Bristol loses its appeal: anti-Zionism confirmed as a protected belief under UK equality law

David Miller, appointed professor of political sociology at the University of Bristol in 2018, was dismissed for gross misconduct in October 2021, the university stating that he had not met its standards of behaviour.

The disciplinary process followed a series of public statements. In a 2019 lecture he described the Zionist movement as one of five pillars driving Islamophobia in the UK. Critics called this a false and vile antisemitic slur, though a subsequent report on academic freedom of expression concluded the comments did not constitute unlawful speech. He made further statements at a Campaign for Free Speech event in 2021 and was criticised by the Bristol Jewish Society. He described some Jewish student groups as political lobby groups, and spoke of Jewish students at British universities being used as political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing. A subsequent email to a student journalist, in which he said Zionism has no place in any society, led to the disciplinary process and his dismissal.

In February 2024, an employment tribunal found Miller had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed, on claims of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and discrimination or victimisation on grounds of religion or belief. It held that his comments were lawful, were not antisemitic, did not incite violence and posed no threat to anyone's safety. Crucially, it found that anti-Zionist beliefs met the Grainger criteria for philosophical belief under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and were therefore protected under the Equality Act 2010. The judgment also identified shortcomings in the university's internal processes, including findings of discriminatory conduct by a member of staff responsible for investigations, upheld on internal appeal.

Bristol appealed. The BRISMES Committee on Academic Freedom wrote to the Vice-Chancellor urging reconsideration, noting that the protected status of criticism of Israel and Zionism had been affirmed both by the tribunal and by the KC the university itself appointed, Ms McColgan. It asked that, if the appeal proceeded, the university publicly confirm it was not contesting the finding that anti-Zionism is a legally protected philosophical belief, and that it review its internal investigative procedures regardless of outcome. The letter situated the case within a wider sector trend of restricting expressions of anti-Zionism, often driven by adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and referred to its joint report with the European Legal Support Centre documenting the resulting chilling effect. It also noted, while acknowledging that many,  including BRISMES members disagree with Miller's statements, that lawful expression of objectionable or offensive views is protected under Articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR, the Equality Act 2010, and the Education Act 1986.

In August 2026, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed most of Bristol's appeal. The university had argued that Miller's anti-Zionist beliefs were political and therefore fell outside Equality Act protection. Lord Fairley, president of the tribunal, rejected this, seeing no good reason to exclude beliefs from protection merely because they concerned a matter of social importance that might broadly also be called political. The tribunal found the decision to dismiss and the refusal of the internal appeal each to be unlawful acts of direct discrimination, and the dismissal unfair and wrongful. It accepted that Bristol had pursued legitimate objectives, including protecting students and safeguarding its reputation, but held dismissal to be a disproportionate response where a lesser sanction would have been appropriate.

Miller called the ruling a decisive vindication, said the university's attempt to overturn the 2024 judgment had been comprehensively dismissed, and stated he was looking forward to returning to work as professor of political sociology at Bristol, with his career reinstated and free to work in higher education without fear of intimidation or reprisal. He told Al Jazeera the ruling would make it difficult for any UK employer to sack or target someone for anti-Zionist views, described a pressure campaign by external Zionist organisations as having sought his dismissal, and said his case had deepened self-censorship among academics that he now hoped would ease.