logo
University of Edinburgh could abandon anti-Semitism definition

University of Edinburgh could abandon anti-Semitism definition

Telegraph6 days ago
The University of Edinburgh could drop a definition of anti-Semitism following a report.
Academics have audited the university's links to the empire, particularly the role played by Arthur Balfour, a former prime minister and Edinburgh chancellor, whose influential support for a Jewish homeland they have branded 'racist'.
The report on colonial connections has recommended that the university drops the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism that it currently adheres to.
It claims that this definition inhibits free discussion of wrongs committed by Israel, as this might come under the scope of the recognised definition for anti-Semitism.
Sir Peter Mathieson, the university's principal, has said that discussions about scrapping the definition are still continuing against the backdrop of the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Reflection on the definition comes following the publication of the report Decolonised Transformations, produced by the university's research and engagement working group set up in the wake of Black Lives matter protests.
It was co-led by Tommy Curry, Edinburgh's chairman in Africana philosophy and black male studies, who has publicly contended that 'phallicism (worship of the phallus)…remains an under-theorised aspect of race/gender theory despite being observable in every theatre of war & colonial oppression such as Palestine'.
Mr Curry, the co-leader of the research project, was criticised in 2017 for a radio interview in which he talked about 'killing white people in context' and the fact that 'in order to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people may have to die'.
The same year, he published a paper which argued that the 'fear-desire-anxiety of the white woman' near a black male 'creates the conditions for rape'. In a discussion of the postcolonial thinker Frantz Fanon, he wrote that 'the white woman cries out for rape'.
The controversial psychiatrist claimed the 'fear of rape not itself ' could be a 'cry out for rape', and that a woman afraid of black men was'nothing but a putative sexual partner' just as a racist man is a 'repressed homosexual'.
Fellow authors also include Esther Stanford-Xosei, a reparations activist, and Shaira Vadasaria, a lecturer in 'race and decolonial studies'.
Their report traces the current violence in Gaza to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the statesman, serving as foreign secretary and as chancellor at Edinburgh, offered support for the idea of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East.
This 'irreversibly triggered a process of settler-colonial dispossession and dehumanisation in Palestine', which continues 'following the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023' with what it terms 'Israel's war of annihilation'.
To address this link historical to the foundation of Israel, which happened 18 years after Balfour's death, academics have recommended that Edinburgh establish a 'Palestine studies centre'.
Edinburgh may also create a scholarship programme for students of Palestinian heritage, and promote greater levels of teaching on 'race, racism, settler-colonial dispossession, refugees, migration, displacement'.
University bosses have also been urged to divest from any investments in companies linked to Israel, a process that has already begun.
Their report criticises Britain for inaugurating the dispossession of 'Palestine's Indigenous community'.
History of slavery and racism
It states that at the time of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, 'General Allenby was put in charge of Britain's 1917 Palestine campaign that led to the occupation of Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip '.
The report makes no mention of the fact that Britain was fighting the Ottoman Empire, which had occupied the land of Palestine for 400 years, with the help of Arab allies.
The report makes further claims about the 'outsize influence' that Edinburgh had on Britain's history of slavery and racism.
Academics have claimed that the university was 'a haven for professors and alumni who developed theories of racial inferiority and white supremacism, such as the idea that Africans were inferior to whites'.
The report once cites a small footnote written by alumnus David Hume, in which the renowned 18th century philosopher wrote: 'I am apt to suspect the N------ to be naturally inferior to the whites'.
To address this kind of legacy, recommendations have been made to establish another research centre for the 'study of racisms', in addition to further decolonisation of the curriculum.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Kemi Badenoch: I don't identify as Nigerian any more
Kemi Badenoch: I don't identify as Nigerian any more

BBC News

time13 minutes ago

  • BBC News

Kemi Badenoch: I don't identify as Nigerian any more

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has said she no longer identifies as Nigerian and has not renewed her passport since the early who was born in the UK, grew up in both Nigeria and the US. She returned to England aged 16 because of Nigeria's worsening political and economic climate, and to continue her on former MP and television presenter Gyles Brandreth's Rosebud podcast, she said she was "Nigerian through ancestry" though "by identity, I'm not really".Last year, Badenoch faced criticism from Nigeria's vice president who said she had "denigrated" the West African country. Badenoch, who lived in Lagos, spoke at length about her upbringing on the podcast. "I know the country very well, I have a lot of family there, and I'm very interested in what happens there. But home is where my now family is."On not renewing her passport, she said: "I don't identify with it any more, most of my life has been in the UK and I've just never felt the need to.""I'm Nigerian through ancestry, by birth, despite not being born there because of my parents... but by identity I'm not really," she added. Badenoch said when she visited the country when her father died she had to get a visa, which was "a big fandango".She said her early experiences in Nigeria shaped her political outlook, including "why I don't like socialism".As a child "I remember never quite feeling that I belonged there", she went on, saying she recalled "coming back to the UK in 1996 thinking this is home".At the end of last year, Badenoch was criticised for saying she had grown up in fear and insecurity in Nigeria, which was plagued by corruption. The country's vice president Kashim Shettima responded, saying his government was "proud" of Badenoch "in spite of her efforts at denigrating her nation of origin". A spokesperson for Badenoch rebuffed the criticism.

Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution
Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution

The Independent

time42 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution

Here we go again. To say there is a deja vu aspect to the latest proposal to build Heathrow's third runway is an understatement. For reasons that are not clear, Sir Keir Starmer has determined the airport's expansion to be a key plank in the government's economic growth strategy. Seemingly, he did not take into account the issues that grounded the plans in the past, as far back as 1968 – namely, Heathrow's unfortunate and unavoidable proximity to the M25, the rivers and their valleys that cross that part of west London, the additional noise pollution, and the need for improved and costly transport links to and from the centre of the capital that will result from the vast uplift in passengers. On the constant sound from the increased number of planes landing and taking off, the prime minister will insist that great technological strides have been made in curbing the din. It is true that new aircraft are less noisy. However, they are still extremely audible, there will be more of them, and they will be flying over a heavily residential area. As for the rest, nothing has altered fundamentally, environmentally and logistically, since Heathrow last submitted a scheme, pre-Covid. Inflation means the bill is now an eye-watering £49bn. The bill, ultimately, will be borne by the air passenger, and Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world. Will the airlines and their customers stomach at least a doubling in charges? There is the thorny problem, too, of public transport to and from London. The London mayor will be expected to find a way to enable an extra 60 million people a year to use Heathrow. Transport for London is strapped for cash, struggling to upgrade the Tube network. How the additional demand will be met is not clear. What has shifted as well is the nature of air travel. Post-pandemic, business travel is down and looks unlikely to recover – that, certainly, is what the industry is saying. During the outbreak, holding meetings remotely came into its own and employers took a hard look at their budgets – Zoom or Teams often represent a better alternative in executive time and expense. That therefore raises a major doubt about one of the main claims made for Heathrow's extension. It is said to be necessary to enhance London and the UK's standing in the business world, but how, if the commercial users are not there? There has been movement too, and not of the positive kind, in attitude towards Heathrow the operator. The power outage that shut down the plum in Starmer's vision for resurgence and global acclaim was a shocking episode; it not only highlighted a neglected infrastructure but also a failure of management. Thomas Woldbye, who is seeking permission to build this national project, is the same boss who slept through the night as Britain's busiest airport ceased to function. Heathrow's reputation in the sector was already poor, but this took it to a new low. Woldbye has an idea that is different from the one previously suggested, which is to build the third runway over the M25, taking the motorway underneath – and all without any disruption to road users. This is fanciful even without a track record that hardly inspires confidence. Which raises another question. Why? Why should Heathrow as a company get to preside over the airport's improvement and reap the benefits? If we're all agreed that it is a vital national asset, holding a pivotal place in the economy, then why should the incumbent be in charge, not to mention entrusted, with its development? Those who wax lyrical about Heathrow's importance like to reminisce about how Britain led the transformation of international aviation. Boosting the airport is seen as completing that journey. It is the case that we once did. That was in the Margaret Thatcher era, when British Airways was freed from the shackles of state ownership. Thatcher did more than that, though. She enabled and encouraged competition, giving a steer to the challengers and disruptors, notably to Richard Branson at Virgin and Michael Bishop at British Midland. The newly privatised BA was forced to raise its game, and together, these three set new standards. There appears to be an assumption that Woldbye's company must be given the job. But there is another option. Surinder Arora, the self-made billionaire who has masterminded the building of leading hotels at Heathrow and other airports and is a substantial Heathrow landowner, has his own remedy. His is much cheaper, envisaging a shorter runway that does not affect the M25. It is easy to dismiss Arora. But he is popular with the airlines, he rails rightly against Heathrow's pricing, and he knows a thing or two about customer service. He also possesses heavyweight advisers in the shape of Bechtel, the US engineering, construction and project management giant. He deserves to be taken seriously. Heathrow needs a competitor. Likewise, if neither the airport operator nor Arora is selected and the third runway is again kiboshed, then surely serious thought must be given to expanding rival airports. Heathrow has been resting on its laurels for too long. As for Starmer, he perhaps should ask himself how it is that someone who professes to be forensic legally is so capable of displaying rushes of blood to the head politically. Giving Heathrow such prominence smacks of impetuousness. He's done it and has been left with an almighty headache.

Starmer needs to listen to us, says Labour MP who quit government over welfare cuts
Starmer needs to listen to us, says Labour MP who quit government over welfare cuts

The Independent

time42 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Starmer needs to listen to us, says Labour MP who quit government over welfare cuts

Sir Keir Starmer needs to listen to his own MPs, an ex-Labour frontbencher who quit her role over plans to slash benefits has said. Vicky Foxcroft, who dramatically quit as a government whip in June, said ministers need to 'properly engage' with Labour backbenchers after a massive rebellion forced the government to abandon key aspects of its benefits reforms. Ms Foxcroft said she was 'really concerned' about the negative impact the proposals – which were later abandoned – would have on disabled people. 'There was some quite bad cuts to disabled people's benefits suggested, particularly around Personal Independence Payment (PIP), and having to have four points before you would be able to access the benefit. 'And I was just really concerned about that. And, you know, at that point, I didn't feel that I could support it and didn't feel that I could go out and whip for it and get other MPs to do the same', Ms Foxcroft told GB News ' Gloria De Piero. She said she had 'sleepless nights' in the lead-up to her decision to resign, saying it was 'really difficult and I really would rather not have had to do that'. 'I was actually having a hard personal time at that time as well, with my dad passing away quite suddenly. And so, you know, I had the stress of all of that, but also I was really worried about these proposals, and I really spoke to lots of people about what my concerns were around it. 'I had some sleepless nights, it plays on your mind the whole time', the MP for Lewisham North added. Asked what the government could do differently next time, she said: 'I think it's really important to listen to MPs. MPs are out in their constituencies. They're meeting with people. You know, when they're raising concerns it is coming from what people are worried about. 'It's really important that that engagement takes place in the future. And properly takes place.' But Ms Foxcroft also insisted that the government can turn around its fortunes, despite a poor performance in the polls, with Reform UK surging ahead. 'We've got quite a few years until a general election, and we are doing a lot of good things in Parliament, the Renters' Rights Bill, the Employment Rights Bill, the Football Governance Bill, but at the moment, some of this stuff is just bills in parliament. 'What we need is people to really feel the difference actually, genuinely in their lives.' It comes amid growing concern over the direction of Sir Keir's government from voters on both the left and the right, with the prime minister's approval rating hitting an all time low earlier this month. His support among the public reached new depths of minus 43 after the £5bn welfare U-turn, according to polling published last month. The survey, first reported by The Sunday Times, also found that just a year after coming to power, seven in 10 voters think Sir Keir's government is at least as chaotic as the Tories' previous term.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store