NUS President Malia Bouattia has been criticised for not taking anti-Semitism on campus “sufficiently seriously” in a government report on the issue.

The report, produced by the Home Affairs Select Committee, also condemned her previous comments, including her description of the University of Birmingham as “something of a Zionist outpost,” which it described as “outright racism.”

Bouattia’s “defensiveness and apparent unwillingness” to listen to the concerns raised by Jewish students about her past statements was also criticised by the Committee, which claimed that her “choice of language (and ongoing defence of that language)” suggests a “worrying disregard for her duty to represent all sections of the student population and promote balanced and respectful debate.”

The report also claims that the steps taken by NUS “may not be effectively address[ing]” anti-Semitism, which it described as having a “unique nature” and thus requiring a “unique response.”

“For the sake of their own credibility and to ensure Jewish students across the UK are treated appropriately,” it continued, “the NUS and the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) should work to mend their broken relationship.”

Bouattia was met with controversy in July when NUS’s National Executive committee voted to remove the ability for the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) to select a Jewish student representative to sit on NUS’s Anti-Racism Anti-Fascism (ARAF) campaign. The ability was reinstated by Bouattia following the criticisms.

Addressing this controversy, the Committee recommends that the Jewish representative of the ARAF campaign should be elected by UJS, and “should not require the approval of the President of the NUS.”

It goes on to urge that, if, following a one year ‘grace period’, UJS “does not believe” that the ARAF campaign is “up to the challenge of tackling anti-Semitism on campus,” a specific anti-Semitism taskforce should be established “at the Executive level” of NUS.

This suggested task-force would have the aim of “ensuring that British universities are a safe space for students of all faiths or none.”

In her written evidence submitted to the Committee, Bouattia specifically addressed the concerns raised surrounding her past comments about the University of Birmingham, stating: “I do not now, nor did I five years ago at the time of publication, see a large Jewish Society on a campus as a problem.”

“I want to be clear that for me to take issue with Zionist politics, is not me taking issue with being Jewish. In fact, Zionist politics are held by people from a variety of different backgrounds and faiths.”

She added: “Our movement has students, both Jewish and otherwise, who hold a variety of deeply held beliefs on this topic, but it is a political argument, not one of faith. It is vital that we are able to disagree on politics, without this undermining or threatening the safety of students, or the solidarity of the student movement.”

Responding to the report, the NUS criticised it for being “Partial and innaccurate” in relation to NUS work in tackling antisemitism, and emphasised that since 3/4 of anti-semitic incidences come from far-right groups, the select committee’s focus on the NUS “fails to address reality for students”.

Responding to the report, UJS Campaigns Director Josh Nagli said that the organisation: “welcome[s] the report’s in-depth criticism of the NUS National President and her organisation as it tells the world what so many Jewish students have been saying for some time.”

Nagli went on to condemn what he termed Bouattia’s “inability to fully represent all parts of the student population.”

“The President of NUS should listen to and address the concerns of its members, but too often the concerns raised by Jewish students have fallen on deaf ears. The evidence outlined in the report all points to the fact that the NUS National President treats Jewish students’ concerns differently to those of others, proving that there’s one rule for Jewish students, another for everyone else.”

“This report must act as a wake-up call for the NUS President and her organisation, because the culture being created on UK campuses is, unacceptably, one that accepts and fails to challenge antisemitism; a culture that is being manifested on her watch,” he added.

Bouattia’s response to the report was in keeping with her previous public statements, noting that anti-semitism is a priority for the NUS and promising to “continue to listen to the concerns of Jewish students”, while emphasising deeply held beliefs on Israel-Palestine should be part of a political argument, not one of faith.

Her election in April was met with concern over her “past rhetoric” and the emergence of a campaign calling for CUSU to hold a referendum on disaffiliation from the NUS. 47 presidents of Jewish societies in British universities raised concerns in an open letter to Bouattia about her previous language.

A CUSU referendum in May 2016 saw Cambridge vote not to disaffiliate with NUS by a margin of 2,880 votes, with 51.52 per cent voting to stay against 46.64 per cent to leave. Votes across the country saw student unions at the universities of Hull, Lincoln, Newcastle and Loughborough choose to disaffiliate, while the universities of Exeter, Warwick, Surrey, Essex, Oxford and Cambridge opted to remain affiliated. 

In September, an open letter signed by 44 student leaders, including three NUS vice-presidents, raised further concerns that “Jewish students have not felt safe participating in our national movement, because of the actions and rhetoric of [the] leadership of NUS”, and accused the leadership of “undermining Jewish students’ ability to elect their own representatives” in July with the removal and reinstatement of UJS’ ability to select representatives for the ARAF campaign.