A student has been suspended from a top university for hate speech after joking that a pro-Gaza activist’s headscarf looked like a tea towel.
Brodie Mitchell, 20, is pursuing legal action against Royal Holloway, University of London, after the institution subjected him to disciplinary measures he describes as “unfair” over what he characterises as a minor “spat”.
The politics and international relations student, who identifies as a non-Jewish Zionist, was suspended within 24 hours of the September incident at the university’s Freshers’ Fair, during which he likened Huda El-Jamal’s keffiyeh to a tea towel.
Mr Mitchell maintains the confrontation began when Ms El-Jamal, president of the Friends of Palestine Society, allegedly called him a “wannabe Jew” and questioned why he was not wearing a kippah.
Recounting the altercation at a pre-trial hearing last December, Mr Mitchell stated: “Towards the end of Freshers’ Fair on Tuesday 23 September, Ms El-Jamal smirked and pointed at me, saying something like ‘here’s the wannabe Jew’, which was followed by a comment about me not wearing a kippah.”
He explained he began recording the exchange due to the absence of witnesses, and described his retaliation about her “Yasser Arafat-inspired keffiyeh” as what he considered “a fitting off-the-cuff retort to her pre-emptive racist and antisemitic attack”
Mr Mitchell contacted the university shortly after the incident, acknowledging his response was “poorly expressed and inappropriate”, while maintaining “it was only about politics, not about race or religion”.
The university immediately suspended the student for nine weeks whilst conducting an investigation into “alleged conduct that could be considered hate speech”.
Brodie Mitchell. has been suspended from a London university for hate speech after joking that a pro-Gaza activist’s headscarf looked like a teatowel
|
He claimed the disciplinary action cost him the equivalent of seven weeks of teaching time and will extend the duration of his degree beyond that of his peers.
The undergraduate, a member of the campus Conservative Association, claims the matter could have been settled informally and maintains he was willing to apologise to Ms El-Jamal.
Surrey Police is also investigating Mr Mitchell over the same hate speech allegations.
Mr Mitchell is expected to argue the university breached its contractual obligations to him during a three-day trial at the High Court in June.
Royal Holloway has defended its procedures, maintaining it thoroughly investigated the incident and encouraged an informal resolution
|
GOOGLE MAPS
The university had initially indicated legal costs of £734,000, a figure Mr Mitchell’s barrister Francis Hoar branded “grossly disproportionate and unreasonable”, before the court issued a Costs Management Order reducing the university’s legal expenditure to £226,000.
The Free Speech Union has rallied behind Mr Mitchell, describing Royal Holloway’s handling of the matter as “deeply unfair and a blatant example of double standards”.
“Royal Holloway’s conduct is, in our view, disgraceful and intolerable. The Free Speech Union is proud to stand by Brodie in fighting back against this attempt to bully him,” the union said on its Facebook page.
Royal Holloway has defended its procedures, maintaining it thoroughly investigated the incident and encouraged an informal resolution.
Dr Nick Barratt, the university’s chief student officer, stated: “Following a formal complaint from a student who described being targeted with a comment from another student they found discriminatory and distressing, and which was reported to the police as a hate crime the university was obliged to follow its established conduct procedures.”
He noted that Mr Mitchell “has not denied the behaviour that was under investigation” and emphasised the institution’s commitment to protecting students from harassment.
Gemma White KC, representing the university, argued in written submissions that Royal Holloway “plainly acted reasonably, proportionately and fairly” and that Mr Mitchell’s free speech rights did not necessitate treating his remark any less seriously.