Goldsmiths' Independent Antisemitism Inquiry

Yesterday, Goldsmiths, University of London, publicly shared the report of the independent inquiry into Antisemitism on campus, which was commissioned by Goldsmiths’ Council. The report found that Jewish staff and students have experienced Antisemitism. We stand unequivocally against Antisemitism; however, we wholly disagree with the report’s callous conflation of Antisemitism and anti-Zionism, and the inclusion of many accounts contained within the report under this premise. 

In March 2025, we, as a Union, along with other organisations, including Goldsmiths UCU, publicly stated our loss of confidence in this inquiry. Regrettably, many of our concerns regarding how the inquiry was progressing have been reflected in the now-published report. 

Within the report are multiple mentions of Goldsmiths Students’ Union and our response to issues surrounding our activities. The Students’ Union operates as a separate charitable organisation from the University, and we are gravely concerned that those involved in the inquiry were not made aware of this fact, thus going beyond its remit to comment about events outside of the Inquiry’s scope, as defined within the Terms of Reference. In being mentioned within the Terms of Reference, the onus is on the Inquiry to approach the Students’ Union to obtain a full picture, if conclusions were to be drawn involving it. This has not happened, and a number of unsubstantiated false claims appear in the Inquiry regarding the Students’ Union. For example, the report suggests that the Jewish Society’s funding ‘had been threatened or suspended’ - this is categorically untrue; no funding was withdrawn from the Jewish Society while they were active. 

Regarding the Inquiry’s report, while this includes multiple passages raising the need to balance the recommendations with duties, it is gravely concerning that many of the resulting recommendations instead propose measures that, if implemented, would have the effect of severely limiting the rights of other persons and groups on campus, including those who express the legally protected positions of anti-Zionism or expression of pro-Palestinan support. Illustrative of these concerns is the recommendation that ‘the Jewish Society [be made] aware when potentially harmful speakers are due to attend campus or when protests are due to take place and consult with them as to the location of the event and protest’. 

Legislation requires Universities have a duty to allow Freedom of Expression, including of speech which may be controversial or harmful so far as it is legal, this specific recommendation would make a notable exception of conduct in regards to the conduct of usually pro-Palestinian protests that are not afforded to other marginalised groups, such as Trans people experiencing their rights being questioned in the context of the debate regarding the categories of Sex and Gender.

There is complete contradiction between the correct position that students and staff should ‘address assumptions about Jewish political affiliations’, and the implicit suggestions - or unscrutinised accusations, as contained within the report - that expressions of pro-Palestinian solidarity, or indeed the displaying of the phrase ‘Stop the Genocide’, are sufficient by themselves to constitute an Antisemitic harm. This is in fact a harmful and dangerous conflation between Jewish identity and inherent loyalty to a political project or the actions of a nation state such as Israel. Whilst the report was ‘unable on the evidence provided [...] to reach a definitive conclusion’ as to whether any specific instance of expression of anti-Zionist positions on campus constituted Antisemitism, the Inquiry nonetheless proceeds to ‘make recommendations [...] that will result in future protests on campus remaining the right side of the line’, a serious development which undermines fundamental legal principles regarding the burden of proof and further undermines the legitimate rights to Freedom of Expression.

The issues of discrimination and equality is not a zero-sum game, it is not a pendulum that swings between various groups whereby restorative justice for one group is taken to mean necessarily disadvantaging another, and yet despite our previously articulated concerns, this is the approach that the University has sought to adopt in the publication of this action plan. Anti-Racist Training came out of a demand from the Goldsmiths Anti-Racist Action (GARA) occupation in 2019, which the University had committed to. There have not been updates on the progress of the commitment to this training, and it is therefore not appropriate that its redesign has been adopted as a commitment outside of this context. Whilst the rhetoric from the University is that these measures are being implemented in addition to other anti-Racism initiatives, this report further cements disparities in dealing with different types of Racism. 

The Students’ Union unequivocally condemns Antisemitism, and will be taking steps to retroactively rectify any verifiable breach of our Equalities duties. Further, we will be partaking in efforts to reestablish the Jewish Society to ensure that there is a viable community for Jewish students on campus. Notwithstanding this, we find that the carelessness displayed by the Inquiry regarding the parameters of antisemitism in relation to anti-Zionist beliefs, dedicating notably few passages to the verified claims of far-right, explicit Antisemitism on campus, deploying numerous fallacies in dealing with issues of racism in the contemporaneous context, and displaying an astonishing ignorance of the sociological and philosophical basis for articulations on these matters in Legislation.