��������

LONDON: An American law professor is suing his university after it banned him from teaching over comments he made about Israel, The Guardian reported.

Ramsi Woodcock’s lawsuit, filed in federal court against the University of Kentucky, is part of a growing backlash against US universities over a clampdown on pro-Palestine speech and activities.

His suit argues that his first amendment and due process rights were violated when the university placed him under investigation in July, days after he was promoted to full professorship.

The decision was based on allegations that he had violated university policy on anti-discrimination rules.

But those rules are partly based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which has proved highly controversial and is disputed by a range of academics and rights organizations.

Across the US, faculty members at public and private institutions have come under investigation over criticism of Israel, and in many cases have been fired.

Woodcock’s lawsuit is the first filed by a professor against a university that challenges the constitutionality of the IHRA definition of antisemitism and the application of federal Title VI anti-discrimination protections regarding criticism of Israel.

It says: “Title VI does not and cannot constitutionally prohibit criticism of Israel. To the extent that the IHRA definition prohibits calling for the dismantling of colonial state structures, prohibits legal scholars from debating the contours of the right of self-determination, prohibits allegations of race discrimination and prohibits allegations of genocide, the IHRA definition is unconstitutional.”

The university’s decision to “reassign” Woodcock — as described by spokesperson Jay Blanton — followed a petition launched by the Antizionist Legal Studies Movement, a group founded by the professor.

The petition said: “We demand that every country in the world make war on Israel immediately and until such time as Israel has submitted permanently and unconditionally to the government of Palestine everywhere from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.”

University President Eli Capilouto accused the group of “calling for the destruction of a people based on national origin,” adding that it “threaten(ed) the safety and well-being of the university’s students and staff.”

Woodcock has rejected both allegations against the petition.

The university leveled further charges against him in September, and accused him of creating a “hostile environment” on campus.

He “called for violence against Israel, the genocide of Israeli people and the ultimate destruction of Israel in a manner that uses antisemitic tropes,” it claimed.

Woodcock responded to the allegations by citing the decline of more than 80 Western colonies in the last century, adding: “Does President Capilouto really believe that each involved the destruction of a people rather than the liberation of one?”

The professor is represented by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has described the initial petition cited by the university as constitutionally protected speech.

Gadeir Abbas, CAIR’s deputy litigation director, told The Guardian that had Woodcock made the same comments about any other country, including the US, “he would have been free to do as he pleases … but because it’s about Israel, the University of Kentucky has given into the hysteria.”

Woodcock’s suit also argues that the university revoked its own suspension policies in order to target him.

It had previously only permitted suspensions of faculty members if proof of “immediate harm” could be demonstrated, yet this was changed after it was cited by Woodcock as grounds of a violation, the suit says.

He told The Guardian: “If Israel has a right to exist, then French Algeria had a right to exist and the British Raj had a right to exist.”

He said any future state on current Israeli territory must allow Palestinians alone to decide policy, and “that includes according to Palestinians the right to decide the legal status of the colonizer population.”

He added: “While the principle that Palestinians alone should decide is essential to maintaining a rule against colonization, it is likely that Palestinians would grant equal rights to the colonizer population.”