They Don’t Like It Up 'Em – Dame Nancy Rothwell’s Complained About Me Calling Her A ‘Bastard’ But She Doesn’t Mind Being Called a Racist!
A month ago the
Guardian reported Whitworth
gallery director Alistair Hudson forced out over Palestinian statement. Manchester University did not deny the content of the article or
dispute its accuracy. Their response:
We absolutely uphold academic freedom. Staffing
matters are strictly internal to the university and we never comment on
questions of this nature.”
which begged more
questions than answers. One can only assume, since the University’s Vice
Chancellor Dame Nancy Rothwell has repeatedly tried to suppress discussion
about Zionism and Israel, on the anti-Semitic grounds that it may offend Jewish
people, then she considers interfering with anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian
meetings and the Forensic Architecture exhibition, to the extent of imposing
her own chair on a meeting, consistent with academic freedom.
I posted a
blog ‘Open
Letter to Manchester University's Racist Vice-Chancellor Dame Nancy Rothwell’ on March 7
describing what had happened recently at the Whitworth Galley but also pointing
out that in 2017, war criminal Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev had had a secret
meeting with Rothwell and on this basis the University had censored the title
of a talk given by Jewish Holocaust survivor, Marika Sherwood.
The
Information about Regev’s meeting with Rothwell hadn’t been disclosed
voluntarily. It had had to be dragged out of the university via a Freedom of
Information request. The University had refused to accede to the FOI request
and the Information Commissioner had to issue an order that they comply.
Even the Jewish Chronicle, which is hardly a pro-Palestinian
paper, led with a story University
censors Holocaust survivor's speech. The JC reported the details of interference by the Israeli Embassy:
after the Information
Commissioner ruled the university had to comply with a Freedom of Information
(FOI) request by a student to disclose “all
correspondence between the University of Manchester and the Israeli lobby”.
The title, described by
university officials as “unduly provocative”, was banned and conditions were
imposed by the university before the talk could go ahead, including that it had
to be recorded, and that only students and staff could attend.
Michael Freeman, the Israeli
embassy’s counsellor for civil society affairs, contacted the university about
the talk.
He claimed the title “could
be considered antisemitic”, saying it breached the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, and would make Jewish
students feel uncomfortable on campus.
He also criticised two
speakers booked for a separate event.
Ms Sherwood’s talk went ahead
with the amended title. She denied the original title was antisemitic.
According to the Guardian,
she told the audience she was saved from the Nazis by Hungarian Christians who
baptised her and provided her with documents saying she was not Jewish.
She said: “I was just speaking of my experience of
what the Nazis were doing to me as a Jewish child. I can’t say I’m a
Palestinian, but my experiences as a child are not dissimilar to what
Palestinian children are experiencing now.”
In what was irrefutable evidence of how the IHRA Definition
of Anti-Semitism chills free speech a spokesperson for the Israeli embassy told
the JC:
Comparing Israel to the Nazi regime could reasonably be considered
antisemitic, given the context, according to IHRA’s working definition of
antisemitism, which is accepted by the British government, the Labour Party,
the NUS, and most British universities.
Comparisons
between Russia and Nazi Germany, Putin and Hitler are frequent at the moment.
I’ve not heard anyone suggest that this is anti-Semitic, however stupid such
comparisons may be, so why should comparisons with Israel be anti-Semitic? Is
the Israeli state exempt from criticism or comparisons because it calls itself
‘Jewish’? Given that the Israeli state never hesitates to compare the
Palestinians and its opponents with the Nazis it would appear that Israel has
been given immunity by Rothwell.
In an email
from Dianne Petcu, writing on behalf of Dame Rothwell, she writes that:
The University has not suppressed artistic and
academic freedoms. Nor has it bowed to external pressures as has been suggested
The email
was written in respect of the latest controversy over the University’s
attempted censorship at the Whitworth Gallery, where they ordered a statement in
support of the Palestinians to be removed (later they were forced to retract
their edict) but it applies equally to the affair of Marika Sherwood five years
ago. Not only is Rothwell a racist she is a liar, or rather she gets others to
lie on her behalf.
On what
basis did Rothwell take it upon herself to censor the title of a meeting by a
Jewish Holocaust survivor at the best of someone who defended the machine
gunning of 4 boys playing on the Gaza beach? If Rothwell had any honesty or
integrity she would have resigned in shame after the revelations of Israeli
Embassy interference and her acquiescence in the demands of Israel’s Embassy.
Unfortunately,
like Boris Johnson and the British Establishment, Rothwell doesn’t understand
the meaning of the word shame. She is one of those desiccated managers who uses
platitudes to avoid telling the truth.
As readers of this blog know, I go out of my way
not to offend anyone, but it would seem that some people are offended by the
truth.
Following my blog a few readers emailed Manchester
University. One such was Benjamin Treuhaft, who asked whether my open letter
had been received. In reply Roz Dutton,
the Executive Assistant to the President & Vice-Chancellor, made it
clear that her boss didn’t appreciate my correspondence! Dutton wrote telling
Ben that:
we should confront here that we object to being referred to as “bastards” and do not consider this to be an appropriate way to
conduct an exchange
It should be noted that my blog was titled:
‘Open Letter to Manchester
University's Racist Vice-Chancellor Dame Nancy Rothwell’. The only conclusion
that can be drawn from this is that her ladyship doesn’t mind being called a
racist, indeed she seems quite flattered at the description, but calling into
question her parentage ruffles her feathers. I guess that’s what comes of
having joined the aristocracy.
Incidentally I cannot find any reference in my
correspondence to calling those involved ‘bastards’ although I would accept
that it’s a fitting description!
On 9 March Dutton wrote to me to informing me
that my
‘email and blog
include content which is grossly inaccurate with many and widespread
misrepresentations including of a personal nature. The University disputes the
assertions you make.’
Dutton referred me to an anodyne statement on the
university’s website which stated that
We work tirelessly to ensure that these rights [academic freedom,
freedom of speech and equality responsibilities], ‘are considered fully and
carefully.
Despite accusing me of ‘many and widespread
misrepresentations’ Dutton saved
herself the trouble of telling me what these ‘misrepresentations’ were.
On 10 March, Dianne Petcu also wrote to Michael Shanahan in which she
referred to ‘unhelpful
speculations and false representations about the Whitworth Art Gallery’. However Petcu went on to say
that ‘we hope the following confirmations
are helpful’.
Most of the ‘confirmations’ were
simply repetitions of previous assertions as to how Manchester University
spends all its time working ‘tirelessly
to ensure that these rights, and our duties, are considered fully and carefully.’
Certainly Petcu has been working tirelessly trying to repair the reputation
of Manchester University. However at the
top of the list of confirmation was the following statement:
Alistair Hudson is the Director of the University of
Manchester’s Whitworth Art Gallery.
Missing from the statement is any repetition of its
previous statement to the Guardian that ‘Staffing
matters are strictly internal to the university and we never comment on
questions of this nature.” Instead
there was a bland statement that Alistair Hudson remains in post.
The only conclusion that I can draw is that once again, faced with
a storm of pressure, Manchester University and racist Rothwell have thought
twice about sacking Alistair Hudson. All that is now left to do, if the
University really wants to convince us that it has turned over a new leaf, is
to confirm that Rothwell has been sent on a long sabbatical to her favourite
country Israel.
I imagine that there is post vacant at Ariel University in the
occupied West Bank for this apologist for Israeli Apartheid. The correspondence
is below
Tony Greenstein
President
Tue, 8 Mar,
11:32 (3 days ago)
Dear Ben,
We have indeed received the
letter from Tony Greenstein and a response will follow to him, though we should
confront here that we object to being referred to as “bastards”
and do not consider this to be an appropriate way to conduct an exchange.
With regard to the point
that you make below which addresses the recent unhelpful
speculations and false representations in the media about the Whitworth Art
Gallery, the facts are:
Alistair Hudson is the Director of the University of
Manchester’s Whitworth Art Gallery.
The University has not suppressed academic and artistic
freedoms. Nor has it bowed to external pressures from UKLFI, or other
external bodies as has been suggested.
Indeed, the University went to great lengths to ensure that
the exhibition in question proceeded uncensored and remained opened for
the full period that had been planned.
The University’s position was clearly articulated in a
statement that accompanied the exhibition and is attached here as a reminder.
Museums and galleries have traditionally been a space of
experimentation and challenge and we believe that the Whitworth is a place
where we can debate, discuss and disagree well.
As a University and gallery, there are various rights and
duties which apply across our work, including the protection of academic
freedom, freedom of speech and expression and duties under equality laws
(including the public sector equality duty.)
We work tirelessly to ensure that these rights, and our
duties, are considered fully and carefully.
Yours sincerely,
Roz Dutton (Mrs.)
Roz Dutton | Executive Assistant
to the President & Vice-Chancellor | The University of Manchester | John
Owens Building | Oxford Road | Manchester | M13 9PL | E: president@manchester.ac.uk
Benjamin Treuhaft
Tue, 8 Mar, 13:11 (3 days ago)
Dear Mrs. Dutton,
thanks for your comments on Tony’s accusations. I’m
sorry that you didn’t like “bastard” - although I fear
you’ll find there’s much worse in his letter. Did The Guardian and all
the artists withdrawing their work from the museum get it completely wrong
about Alistair Hudson’s future? That would be great!
Thanks,
Ben
Dear Mr
Greenstein,
We write further
to your email dated 7 March 2022 addressed to the University’s President and
Vice-Chancellor and in connection with the
corresponding blog published on your website on the same date.
The
University recognises and embraces the rights of freedom of speech and
expression. However, your email and blog include content which is grossly
inaccurate with many and widespread misrepresentations including of a personal
nature. The University disputes the assertions you make.
A copy of
the University’s statement issued following recent speculative and false representations in the media about the Whitworth Art
Gallery is accessible via the following link: https://www.staffnet.manchester.ac.uk/news/display/?id=27770
Yours
sincerely,
Roz
Dutton (Mrs.)
Roz Dutton | Executive
Assistant to the President & Vice-Chancellor | The University of Manchester
| John Owens Building | Oxford Road | Manchester | M13 9PL | E: president@manchester.ac.uk
To: <president@manchester.ac.uk>
cc. The
Chancellor <chancellor@manchester.ac.uk>, "Patrick Hackett
(REGISTRAR)" <patrick.hackett-REGISTRAR@manchester.ac.uk>, UoM
correspondence replies <correspondence@manchester.ac.uk>, Nalin Thakkar
<n.thakker@manchester.ac.uk>, Luke Georghiou
<luke.georghiou@manchester.ac.uk>
Dear Ms
Dutton,
Thank you
for your email of 9 March.
You say
that my email and blog were 'grossly
inaccurate' but you carefully avoided taking the opportunity to enlighten
me as to what those inaccuracies might be.
You also
say that Manchester University ‘recognises
and embraces the rights of freedom of speech and expression’. I can only
say that if this is true then you have a strange way of demonstrating it.
If there
was any truth in your statement then you would not have embraced the IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism whose sole
purpose is to conflate anti-Zionism and support for the Palestinians with
anti-Semitism. I doubt if even your distinguished Vice-Chancellor can tell us
what the 38 word definition actually means:
“Antisemitism is a certain
perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical
and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish
individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and
religious facilities.”
This
definition has been heavily criticised by a range of legal and academic
scholars. David Feldman, Director of the only academic institute in Britain for
the Study of anti-Semitism, described it as ‘bewilderingly imprecise’. Sir Stephen
Sedley, a Jewish former Court of Appeal judge stated that it’s not even
a definition, being indefinite. Geoffrey
Robertson QC, a prominent human rights barrister’s opinion was that it was ‘unfit for purpose.’ Indeed the very person who drafted it,
Kenneth Stern, in evidence to Congress, described how it was being
used to ‘chill’ free speech. Manchester University proves this.
The IHRA is
the quintessential example of anti-Palestinian racism. It defines the
Palestinian experience of Zionism and Israeli racism through the prism of
‘anti-Semitism’. It presupposes that when Palestinians oppose the demolition of
their homes and confiscation of their land that they do it out of hatred of
Jews.
The IHRA
says that calling the Israeli state racist is anti-Semitic. So the practice of
confining Israeli Palestinians to 2% of Israel’s land and refusing them
admission to hundreds of Jewish only communities is not racist? Why? If the
same happened in reverse and an English National Fund denied Jews access to
‘Christian’ land would that not be anti-Semitic?
UK Lawers for Israel statement saying they wrote to Rothwell ‘suggesting
that the University should consider appropriate disciplinary action’ against
Hudson
To take
another example I can go, at any time I choose, under the Law of Return to
Israel and claim citizenship whereas Palestinians born there not only have no
such right but those living there are having that right removed. Maybe the good
Dame can explain why this is not racist?
Vice-Chancellor
Dame Nancy Rothwell was responsible for the introduction and implementation of
the IHRA at Manchester University. You chose the tender feeling of groups like
the far-right UK Lawyers for Israel over those of Palestinian students.
Your
decision to adopt a definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ that chills free speech was
taken as a result of government pressure. You did not have the courage to
resist. So your statement that you ‘embrace’
freedom of speech and expression is just hot air, devoid of any substance.
If you were
serious about freedom of speech you would junk the IHRA and adopt the Jerusalem Declaration
on Anti-Semitism which has been
drawn up by Israeli and Jewish academics. It carefully avoids conflating
support for Palestine with anti-Semitism.
Dame
Rothwell was responsible for a Jewish holocaust survivor, Marika Sherwood,
being forced to change the title of a speech she gave, ‘“You’re
doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to me” because Israeli
Ambassador Mark Regev, whose main job was to lie on behalf of his country,
objected. How is this compatible with your lofty declarations?
Most
reasonable people would say that Ms Sherwood was in a better position to know
whether or not Israeli behaviour resembled Nazi behaviour. Instead of indulging Regev you should have
sent him away with a flea in his ear.
I
have read the university statement and it is clearly inaccurate as you did try to prevent a statement on Palestine accompanying the
Exhibition of Forensic Architecture and you only backed down when FA itself
withdrew the exhibition.
If
you dispute the claim
that UKLFI asked for disciplinary action to be taken against Mr Hudson and you
obliged them then why you don’t simply go on record and deny it? There is a
long and shameful record of academic institutions in this country collaborating
with apartheid, be it in South Africa or Israel. You seem determined to continue that
tradition.
It
is clear that the Vice-Chancellor of Manchester University, Dame Nancy
Rothwell, is an unashamed racist who, given the choice between Palestinian
students and the Israel lobby prefers the latter. That is your misfortune.
Dame
Rothwell’s behaviour is also racist because she subscribes to the canard that
criticism of Zionism or Israel’s behaviour will breach the university’s public
sector equality duty. UKLFI said that support for Palestinians “seems designed to provoke racial discord” but this only
demonstrates that Zionism and anti-Semitism are two sides of the same coin.
Support for the Palestinians and opposition to Zionism has nothing whatever to
do with anti-Semitism and any attempt to connect the two is itself
anti-Semitic.
It
is clearly time that the good Dame moved on to greener pastures. Manchester
University is surely, after 12 years, entitled to a Vice Chancellor who is an
anti-racist?
Yours
sincerely,
Tony
Greenstein
From:
Dianne Petcu <dianne.petcu@manchester.ac.uk>
on behalf of The Chancellor <chancellor@manchester.ac.uk>
Sent: 10 March 2022 14:27
To: Michael Shanahan
Subject: RE: The current status of your Whitworth Director , Alistair
Hudson.
Dear Mr Shanahan,
Thank you for your further email. I would like to refer you
to our latest statement below which addresses your queries.
Following the recent unhelpful speculations and false
representations about the Whitworth Art Gallery we hope the following
confirmations are helpful:
Alistair
Hudson is the Director of the University of Manchester’s Whitworth Art
Gallery.
The
University has not suppressed artistic and academic freedoms. Nor has it bowed
to external pressures as has been suggested.
Indeed,
the University went to great lengths to ensure that the exhibition in question
proceeded uncensored and remained opened for the full period that had been
planned.
Museums
and galleries have traditionally been a space of experimentation and challenge
and we believe that the Whitworth is a place where we can debate, discuss and
disagree well.
As a
University and gallery, there are various rights and duties which apply across
our work, including the protection of academic freedom, freedom of speech and
expression and duties under equality laws (including the public sector equality
duty).
We
work tirelessly to ensure that these rights, and our duties, are considered
fully and carefully.
In
summary, we can assure you that, together with my colleagues in the
University, we are committed to ensuring that the Gallery’s work and reputation
goes from strength to strength.
Best wishes
Dianne
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please submit your comments below