METHODOLOGY
Sources of data
The data for this tool originates from a variety of sources. One is from local or national press reports. Another is via anti-racism campaigners; this includes evidence based blogs on individuals or on a university together with tweets highlighting individuals or universities. We give precedence to press reports even when they are based on the work of activists.
This tool doesn't just look at individuals, but at the wider university experience; thus we include courses with antisemitic content; on campus abuse and harassment; antisemitic protests; sticker, graffiti or leafleting campaigns. . If people are making Jews on campus uncomfortable we look into it no matter what form this antisemitism takes, or who it comes from.
All data is archived and presented on the tool for the user to read and make their own mind up.
Dates
Dates are the publication date of press reports, blogs or tweets on which the incident was mapped rather than the date the incident occurred. This is for data tracking reasons as several articles contain multiple incidents. Even if the incident is from the past, the university’s response is indicative of the institutional culture at the time it is reported.
When considering what to include on the tool as a general rule incidents before 2010 are ignored since it would not seem particularly relevant if a student now long graduated had done or said something antisemitic back in 2009. The exception is for university staff members still employed by the institution; they will be mapped no matter how long ago the incident/s occurred as that is considered indicative of what students. Jewish or not, might expect were they say to take courses taught by those staff member
Incident types
As mentioned previously this tool looks at more than just antisemitic statements or ideas put forward by staff, but all areas where antisemitism can impact on students’ lives.
Because of the wide array of incident types we have categorised the incidents by type. These cover a wide range of things from antisemitic abuse; antisemitic graffiti; statements breaching the IHRA definition of antisemitism; support for antisemitic actions or words; denial of antisemitism; events where speakers employed antisemitism; antisemitic course content; and in the case of universities as institutions refusal to adopt the IHRA. All of these are believed to impact in some way on the experience that Jewish students may have on campus.
As an example if a university refused to adopt the IHRA it could be deemed unlikely they will respond properly to breaches of the IHRA definition directed at Jewish students on social media.
Another example would be universities that regularly host speakers specialising in antisemitic topics might claim to do so because there is "demand" for it on campus. Professors signing letters denying antisemitism might be seen as indicating a culture on campus that students might want to avoid. We try to present as much information as possible so that people are able to make informed decisions on these incidents
Incident categories
Incidents are also given categories and these are colour coded on our map. This relates to who/what the source of the incident was, such as students, staff members, former staff members, the university itself (in the case of policy), events and course content.
As an example this means you can have an incident where a student breached the IHRA definition, and it would have a category of student and a type of IHRA breach; another incident might be an event where speakers breached the IHRA where the category would be event and the type IHRA breach.
Inclusion Criteria
A wide range of criteria are looked at when mapping a person, institution or event.
Information on the person/institution or event must be in the public domain (see sources of data)
A person will be mapped to the institution included in the report. If they then leave the institution they will remain there on the map; this is so people can make judgements on how the institution dealt with them.
If a person moves to another institution after the event is public knowledge they may then be mapped against further institutions as this serves to highlight management culture at these universities. The goal is to show how universities deal with antisemitism and so academics who move around may be included in multiple places.
The map includes far more than acts of overt antisemitism (see incident types) and where needed expert advice is sought. We make no decision as to whether someone/something is or is not antisemitic, only that it was alleged as such by those reporting the incident.
People and events alleged to promote antisemitism are given more prominence but we seek to explore the broader institutional setting.
As an example we have included some people who supported someone who was alleged to have promoted antisemitism. While not in itself antisemitic if many such people work at an institution then a student might come to a view that there are an awful lot of staff publicly supporting alleged antisemitism and thus the university is unlikely to deal appropriately with any antisemitism they might suffer. We believe this to be an important tool in looking at the underlying culture permeating some of the UK's universities