Tag: Motions

The following motion was passed with a majority of 68% at the members’ meeting on Wednesday 4th March 2026.

This branch notes:

1. That there has been a sharp rise in reported incidents of anti-Jewish discrimination/racism (antisemitism) in Britain since the escalation of violence in Israel/Palestine from October 2023, including the 2025 attack on Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue on Yom Kippur.
2. That over 100 human rights organisations including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B’Tselem and the ACLU have criticised the IHRA working definition of antisemitism for repressing free speech and enabling false accusations against students, academics, and activists. 
3. UCU Congress passed a motion in 2021 against the adoption of the IHRA definition in Universities, and Goldsmiths UCU has adopted a similar motion.
4. More broadly, a legal challenge to the NHS, and a mass campaign targeted at Ireland’s government, due to their respective adoptions of the IHRA definition.
5. That the right to protest Israel’s acts – deemed genocidal in a United Nations report of September 2025 – has been heavily suppressed across Britain, including at the University of Nottingham.

This branch believes:

1. That the IHRA working definition of antisemitism enables the conflation of anti-Jewish discrimination/racism with critique of the Israeli state’s actions. 

For example:

• Point 7 defines antisemitism as ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour’.  This represses debate over the historical origins of Israel as a nation state. 
• Point 10 defines antisemitism as ‘drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis’. This represses any debate that situates Israeli policy in relationship to far-Right politics and fascism. This, again, inhibits our ability to understand Israeli politics in a historical and global context. 

2. That the IHRA working definition of antisemitism distorts the meaning of antisemitism and thereby compromises the fight against anti-Jewish discrimination/racism.
3. That the IHRA working definition of antisemitism prevents legitimate critique of Israel, including critique the oppression of, and genocidal acts against, the Palestinian people. 
4. The IHRA disavows the plurality of Jewish beliefs and identities by conflating Jewish self-determination with Israel. As such, it contributes towards antisemitism.
5. That due to its overt ideological character and nebulous legal status, the IHRA working definition of antisemitism has had an overall detrimental impact on the exercise of freedom of speech in academic institutions. 

This branch resolves to:

1. Strive towards the University of Nottingham relinquishing its adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.
2. Work with Jewish staff and students to identify alternative ways of understanding and defining anti-Jewish discrimination/racism, including potentially the Jerusalem Declaration, with the explicit goal of combatting anti-Jewish hatred.
3. Protect free speech and the right to protest Israel’s apartheid regime and genocidal acts against Palestinians on campus and the broader public sphere of the United Kingdom.

This motion was passed at the members’ meeting on Wednesday 18th February 2026, with 96% voting in favour. It was also passed with similar majorities by the UNISON and UNITE branches at the University. The branch submitted the Vote of No Confidence to the Vice Chancellor on Friday 20th February 2026, and has passed this on to the press.

The University of Nottingham Branch Notes: 

1. A nationwide crisis in Higher Education funding has been in part caused by a funding mechanism that is not fit for purpose. 

2. Universities, including Nottingham, have failed to effectively challenge this model. 

3. A series of disastrous financial decisions have been made by the University Executive Board (UEB) and the Chair of Council over a period of many years.

The Branch further notes: 

1. The ‘Phase 1’ process was badly thought out and implemented without proper consultation, and had a serious detrimental effect on the morale and wellbeing of the Administrative Professional and Managerial (APM) and Operations and Facilities (O&F) staff. It has also led to unmanageable workloads and ongoing stress for remaining staff in these job families. 

2. Lessons have not been learned from this and ‘Phase 2’ has not been discussed in any meaningful way with any stakeholders. 

3. Indeed, there is a mandatory obligation that changes on this scale go through the Education and Student Experience (ESE), Quality and Standards Committee (QSC) and then Senate, then Council. None of this has happened. 

4. Further, the Quality Manual clearly states that School and Faculty endorsement is required to close or suspend a programme, none of which has even been sought. 

5. We are particularly concerned by the fact that decisions to ‘suspend’ courses have already been made. UCAS has been informed and students will not be enrolled. Council was presented with a fait accompli and it is obviously not a ‘suspension’ but a closure. The Chair of Council chose to ignore this fact. 

6. The ‘suspensions’ have gone ahead without any School or Business Unit level Equality Impact Assessments, leaving the university open to breaches of the Public Sector Equality Duty and the Equality Act, 2010. 

7. Preliminary proposals to impose a university-wide staff:student ratio (SSR) target of 18-22 have been advanced without any credible modelling of the consequences for the University of Nottingham’s global reputation, research standing, or its ability to deliver education consistent with its status as a Russell Group institution. This reflects profoundly poor judgement and a serious failure to assess long-term strategic and reputational risk. 

These decisions are ultimately the responsibility of the Vice Chancellor; however, the Chair of Council and UEB are equally culpable for their repeated failure to hold her to account. 

A natural consequence of this financial mismanagement, failure to consult, failure to follow even internal university governance and failure to be able to rule out compulsory redundancies is that this Branch cannot maintain any confidence in the Vice Chancellor, the Chair of Council or the University Executive Board. 

Therefore, this motion is one of no confidence in the Vice Chancellor, the Chair of Council and the University Executive Board. 

This Branch resolves to: 

1. Inform the Chancellor, Senate and Council of this decision. 

2. Publicise this decision in the press. 

3. Demand that a new UEB, Chair of Council and Vice Chancellor be appointed who will consult with campus trade unions over a fair resolution to the financial situation and who will abide by their responsibility to all stakeholders.