Whose academic freedom matters? Whose academic freedom is worth protecting and defending and whose deserves to be ignored?

On October 19th and 20th, the Battle of Ideas Festival took place in London. One of the panels, titled “Academic Freedom: (Still) Under Threat?” questioned authoritarianism within universities, particularly when it came to the repression of free speech. In the context of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which was scrapped by the Labour government immediately after coming into power (a decision that is now being challenged legally), the panel description questioned: 

Is free speech on campus being sacrificed to create cosy relationships with authoritarian regimes? While few believed the free speech law by itself would turn the tide of cancellations, conformity and intolerance that has plagued academic life, the political push for intellectual openness alerted many to the free speech crisis in UK universities. How can this momentum be built upon further? What now for those who are concerned about securing intellectual diversity and heterogeneous opinion on campus?

This was, no doubt, a crucial conversation for staff, students, and all those concerned about higher education. But a glaring omission on this important panel was Dr David Miller, who was fired by the University of Bristol from his position as professor of Political Sociology in October 2021 due to his political views (deemed anti-Zionist beliefs). Miller is an expert on lobbying, public relations and propaganda, with a special interest in “the Zionist movement”, as described by the University when announcing his appointment in October 2018.

His dismissal followed three separate investigations into Miller’s conduct (one by the University and two by an external Queens’ Counsel) which all cleared him of antisemitism and determined that none of his views constitute unlawful speech. If the university had conducted several investigations that cleared the professor, why had they fired him? 

Miller instigated an Employment Tribunal against Bristol University and won the legal case in February 2024. In doing so, he argued that Zionism was “inherently racist, imperialist and colonial” and that it was “ideologically bound to lead to the practices of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide in pursuit of territorial control and expansion.” Meanwhile, the University argued that anti-Zionist Miller’s beliefs were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society” and that they were therefore “akin to Nazism,” which is the test used via the Equality Act 2010 to determine which philosophical beliefs should be protected in law and which should not. 

Through his legal case, Miller secured a verdict recognising that his position was a legally protected belief “worthy of respect in a democratic society … not incompatible with human dignity and not [in] conflict with the fundamental rights of others”, and that firing him for this belief amounted to unlawful discrimination. The University’s court case particularly fell apart when the provost, Dr Judith Squires, tried to justify a hypothetical equivalent case of “Anglo-Saxonist” supremacy and tangled herself in ideological knots.

In his 120-page decision, Judge Rohan Pirani stated: 

Although many would vehemently and cogently disagree with [Miller]’s analysis of politics and history, others have the same or similar beliefs. We find that he has established that [the criteria] have been met and that his belief amounted to a philosophical belief. What [Miller] said was accepted as lawful, was not antisemitic and did not incite violence and did not pose any threat to any person’s health or safety.

This was a groundbreaking legal case. The verdict of the employment tribunal was determined in February and became publicly available in mid-October. Still, there was no reaching out to the beleaguered professor from the Battle of Ideas. No last-minute requests asking him to join any relevant panels, even though Miller paid the ultimate price for his academic freedom and successfully sought redress. On the contrary, he has received zero backing either this year, nor throughout the several years he was investigated and cleared over and over again; an ordeal that would cause anyone significant distress.

The Battle of Ideas is not the only freedom of expression organisation that does not appear to know about Miller

Why? After all, the Battle of Ideas advertises itself as “the home of no–holds–barred discussion”, which proclaims, “FREE SPEECH ALLOWED”. Is the “battle” being advocated on behalf of free speech or simply preferred speech? Is it about academic freedom or about a favoured academic’s freedom?

The Battle of Ideas is not the only freedom of expression organisation that does not appear to know about Miller and his academic ordeal. Academics for Academic Freedom has never reached out to the under-siege professor through his years of struggle for academic freedom, even though the persecution that he was subjected to falls almost too neatly within their remit.

The organisation describes itself as  “a campaigning group for all lecturers, academic-related staff, students and researchers who wanted to defend unimpeded inquiry and expression” and argues:

Academic freedom – the responsibility to speak your mind and challenge conventional wisdom – defines the university and stands as a model for open debate in wider society. In today’s political climate it is harder than ever for academics to defend open debate. Many academics are fearful of upsetting managers and politicians by expressing controversial opinions. Afraid to challenge mainstream thought, many pursue self-censorship.

All laudable goals and I am grateful that they exist. But AFAF have never offered support (publicly or privately) to Professor Miller. Furthermore, the organisation runs a monthly list of “Heroes and Zeros” in the academic sector; celebrating people who have contributed to the defence of freedom of expression within universities. In February 2024, the month that Miller won his Employment Tribunal, the Hero of the Month was a Vice-Chancellor who gave a pleasant speech in the House of Commons, beseeching fellow managers to defend diversity of thought.

In October 2024, the month that the Miller full judgement became public, the Hero of the Month was a lecturer who faced disagreements and criticism on social media. The organisation went one step further, publishing a full statement supporting said academic, even though the lecturer had always been fully protected and supported by his institution. There have been no statements of support for Prof Miller from these organisations. It is as if, in the eyes of many of his peers, particularly those publicly supportive of academic freedom, he does not exist. Why?

The problem for Miller appears to be that anti-Zionist speech represents The Great Unspeakable. Despite being recognised as a protected characteristic, it is considered off-limits by some. Maybe some of Professor Miller’s detractors would argue that he was engaging in appalling conduct in the classroom. To learn what happened, I read all three investigation outcomes, plus the judgement.

The first investigation followed complaints that Miller had used “antisemitic language, tropes and conspiracy theories.” The student had asked the University to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism to judge whether Miller had engaged in wrongdoing, but the University argued at the time that “it is a somewhat controversial definition, with some believing that it is imprecise and can be used to conflate criticism of the policies of the Israeli government and of Zionism with antisemitism. It is not clear that the IHRA definition is compatible with the University’s legal obligations under the Education Act and Human Rights Act.” 

The University judged the complaint based on the metric that antisemitism meant “hostility towards Jews as Jews”, and dismissed it as being inapplicable to Miller, noting at the time that Miller’s references when speaking about Zionism and related policies “always seem to be [related to] specific groups rather than Jews in general.” 

The second investigation, conducted by an external Queen’s Counsel, found that there was “no formal case to answer, and no basis for any other action against Professor Miller” given that students objections “do not reach the threshold of unlawful treatment within the Equality Act 2010.” 

The investigation also noted that the University procedures are clear that “the University will not accept complaints that are made longer than 90 days after the matters complained about, unless there is good reason for the delay,” and that people were complaining in April 2019 about remarks expressed by Miller in November 2018 and July 2017, and articles published in 2015 and 2013. The barrister concluded: 

In my view, taking into account the manifestly hopeless nature of this complaint there would have been a strong case for recommending no further action on the complaints against Professor Miller by reason of delay even if I concluded, contrary to the above, that there was otherwise a case to answer.

The third investigation, also asked a QC barrister to investigate “whether the statements made by Professor Miller” on the occasions set out below “exceed the boundaries of acceptable speech bearing in mind all relevant University policies, Ordinances and Statutes, all relevant law (including, but not limited to, the Equality Act 2010, Human Rights Act 1998 and Education (No 2) Act 1986)” and “bear[ing] in mind the University’s adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism in November 2019”. 

The events under investigation included an online discussion where Miller discussed academic freedom and a number of publications, including one that accused Miller of allegedly describing Jewish students as “pawns” of Israel. The Jewish Chronicle quoted Miller as having stated: 

The ‘Jewish student groups’ you refer to are political lobby groups overseen by the Union of Jewish Students, which is constitutionally bound to promoting Israel. ‘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.

The barrister conducting the investigation writes in their report: 

I include this text not to add to the matters under investigation, but to contextualise the “political pawns” statement. The extract makes it clear that what is being said is that groups such as Bristol Jewish Society were in Professor Miller’s view not “Jewish student groups” (emphasis added) but “political lobby groups overseen by the Union of Jewish Students, which is constitutionally bound to promoting Israel”, and that Jewish students on British campuses were, by virtue of their membership of JSocs/ UJS, “being used as political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing”; in other words, in my view Professor Miller’s criticism were not targeted at Jewish student groups as Jewish groups, rather at (demonstrably) Zionist-affiliated organisations. 

The report notes that “this statement is obviously one which will be offensive to many” but that it did not involve antisemitic tropes, writing: “This being the case, it cannot in my view be regarded as having exceeded the boundaries of acceptable speech.”

After these three investigations, the University of Bristol, which was being lobbied by members of Parliament and external advocacy groups to sanction Miller (as noted in the investigation reports and the final judgement), pushed ahead and decided to fire him.

Abuse has no place in academia … But disagreement … does not represent abuse

The final charge against Miller is that some students felt “unsafe and unwelcomed” on campus because of his presence and that his lectures, which challenged their political opinions, were “scary.” What does that mean? All students, irrespective of their beliefs, must be protected from bullying, harassment, threats of violence and intimidation. Abuse has no place in academia, regardless of anyone’s political views, identity or background. But disagreement (including strongly held disagreement about political or philosophical matters) does not represent abuse. 

I have the greatest sympathy for students who feel angry, upset and uncomfortable in their classrooms because I have been one. But my suggestion to overcome these feelings would be the opposite of Bristol’s appeasement of intolerant students. What they needed was to openly challenge Miller if they believed that his opinions about Zionism were incorrect. I speak on this matter from experience, having faced deeply uncomfortable classroom settings myself.

I did my bachelor’s degree in the most conservative state in the United States: Utah. Upsetting remarks about ethnic minorities and immigrants were not an isolated incident. They often went unchallenged by lecturers. As a teenager, to sit in those classrooms as an immigrant, as an ethnic minority, and a religious minority, listening to the unpolished ramblings of the ultra-conservative minds of the mostly white men who populated my political science and international studies classes, was objectively horrible.

Yet I didn’t want to shut down the class or restrict my classmates’ views; I just didn’t want to be a part of those discussions. In the pre-WhatsApp days, I think I only managed to get by with the US$5 calling cards my grandma would send me so I could debrief with my family back home in the Caribbean. To my surprise, my loved ones would laugh at my distress. They said it was wonderful that I was exposed to such challenging views, and counselled me: “it is paramount that you sit through those lectures and that you learn to understand how your classmates think so that you can then craft better arguments against them.” This was brutal advice, but I now appreciate that tough love was exactly what I needed.

If I were a parent now receiving distressed phone calls from my teenage kid, who was upset about what they were hearing in university lectures, I would give them the same advice my parents gave to me (although perhaps I would not laugh at their distress). This would be mostly to toughen them up — but also because the exposure would make them smarter and impervious to peer pressure; indispensable traits they would need to survive in the world.

Regrettably, the University of Bristol decided to mollycoddle intolerant students keen on  censoring free speech, instead of supporting an academic expressing lawful opinions about his expertise. Academics and free speech campaigners, who purport to care about academic freedom should have made a cause célèbre out of Prof Miller’s landmark victory. Instead, he is treated like a pariah when, in effect, he is a professor fired for doing the job he was hired to do. 

Miller would not remember this today but, some years ago, before this matter became public, I sat through some of his lectures. I remember thinking that it was a credit to the University of Bristol that they allowed an academic so fiercely critical of systems of power and oppression to do his job. The classroom was dynamic and engaged throughout; it was a professor’s dream and the kind of energising education that students should hope for. Looking back, it is a credit to Miller that none of his students were the wiser about the inordinate amounts of stress he was probably under while this unfortunate ordeal unfolded. 

If dialogue is the way forward and campaigners are keen to create an atmosphere of genuine viewpoint diversity where academics can speak freely, then they could start by practicing what they preach and extend an invitation to their next fancy event to an academic who stood his ground on his philosophical beliefs, securing protections for everyone else along the way. To capitalise on the worthy causes of academic freedom and free speech while conveniently forgetting some of those among us who are incurring the costliest risks would come across as stolen valour.