Free Speech vs. Antisemitism: Professor’s Call to 'End Israel' Spurs Lawsuit and Debate

Professor Ramsi Woodcock, a tenured faculty member at the University of Kentucky’s J. David Rosenberg College of Law, was suspended after circulating a petition that urged “that every country in the world make war on Israel immediately.” Woodcock has since filed suit seeking reinstatement and a court order preventing the university and the Department of Education from using the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism when handling complaints.

University of Kentucky President Eli Capilouto removed Woodcock from teaching duties while investigators examined whether the posts created a hostile environment in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. A university spokesman said the institution has an obligation to act when stated views threaten the safety and well-being of students and staff. The suspension followed broader national pressure on campuses and state-level moves — including a Kentucky legislative resolution — endorsing the IHRA definition, and guidance from the U.S. Department of Education to scrutinize campus antisemitism.

What Woodcock Said And Why It Matters

Woodcock’s writings and online posts go beyond policy critique to challenge the very existence of the State of Israel. In his statements he framed the “State of Israel” in scare quotes, asserted that Jewish people as a group lack a right to self-determination in Palestine, and advocated an international military intervention that would, he wrote, effectively end Israel’s existence and strip current Jewish residents of citizenship or residence rights — except a narrowly defined minority.

“That every country in the world make war on Israel immediately.”

Such rhetoric, critics argue, plainly fits many standard examples of antisemitism — in particular, calls that justify killing or expelling Jews as a group. The IHRA working definition includes illustrative examples such as “Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology,” which many say applies to Woodcock’s proposal.

Legal And Educational Tensions

Woodcock’s lawsuit, brought by attorneys from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), contends the suspension violates his First Amendment rights. Under current First Amendment doctrine, political advocacy made outside the classroom that does not directly threaten an identifiable individual is often protected speech — a point that gives force to his legal claim.

At the same time, the IHRA working definition’s principal drafter and many advocates have emphasized that the definition was meant as a tool for education and data collection, not a disciplinary speech code. Even if a court ultimately rules for Woodcock on free-speech grounds, many faculty, students and observers argue that his language remains morally and educationally objectionable and that universities have a responsibility to help communities recognize and contextualize antisemitic advocacy.

Bottom Line

A court may vindicate Woodcock’s right to speak; that legal outcome would not erase the antisemitic character or the potential human cost of his proposals. The dispute underscores a difficult balance for universities: protecting constitutionally protected speech while also safeguarding students and staff from rhetoric that calls for mass violence or the eradication of a people. Schools should use clear, transparent processes and educational resources to distinguish legitimate criticism from advocacy that targets a group for violence or displacement.

Steven Lubet is the Williams Memorial Professor Emeritus at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.