ABSTRACT
Criticisms of the IHRA definition of antisemitism centre on fears that it has undermined free expression about Israel, or may do so in the future. Two case studies are presented in order to show that these fears involve misrepresentations of what the definition says and does, unevidenced claims about its impact, and confusions about its legal status and power. It is argued that once these fears are allayed, institutions may confidently use what is a modest, sensible and practical guide to antisemitism. In 2020 the UK government asked UK universities to adopt the Definition. Avoiding these common misrepresentations of the Definition will enable Universities to use the Definition to help Jewish students play a full part in campus life.
