Law professor sues University of Kentucky over ban after his anti-Israel comments: Why it matters

Professor Ramsi Woodcock, a tenured law professor at the University of Kentucky in the United States, has become the centre of controversy after launching a legal challenge against the university for taking punitive measures over his anti-Israel views.

Woodcock teaches antitrust, contract law, and corporate law, and is well known for his scholarship in law and economics, as well as for expressing strong political opinions.

Earlier this year—shortly after getting promoted to full professor—he became the subject of an internal investigation because of statements he had made about Israel. On his personal website, in private academic discussion groups, and at professional conferences, he described Israel as a colonial project, arguing that it should be brought to an end, and endorsing a petition calling on states to wage war against Israel until it agreed to full Palestinian rule.

A number of individuals, including some outside the university, complained that his remarks were threatening and antisemitic.

Critics contended that he was calling for violence against Israelis and even advocating genocide.

The university responded by removing him from his normal duties during the investigation. Although it insisted that he had not been suspended, he was forbidden from teaching, meeting students, attending staff meetings, or entering the law school building: in fact, he was left with almost no work responsibilities.

Woodcock, however, dismisses the allegations entirely. As reported exclusively by The Guardian, he denies that he is antisemitic. He says his views are directed at Israel as a state, rather than at Jewish people.

He frames his views through the lens of decolonisation, comparing Israel to former European colonies such as French Algeria. He argues that Palestinians should determine the future governance of the region, although he says he believes they would probably grant equal rights to the existing population.

He has now filed a lawsuit in federal court, asserting that the university violated his First Amendment rights, which safeguard free speech in the United States. He also contends that the university failed to follow its own procedures.

A central element of his legal claim is that the university relied on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Woodcock argues that this definition improperly categorises robust criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and that using it to punish political speech is unconstitutional.

His suit is the first brought by a professor against a university that directly challenges both the constitutionality of the IHRA definition, and the application of federal Title VI anti-discrimination law to criticism of Israel.

According to the lawsuit, Title VI cannot be interpreted to prohibit criticism of Israel. It further argues that, insofar as the IHRA definition is used to ban calls for dismantling colonial state structures, to restrict legal scholars from debating the nature of self-determination, or to forbid allegations of racial discrimination or genocide, it is incompatible with the United States Constitution.

The university has defended its actions by stating that it has a duty to protect students and staff from discrimination and threats. The university says that under federal law, it has to step in when free speech might create a hostile environment on campus.

Interestingly, Woodcock’s right to free expression has found support from some unexpected quarters, including individuals who strongly disagree with his views. A retired professor who identifies as a Zionist says that although Woodcock’s statements are extreme, they remain protected speech, and should not trigger disciplinary action at a public university.

The case now forms part of a broader national debate in the United States about how universities should approach criticism of Israel, how antisemitism ought to be defined, and how the principles of free expression should be balanced against anti-discrimination obligations. The eventual ruling may shape the way similar disputes are handled across the country.

Attorneys from the Council on American Islamic Relations, which is representing Woodcock, argue that the petition he supported is constitutionally protected speech.

Gadeir Abbas, the organisation’s deputy litigation director, told The Guardian that Woodcock would have faced no consequences had he made comparable remarks about any other country. In Abbas’ view, the university reacted as it did only because the subject was Israel, yielding to what he described as a climate of hysteria.