Exclusive: Sir David Bell defends report on antisemitism in education after Owen Jones claimed it was ‘riddled with errors’
Sir David Bell has defended his report on antisemitism in education, which recommended new teaching resources on Israel after pro-Palestine figures, including Owen Jones, challenged its findings. Writing in the JC, Bell – former top civil servant at the Department for Education (DfE) - rejected both criticism of the statistical methodology and questions over his impartiality. His 27 recommendations have all been accepted by the government and include the provision of new teaching resources on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism across the education sector.
The report, published last week, was greeted by education secretary Lucy Powell as “laying bare the prevalence of antisemitism” in the education system, while Holocaust Education Trust chief executive Karen Pollock said the “stark findings” reveal a “devastating reality”. Among Bell’s findings in the government-backed report was the shocking statistic that three in five Jewish pupils aged 16-to-19 have experienced antisemitism at school or college.
Author and broadcaster Jones claimed the report was “riddled with errors” and would “silence people over Palestine”. In a piece for Zeteo UK, titled Debunked! The Antisemitism in Schools Report Is Based on BS Numbers, he wrote: “Here are two truths. First, antisemitism is a real and growing problem which needs to be confronted. Second, this evil has also been abused and weaponised to shut down discussion of Israel’s Western-facilitated genocide of the Palestinian people.
“But the report is a travesty. It is riddled with factual errors, contradictions and distortions of evidence and research.” He particularly questioned the statistic on the percentage of sixth-form-age Jewish students who have suffered antisemitism. Jones claimed the finding was “based on a sample of 70 students” and that only “29 said they'd personally experienced antisemitism”. He also suggested that Sir David had a “conflict of interest” because of his position of the National Council of the Academic Study Group on Israel and the Middle East.
Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture
The article never says what the Academic Study Group on Israel and the Middle East stands for: its only firm policy is opposition to boycotts of Israel, and the DfE's terms of reference for the review do not mention Bell's place on its council. Without this a reader takes Jones's conflict-of-interest point as vague and believes Bell has answered it.
How we know
- On the recordThe Academic Study Group on Israel and the Middle East, whose only firm policy is opposition to boycotts of Israel, has listed Sir David Bell on its National Council since at least August 2016, a fact the Department for Education's terms of reference for his review do not mention.newscord.org (opens in a new tab)
- Our analysis“The terms of reference say he "has no conflict of interest".”Lucy Powell wants every school in England to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Seven of its eleven examples are about Israel.
Writing for the JC, Bell said: “A single statistic, survey or testimony can give us a complete picture of an issue as complex as antisemitism in education. That is precisely why the review considered both statistic-based evidence and personal testimonies. “I met with dozens of individuals and organisations from within and beyond Jewish communities in England, hearing directly from pupils, parents, teachers and others with different experiences and perspectives.
“Alongside this, more than 5,000 16 to 19-year-olds responded to a survey. Like any survey, it has limitations. That is why it was never intended to stand alone or produce one headline figure from which sweeping conclusions could be drawn. Instead, it formed part of a much wider evidence base.” Addressing the claim of a conflict of interest, he said: “Questions have also been raised about my impartiality when conducting the review. I did not come to this review with an agenda or narrative I wanted to promote.
“Instead, throughout this work I have been led by the evidence presented to me, and I would encourage anyone questioning its conclusions to engage with that evidence in full. “My conclusion is clear – antisemitism is a serious problem in our schools and colleges, and we must tackle it in a coherent and comprehensive way. My report is a start in that direction, so now it’s all about implementation.”
Read the original article on thejc.com (opens in a new tab)