Universities who adopted the IHRA have typically done so as a decision of the very top echelon of the university (senior management team, board of trustees), often without consultation with the academic community.

(source: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ujs/pages/1358/attachments/original/1601632621/IHRA_Freedom_of_Information_responses.pdf?1601632621) 1/

Whether such top-down decisions stand, and what legal or official meaning they have, would depend on each university and its regulations. But it is clearly not the ideal manner in which such decisions should be taken. 2/

This also means that the IHRA adoption is typically not taken as part of a holistic approach to antisemitism, not to mention racism more general. The adoption is not embedded in policies and its implications remain to be seen; for now, it is primarily a symbolic gesture. 3/

It seems that the lessons from Labour's adoption of the IHRA have not been learnt. Again, the focus is on a symbolic gesture rather than on substance. Again, it is disconnected from the general discussion on racism and equality 4/

- despite the fact that, as we've seen in the EHRC, the best results are obtained when antisemitism is placed exactly within a general framework to fight discrimination and racism.

More in this thread https://twitter.com/YairWallach/status/1334078084618842117?s=20