Key Points
- Rejected Constitutional Amendments: Glasgow University Students’ Representative Council (SRC) clarified that it will not accept the amendment to student society constitutions that are exclusionary and discriminatory towards Zionist students.
- Social Media Misinformation Debunked: The SRC debunked the GUJPS misinformation that “amendments declaring ‘Zionism will not be tolerated’ have been passed.”
- Four Amendments Rejected: SRC President Molly Corbett revealed that four amendments to society constitutions with anti-Zionist content have been made but none of them have been approved.
- Equality & Legal Issues Warning Given: UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) warned the university about discriminating against Zionists which is direct and indirect discrimination according to the Equality Act 2010.
- Charity & Academic Duties: UKLFI reminded SRC trustees about their duties as per charity law and pointed out the University of Glasgow acceptance of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Glasgow (Glasgow Express) October 21, 2026 — Glasgow University’s Students’ Representative Council (SRC) has formally confirmed that it will not approve constitutional changes submitted by student societies that seek to discriminate against or exclude Zionist students from university activities.
The official confirmation came following a response sent by SRC President Molly Corbett on 20 October 2026 to UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI). The legal group had written to the University’s Principal and Vice-Chancellor, Professor Andy Schofield, as well as to the SRC, raising urgent concerns over a coordinated campus campaign spearheaded by the Glasgow University Justice for Palestine Society (GUJPS) alongside the UofG Divestment Coalition.
What Prompted the Students’ Representative Council to Issue This Ruling?
The controversy commenced on 14 October 2026, when GUJPS and the UofG Divestment Coalition published a joint social media statement on Instagram under the heading “ZIONISM IS RACISM”. The joint campaign encouraged affiliated student societies across the campus to alter their foundational constitutions to explicitly state that “Zionism will not be tolerated” and urged the establishment of a “Zionist free environment”.
The promotional post proposed adding Zionism to existing constitutional clauses that prohibit misconduct, alongside established categories such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and religious discrimination. Furthermore, the publication claimed that several student societies had already adopted these specific constitutional amendments and that the SRC had granted official approval for the changes.
However, writing in direct response to UKLFI shortly after receiving its representation, SRC President Molly Corbett refuted the assertions made in the social media campaign. Corbett stated that
“Four proposed amendments containing similar wording have been received by the SRC. None has been approved. Public statements suggesting otherwise misrepresent the SRC’s position.”
Corbett further clarified that all affiliated clubs and societies operating under the university umbrella are mandated to uphold rigorous equal opportunities standards. She emphasized that societies cannot discriminate against students on the basis of their personal identity or beliefs, “including differing views concerning Zionism.”
Addressing the boundaries between political discourse and campus policy, Corbett added that
“Societies are entitled to engage in lawful political debate and campaigning. However, their constitutions must not contain provisions that would permit or encourage the exclusion or discriminatory treatment of students because of their beliefs or identity.”
She concluded her statement by reasserting that the student representative body would refrain from approving any constitutional amendments that compromise these core principles.
What Legal Arguments Were Raised by UK Lawyers for Israel?
Prior to the SRC’s formal response, legal advocacy organization UKLFI sent a detailed letter of intervention to University Principal Professor Andy Schofield and the SRC leadership. UKLFI cautioned that the campaign calling for a “Zionist free campus” directly risked excluding Jewish and Israeli students, alongside any individuals identifying with Zionist beliefs.
UKLFI emphasized in its correspondence that Zionism—defined as the belief in the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancestral homeland—constitutes a protected philosophical belief under the statutory terms of the Equality Act 2010. The legal group contended that denying student participation on the basis of holding Zionist beliefs amounts to unlawful direct discrimination. Additionally, UKLFI noted that such institutional exclusions would lead to indirect discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students on the grounds of race, nationality, or religious identity.
To demonstrate the impact on the campus community, UKLFI cited demographic findings from the Institute for Jewish Policy Research. According to that data, 64% of British Jews explicitly identify as Zionists, while 75% express an emotional attachment to Israel. Based on these statistics, UKLFI argued that characterizing Zionism as inherently racist and advocating for a Zionist-free environment sends an explicitly hostile signal to Jewish students who view connection to Israel as an integral element of their identity.
UKLFI also highlighted that the University of Glasgow has formally adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism. Under the IHRA framework, denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination is recognized as a potential manifestation of antisemitism.
Because the SRC operates as a registered Scottish charity, UKLFI alerted its legal trustees to their legal duties under Scottish charity and equality law to prevent discriminatory practices. The legal organization further referenced the University of Glasgow’s legal obligation to safeguard academic freedom and freedom of speech under the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005.
Following the receipt of the SRC’s response, a spokesperson for UKLFI remarked that
“We welcome the SRC’s unequivocal confirmation that it will not approve constitutional amendments designed to exclude Zionist students. It is particularly disturbing that four such amendments have already been submitted.”
The spokesperson added that “Freedom of expression does not give student societies the right to discriminate against people because of their beliefs. A campaign to create a ‘Zionist free campus’ is especially alarming when the majority of British Jews identify as Zionists. The SRC has rightly drawn a clear line between legitimate political debate and discrimination. We hope it will now publicly correct the misleading claims that these amendments had been approved and ensure that Jewish, Israeli and Zionist students can participate fully in university life without fear of exclusion.”
UKLFI has formally requested that the University of Glasgow administration maintain direct oversight over the SRC’s handling of society constitutions to ensure that Jewish and Israeli students are not subjected to exclusion. While the SRC’s statement confirmed the rejection of the four submitted amendments, the student body has not publicly named the societies involved, nor confirmed whether a formal public retraction of GUJPS’s social media claims will be issued.
What Is the Background of This Development?
This development takes place within a broader, long-standing atmosphere of debate across British higher education institutions regarding free speech, anti-racism policies, and political campaigning related to the Middle East. Over recent years, student unions and student representative councils across the United Kingdom have faced increasing pressure to navigate the balance between supporting political activism and upholding statutory obligations under national equality legislation.
Under the Equality Act 2010, higher education providers and affiliated student bodies operating in England, Scotland, and Wales are legally required to prevent direct and indirect discrimination against protected characteristics, which include race, religion or belief, and philosophical beliefs. Higher court precedents in the UK have previously established that certain non-religious philosophical convictions—including specific national or political self-determination beliefs—can meet the legal threshold for protection under equality law.
Simultaneously, UK universities operate under statutory obligations to preserve freedom of expression and academic debate. In Scotland, the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 imposes duties on institutions to ensure that freedom of thought and expression are maintained for students and staff. Conflicts between campus campaign groups advocating for boycotts or exclusionary clauses and legal frameworks governing non-discrimination have led to legal interventions from organizations such as UK Lawyers for Israel to ensure that university policy aligns with public law obligations.
What Is the Prediction for How This Development Will Affect the Student Body?
The rejection of the proposed constitutional amendments by the Glasgow University SRC sets a significant institutional precedent that is likely to impact several groups within the university ecosystem:
- Impact on Jewish, Israeli, and Zionist Students: The SRC’s ruling provides formal protection under institutional equality guidelines, ensuring that Jewish, Israeli, and Zionist students can join, form, and participate in affiliated societies without facing constitutional exclusion. This decision reinforces their legal right to express protected philosophical beliefs on campus without fear of official policy-based discrimination.
- Impact on Student Societies and Activist Coalitions: Groups such as the Glasgow University Justice for Palestine Society and the UofG Divestment Coalition will face operational boundaries regarding how campus campaigns are structured. While political campaigning and debate remain permitted under freedom of speech regulations, societies will be prohibited from codifying exclusionary criteria into their official constitutional rules. Activist campaigns across UK universities may need to adjust their governance strategies to ensure their promotional material and internal bylaws remain compliant with charity and equality law.
- Impact on University Administration and Student Governance: The university administration and the SRC will likely implement stricter constitutional review protocols for all affiliated clubs and societies. To avoid legal liability and maintain compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and the IHRA definition of antisemitism, the SRC may introduce clearer compliance guidelines for society governance, ensuring that future constitutional submissions are audited for discriminatory language before public statements are released.
