US Law Professor Sues The University Of Where He Teaches Due To The Prohibition Of Administratives About Israel

Illustration of teaching and learning activities at universities. (Pixabay-Nikolayhg)

JAKARTA - A United States (US) professor of law, Ramsi Woodcock, sued the university where he taught after the educational institution banned him from teaching and arguing negatively about Israel

The Guardian reported that Woodcock's lawsuit was filed with the US Federal Court against Kentucky University.

Woodcock's filing describes that his first amendment and legal rights were violated when Kentucky University investigated him in July 2025, days after he was promoted to full professor.

The investigation is based on allegations that Woodcock has violated university policies on anti-discrimination rules.

However, these rules are partly based on the definition of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Memorial Alliance, which has proven highly controversial and debated by various academics and human rights organizations.

What Woodcock experienced was called an escalation of the strong reactions of US universities against pro-Palestinian speech and activities.

Across the US, faculty members at public and private institutions have been investigated for criticism of Israel, and have been fired in many cases.

Perdana Lawsuit

Woodcock's lawsuit became the first filed by a professor against a university suing the constitutionality of the definition of IHRA antisemitism and the application of federal anti-discrimination protection under Title VI regarding criticism of Israel.

The lawsuit states: Title VI does not and cannot constitutionally prohibit criticism of Israel. To the extent that the definition of IHRA prohibits calls for the demolition of colonial state structures, prohibits legal academics from debating the contour of self-determination rights, prohibits allegations of racial discrimination, and prohibits allegations of genocide, the definition of IHRA is unconstitutional.

Kentucky University spokesman Jay Blanton said the university had 'punished' Woodcock by providing a different job. Blanton argued that the university's decision was partly due to a petition launched by the Anti-Zionist Law Study Movement, a group founded by the US law professor.

The petition states: "We demand that every country in the world immediately fight against Israel and until Israel submits permanently and unconditionally to any Palestinian government, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea".

The Chancellor of Eli Capihowo University accused the group of "surprising the destruction of a nation based on national origins," adding that it "threatens the safety and well-being of university students and staff."

However, Woodcock has denied allegations against the petition.

Kentucy University then filed further charges against Woodcock in September 2025 on charges the law professor created an "unfriendly environment" on campus.

"[Woodcock] calls for violence against Israel, genocide of the Israeli people, and destruction of Israel entirely by means of an antisemitic metaphor," the Kentucky University allegation said in the lawsuit file.

Woodcock responded to the allegations, citing Kentucy University, experiencing a setback of more than 80 Western colonies in the last century. He added: "Does President Capihowo really believe that each colony involves the destruction of a nation, rather than the release of one nation?"

Woodcock was represented by the American-Islamic Board of Relations in response to these demands. The council has also described an initial petition cited by Kentucy University as a constitutionally protected statement.

CAIR's deputy director of litigation, Gadeir Abbas, told The Guardian that had Woodcock issued the same opinion or argument about other countries, including the US, "he was free to do what he wanted ... but because it was about Israel, Kentucky University had given up on the hysteria."

Woodcock told The Guardian: "If Israel has the right to live, then French Algeria has the right to live and Britain's tenure has the right to live."

He said that any future state in the territory of Israel today should allow Palestine to determine its own policies, and "it includes, according to Palestinian opinion, the right to determine the legal status of the colonial population," he continued.

"Although the principle that only Palestine may decide is important to maintain anti-colonization rules, it is likely that Palestine will grant the same rights to the inhabitants of the invaders," Woodcock said.