Can schools use the IHRA antisemitism definition without curbing free speech?

The Good Law Project launched a legal challenge against the UK government on Monday over its recommendation that schools and colleges in England adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism.

The recommendation came from a review of antisemitism in schools and colleges in England conducted by Sir David Bell. The review made 27 key recommendations, all of which ministers accepted. It found that one in five students overall reported witnessing antisemitism, and that many cases went unreported because students and teachers did not trust incidents would be addressed.

Good Law Project executive director Jo Maugham said he worried that rules conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism could themselves be among the drivers of antisemitism. He acknowledged the reality of antisemitism and expressed sympathy for British Jews affected.

Critics of the IHRA definition have long argued it limits free debate around Israel and Zionism, particularly its provisions on denying Jewish self-determination and comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis. The National Education Union had warned against creating a "hierarchy of racism."

The case tests whether a government-accepted review recommendation can be challenged legally, and whether the IHRA definition's contested examples can be applied in an educational setting without unlawfully constraining free expression. It could set a precedent for how far schools can go in regulating political speech — including criticism of Israel — in the name of protecting students from antisemitism.

The outcome may shape what teachers and students in England can say about Israel and Zionism in schools.