An employment tribunal has made a landmark ruling that “anti-Zionism” is a legally protected characteristic, as it found in favour of a sociology professor who was sacked by the University of Bristol over allegedly antisemitic comments.
Prof David Miller was dismissed from his role at the prestigious Russell Group University following a series of remarks he made about Israel and Zionism.
Jewish students first complained against Miller, a political sociologist by training, in 2019, after he gave a lecture describing the “Zionist movement” as one of the “five pillars of Islamophobia”, and showed a graphic using a maze of dotted lines to link together a group of individuals (all but one of them Jewish) and Jewish communal bodies to what he termed “Zionist lobbying”. Complaints that this resembled the antisemitic trope that Jews wield secretive influence on political affairs were dismissed by the university on academic freedom grounds.
Tensions were further inflamed following comments he made during an online event about free speech, in which he described Israel as attempting to “impose their will all over the world”, and railed against Jewish student groups who lodged formal complaints about his views to Bristol University which, he claimed, was part of a “drive to stop anyone speaking out about Palestine”.
Around the same time, Miller wrote on The Electronic Intifada website that: “There is a real question of abuse here, of Jewish students on British campuses being used as political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing.”
In an on-the-record email to the news editor at The Bristol Tab university newspaper, Miller also said: “Zionism is and always has been a racist, violent, imperialist ideology premised on ethnic cleansing. It is an endemically anti-Arab and Islamophobic ideology. It has no place in any society.”
Writing for the Critic in February 2021, FSU General Secretary Toby Young said he disagreed with those who had begun calling for Prof Miller’s sacking. “Yes, what [he] has said is offensive, but being offensive is not an offence,” he wrote. “My position is that no university should fire an academic for exercising their lawful right to free speech, particularly not a tenured professor.”
Miller was eventually sacked in October 2021, following a six-month investigation, a disciplinary hearing, and two internal investigations. Although the university’s internal investigation found his comments did not constitute unlawful speech, the university decided to sack the professor with immediate effect as he “did not meet the standards of behaviour [we] expect from [our] staff”.
Having lost his appeal against his termination in March 2022, Miller, who now works for Iranian state-owned television channel Press TV, took his case to the employment tribunal, claiming that he was subject to an organised campaign by groups and individuals opposed to his anti-Zionist views, which was aimed at getting him sacked. He also alleged that the university failed to support him and unfairly dismissed him.
In a judgment handed down on Monday by Judge Rohan Pirani, the Bristol employment tribunal ruled that Miller’s anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
The panel also found that he was subject to direct discrimination because of his anti-Zionist belief in relation to the university’s decision to sack him, although the former academic had his compensation reduced by half because his sacking was “caused or contributed to by his own actions”.
Relatedly, the judgment went on to suggest that not all of his previous comments would necessarily qualify for protection under the Equality Act 2010. In particular, comments he made in August 2023 about Jews being “overrepresented” in positions of power were described as being “of a different order” to previous comments:
The claimant does not suggest any sensible or coherent link to his protected beliefs. Instead of saying Judeophobia was “not a serious problem” the claimant tweeted that “Jews are not discriminated against”. In his own supplementary witness statement, drafted to deal with these further tweets, he accepted that this was wrong and incorrect. Instead of saying that Jews were “well represented” in positions of cultural, economic and political power he wrote that they are “overrepresented”. When put next to comments about the absence of discrimination it is highly likely that overrepresented will be interpreted as having negative connotations and that it is somehow problematic.
Responding to the judgment, the Union of Jewish Students said it was “disappointed” by the decision which could set a “dangerous precedent” about what can be said on campus about Jewish students and societies.
Bristol University also said it was “disappointed” with the ruling, and would review the tribunal’s findings.
In a video published to X, formerly Twitter, the Campaign Against Antisemitism has said it is considering whether to appeal the ruling.
