Earlier this year, Essex University was under fire over its decision to allow students to vote on whether a Jewish society could be established on campus.

Within 48 hours, the university had apologised, cancelled the vote and established a Jewish society. It also set up a review into the “Experiences of Jewish Students and Staff”.

An academic who had supported the campaign against the formation of the JSoc and who was found to have shared antisemitic material on social media was suspended and then expelled.

Essex’s response was a model of its kind. Compare this with Bristol University. In March, sociology professor David Miller gave a lecture claiming that Zionists and Zionist organisations were funding hatred of Muslims and that they were acting under the umbrella of the Israeli government. Among those traduced by Prof Miller was the Community Security Trust. 

The CST complained to the Vice-Chancellor, Prof Hugh Brady, both on its own behalf and that of others libelled by Prof Miller — and, perhaps most pertinently, on behalf of specific Jewish students who found the lecture profoundly disturbing.  

One would have expected any institution to take such concerns seriously. Instead, Bristol’s response was in effect to tell its Jewish students, and those who represent them, to shut up.

When John Mann MP intervened, he was told that that Bristol “does not intend to respond further to the complaint from CST”.

Bristol’s behaviour, and that of its Vice-Chancellor, falls so far below the most basic duty of care that it owes its students that one must conclude that Prof Brady neither cares what happens to current Jewish students nor whether any more enroll at Bristol University.