We repost Michael Rosen’s posts on the Goldsmiths antisemitism inquiry

In June 2025, Goldsmiths, University of London published the findings of an inquiry into antisemitism on campus chaired by Mohinderpal Sethi KC. It was never made clear why the College decided to launch an inquiry exclusively into antisemitism and not into other forms of racism, not least Islamophobia. Yet it certainly chimed with the government’s intense pressure on higher education institutions to clamp down on antisemitism because of the government’s equation of pro-Palestine solidarity with antisemitism.

The inquiry cost nearly £460,000 at a time when the College was laying off a significant number of staff because of alleged financial problems.

The inquiry report found evidence of antisemitism – including antisemitic graffiti in the Library – and criticised management for not effectively dealing with the concerns of Jewish students and staff. In response, the College produced an Action Plan – partly written by a consulting firm – designed to implement the report’s recommendations.

Some of the proposals are non-controversial, such as paying more attention to the need for kosher facilities and avoid scheduling clashes with religious festivals. Others are far more problematic such as the introduction of mandatory antisemitism training for all staff (something that hadn’t even been called for in the report) and a review of existing protest guidance, clearly linked to pro-Palestine mobilisations on campus.

It then set up an external ‘Advisory and Oversight Board’ – including representatives from the Community Security Trust, Union of Jewish Students and Board of Deputies and a separate Project Board largely staffed by senior managers. Jewish staff and students, despite having been promised a voice, are absent from both groups.

In response to this exclusion, a group of 13 Jewish staff members have been organising to ensure that the College fully addresses the problem of antisemitism without in any way penalising pro-Palestine protest and that this is done as part of a more sustained campaign against all forms of racism. The group claim that they have not been consulted on any aspects of the action plan.

One of the group’s members, Michael Rosen – a Professor at the University – has been posting regularly on social media about his experiences. We reproduce here some excerpts of what we believe to be an important issue given that this could well act as a precedent, particularly in mobilising antisemitism training at the expense of tackling other forms of racism and in policing pro-Palestine solidarity on UK campuses.

Posted on 25 October 2025

Where are we at Goldsmiths and the saga of antisemitism awareness training?

At the heart of it is nothing. We have had two meetings which, by agreement, are confidential.  That said, the outcome of these two meetings is zero. We are acutely aware that these meetings could be used and exploited as evidence that the college has consulted us and that we approve of how they are proceeding.

Note: we were not consulted. These meetings have been nothing more than what I would call ‘encounters’.

So, to recap, the college spent something like £450k (yes!) on an antisemitism inquiry. It found some examples of antisemitism – unpleasant and nasty. The inquiry castigated management for not dealing with these.

Note: the inquiry did NOT investigate whether these examples of a form of racism (ie antisemitism) were more or fewer than examples of racism towards other groups. Note: £450k has NOT been spent on investigating racism towards other groups.

Why not? you might ask

We don’t know. It did NOT investigate to what extent Jewish students and members of staff did NOT experience antisemitism. This means that the report – in spite of its huge cost – was not a ‘survey’, did not show or prove the ‘extent’ of antisemitism. Such a research would require different methods – as any sociologist would tell you.

Now what happens next: the College has announced that it’s going to put into place an Action Plan. So far, we can gather that this will involve an outside ‘Advisory Group’ and an in-house Project Group.

Note: our group of 14 [now 13] Jewish members of staff, are opposed to the establishment of antisemitism awareness training separated off from any other kind of racism training. One of our main reasons for this is that it will instantly set up a hierarchy of racism in the college – as already implied by the money and time spent on dealing with antisemitism anyway.

We note that we (14 Jewish members of staff) have been excluded from any of the processes by which this structure (Advisory Board and Project Board) have been set up. We can see already taking shape is that the antisemitism awareness training is likely to involve the Board of Deputies and/or the Union of Jewish Students. The cost is likely to be in the region of £60k.

We are concerned that some of this antisemitism awareness training will involve views approximating to the idea that expressions of pro-Palestine attitudes will be deemed to be anti-semitic. To be fair to the KC who ran the antisemitism inquiry, he ruled out this position. He was very clear that Article 10 in European Convention on Human Rights protected open discussion about such matters ie a pro-Palestinian position could not be ruled out on the grounds that it was eg hate speech and/or antisemitic. As part of this, the KC made clear that the ‘examples’ in the IHRA code were not necessarily examples of antisemitism just because the IHRA said they were, and anyway, neither the IHRA code or its examples were enforceable.

Given that the government has earmarked £15 million to deal with antisemitism on university campuses, Goldsmiths could end up being some kind of test case. In which case, what’s unfolding is a good deal of secrecy and a way of putting things in place that are behind closed doors and exclude the very people who are seemingly in need of protecting from antisemitism ie us, a large proportion of Jewish members of staff in Goldsmiths.

We are continually asking why this has happened, and all we get as answers is that that’s how it must be; management ‘owns’ the Action Plan, they say. It is clear that management has no idea how a management might create such a ‘plan’ through co-operation and consensus. Or if they have an idea about how, they are setting their teeth against such democracy.

I come from a protest tradition in universities based on teach-ins. With these, we create alternative bases of intellectual power. I’m of the view that one of the ways forward for us is to set up a teach-in on racism, antisemitism, and how these matters might be handled in a university. Some of us have a great deal of experience in this area.

 Posted on 18 January 2026

I’m very glad to see that Goldsmiths, University of London is marking Holocaust Memorial Day and providing a booklist. Interesting that one of their staff has written 4 books about Holocaust experiences and events. (Me). None of my books are on the recommended list nor my video. Good old Goldsmiths.

Posted on 25 January 2026 after writing to the organisers of Goldsmiths’ Holocaust Memorial Day events about why his work on the Holocaust had been left off the recommended reading list provided by the College.

Dear Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Team

Since writing to you I have ‘discovered’ that, following the Antisemitism Report, the university made a commitment in relation to Holocaust Memorial Day.

Here it is.

12. Holocaust Memorial Day and associated events
The inquiry recommends Goldsmiths should: Include consultation with or consideration of Jewish students and staff at the university. In response Goldsmiths will:
Annual Holocaust Memorial Day – Fund and support annual Holocaust Memorial Day event led by Jewish students and staff.

Can I draw your attention to two phrases: 

‘…with or consideration of Jewish students and staff at the university.’ (from the Inquiry Report)

‘…Holocaust Memorial Day event led by Jewish students and staff.’ (from Goldsmiths’ response to the Inquiry)?

The Antisemitism Inquiry’s Report was published in May 2025. It follows that you have had six months to fulfil your commitment to support HMD 2026, ‘led by Jewish students and staff’. This did not happen. Why not? 

You wrote to me explaining that, ‘Given the breadth of scholarship and creative work produced across the institution, it is not practicable for centrally coordinated HMD activity to identify or include all relevant staff-authored publications outside of the Trust’s nationally promoted resources for the year.’

The sole reason why it was not ‘practicable…to identify or include all relevant staff-authored publications…etc’ was because you failed to keep to the commitment that the university gave to host an HMD even ‘led by Jewish students and staff’. If you had honoured that commitment, you would have found out immediately what expertise and experience lies within ‘Jewish staff’. I can’t and shouldn’t speak for the student body.  

Quite clearly, you are in breach of the university’s commitment to host HMD ‘led by Jewish students and staff’, and indeed in breach of your own ‘Equality, Diversity and Inclusion’ terms of reference. Can I ask what you are doing in the name of equality, diversity and inclusion, if you are not observing equality, diversity and inclusion? As before, I make the remark that you are pursuing a policy defined by Miranda Fricker as ‘Testimonial Injustice’. In other words, you are guilty of the very thing that your team is there to mitigate against. An analogy would be for an ‘Anti-racism team’ to treat people in a racist way. 

Could I also suggest that if or when you write to me, you don’t issue me with recommendations as to what I should do in relation to Holocaust Memorial Day? I am thinking here of you suggesting that I should make contact with the HMD Trust in relation to my books. I found this suggestion patronising and just a little bit offensive. 

Posted on 30 January, 2026

The latest in the saga of Goldsmiths, antisemitism and our ad hoc Jewish Group is as follows:

Goldsmiths committed to holding Holocaust Memorial Day events ‘led by Jewish members of staff and students. (This was an assurance given as a consequence of the Antisemitism Inquiry (that cost the college nearly half a million pounds).

They did not do this.

They organised events for HMD with no reference or consultation with Jewish members of staff.

What is this called? What is the meaning of this? Is it ‘discrimination’?

We have raised this matter in different ways with different people. So far, we have had no replies.

Speaking only for myself, I’ve had no reply to my letter to Equality, diversity and inclusion as to why they didn’t act according to the principles of equality, diversity and inclusion when organising Holocaust Memorial Day. I’ve also pointed out that I found it patronising and offensive that they told me to talk to other people about their booklist.

I’ve pointed out most of these things here and on X, where i’ve tagged in outlets like Jewish News and the Jewish Chronicle, because I thought they’d be interested in a story of how Jews have been ignored and overlooked when it comes to HMD. For the moment, nothing.

So what do we do? What should we do?

Michael Rosen’s posts are published here with his permission.