows from the exercise by its academics of their rights to speak and think freely and lawfully\u2019.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe court has also declared that it is clear, coherent and legitimate to describe Zionism as racist, colonial and imperialist. Zionist claims to the contrary have been comprehensively rebuffed.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe binding legal precedent we have established in my case means no vice-chancellor can ever again lawfully sack an academic or suspend a student simply for identifying the structural racism, colonialism and imperialism inherent in the Zionist project. Nor can any other employer. This victory belongs to the global movement for the liberation of Palestine and the final dismantling of Zionism.<\/p>\n
\u201cI now look forward to returning to work at the University of Bristol and taking up my post as Professor of Political Sociology. It is important that my career is reinstated and that I am therefore free to work in higher education without fear of intimidation or reprisal.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Union of Jewish Students (UJS) have asserted that \u201cA narrow legal finding on expressions of a philosophical…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1130257,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[8818],"tags":[381,748,228442,230542,393,4884,16,15],"class_list":["post-1130256","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-bristol","tag-bristol","tag-britain","tag-david-miller","tag-employment-tribunal","tag-england","tag-great-britain","tag-uk","tag-united-kingdom"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/117038485651525931","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1130256","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1130256"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1130256\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1130257"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1130256"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1130256"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1130256"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}