Just as I suspected, people have already started interpreting the KC's report into antisemitism at Goldsmiths as if it were a survey. It isn't. It's someone collecting testimony. A survey would require the methodology (a rationale for how and why the survey is carried out), in order to deliver stats and percentages.
For a start, the KC took evidence on the basis of what Jews thought were examples of antisemitism. Absolutely fine in itself - and there are plenty of horrible examples given - but there's no indication of what is or is not representative. In order to do that, he would have had to have had some kind of census of Jews and talked to those who did NOT experience antisemitism as well as those who did.
So now we have people like Adam Wagner (also a KC) and others making comments about the extent or scale of antisemitism at the university. They have no basis for doing this.
We are also getting comments that of course Goldsmiths is antisemitic because it's run by the far Left. This is of course laughable. Anyone who knows the history of Goldsmiths over the last 5 years, will know that the left (I won't call it 'far') has been battling against management trying to save jobs and courses. We have lost at least 200 staff in the last 5 years.
Meanwhile, there remains the problem of why did Goldsmiths spend 200k purely in order to investigate one kind of racism. Goldsmiths is a diverse college both staff and students. Hooray for that. Are we to believe that Jews experience more racism than people of colour and/or any other minority? Why the 'hierarchy of racisms' (Forde Report).
The college has responded by saying that we need training on antisemitism. This is interesting. Will this include the Jews on the staff? If I have to do staff training in antisemitism will I be invited to express the kind of antisemitism that I've experienced from a member of staff whose organisation's conference was co-hosted by Goldsmiths?
It's also not clear why it is that staff have to undergo training in antisemitism, when it's management who gets a kicking in the report. And it's not clear why staff need training on antisemitism and not on matters affecting people of colour. But then the trainers would be looking at staff members of colour, some of whom teach on matters to do with racism. (This is turning into some kind of modern farce, isn't it?)
And another 'meanwhile'. The colleges boss ('Warden') announced some weeks ago that a Jewish member of staff had left on account of antisemitism. We questioned that and asked if this matter had ever been raised as a complaint. No answer. AND no mention of it in this report. So what was the basis for the Warden's comment. Perhaps she needs to do some antisemitism training to find out?
Further on Goldsmiths:
What follows here are two extracts from the Report. The first explains how the KC will take evidence. Note that we were invited to contribute if we had experienced antisemitism. We were NOT invited to contribute if we had not experienced antisemitism. This is crucial when it comes to delivering a view of the 'extent' or 'scale' of antisemitism in the university.
Note that the second extract is a comment about some Jewish students who said that they did NOT experience antisemitism.
I scratch my head at this point. Someone has been paid thousands of pounds to conduct some kind of survey of antisemitism. He makes clear that he's collecting data from people who've experienced it, doesn't invite people who haven't experienced it and yet, includes a random bit of info from some students who did not experience it.
As an undergraduate sociology essay, this would, sadly, fail.
EXTRACT 1
Scope
4.1 The following concerns fall within the scope of the Inquiry and the Independent
Inquiry Chair will undertake enquiries into these matters (in so far as they
occurred on or after 1 September 2018):
1. Whether Jewish students and staff have been subjected to antisemitism in
the course of their studies or work at Goldsmiths.
2. Whether complaints by Jewish students and staff of Goldsmiths that they
have been harassed or discriminated against or subjected to antisemitism
have been handled in accordance with Goldsmiths’ own policies and
procedures.
3. Whether Goldsmiths’ policies and procedures for resolving complaints of
antisemitism by Jewish students and staff are adequate.
4. Whether Goldsmiths has done enough to make its Jewish students and staff
(or Jewish applicants seeking to become students or staff of Goldsmiths)
feel welcome, included and safe from antisemitism.
EXTRACT 2
'I have only interviewed the College students who chose to participate in the Inquiry.
I am therefore aware that the evidence I have received and summarised above is from
a small and self-selected sample of the total student body. I acknowledge that I did
receive 4 written submissions from former students to the effect that they had not been
subjected to or heard about any antisemitism on campus despite being Jewish. '
Here's the report. Please read it.
https://www.gold.ac.uk/media/docs/public-information/Independent-inquiry-into-antisemitism-at-Goldsmiths-College.pdf
