A tenured law professor sued the University of Kentucky on Thursday after he was banned from teaching and from the law school for comments he made about Israel, including characterizations of the state as a “colonization project” and calls for the world to wage war against it.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court, Ramsi Woodcock, an antitrust law scholar, argued that the public university violated his first amendment and due process rights when it abruptly placed him under investigation in July, just days after he was promoted to full professor, over allegations that he violated university policy – including anti-discrimination rules that incorporate a widely disputed definition of antisemitism.
The lawsuit marks another chapter in the growing backlash against universities over their use of the so-called IHRA definition. Scores of faculty members at both private and public institutions have been placed under investigation – and in some cases fired or forced out – over criticisms of Israel characterized as antisemitic. The suit is the first to be filed by a professor against a university that explicitly challenges the constitutionality of the IHRA definition and the application of federal Title VI anti-discrimination protections to criticism of Israel.
Jay Blanton, a spokesperson for the University of Kentucky, said that Woodcock had not been suspended, but rather “reassigned” pending the outcome of the investigation. Woodcock has been banned from teaching, advising students, attending faculty meetings and accessing the law school’s building. According to the lawsuit, the only aspect of his job he is still able to carry out is “professional development”.
“Title VI does not and cannot constitutionally prohibit criticism of Israel,” the lawsuit argues. “To the extent that the IHRA definition prohibits calling for the dismantling of colonial state structures, prohibits legal scholars from debating the contours of the right of self-determination, prohibits allegations of race discrimination, and prohibits allegations of genocide, the IHRA definition is unconstitutional.”
But because Woodcock’s criticism of Israel goes well beyond more mainstream critiques – even some defenders of his free speech rights say his views could be understood to support violence against Israelis – the case is also bound to test the strength of constitutional protections for controversial speech. A petition by the Antizionist Legal Studies Movement, a group he founded, reads: “We demand that every country in the world make war on Israel immediately and until such time as Israel has submitted permanently and unconditionally to the government of Palestine everywhere from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.”
When the university first launched its investigations into Woodcock, the school’s president, Eli Capilouto, issued a public statement denouncing the petition as “calling for the destruction of a people based on national origin” and implying his speech “threaten[ed] the safety and well-being of the university’s students and staff” – both characterizations which Woodcock rejects.
In additional charges the university brought against Woodcock in September, it accused him of creating a “hostile environment” on campus and of “calling for violence against Israel, the genocide of Israeli people and the ultimate destruction of Israel in a manner that uses antisemitic tropes”.
Woodcock said in response to the university’s allegations that more than 80 other western colonies were brought to an end in the 20th century. “Does President Capilouto really believe that each involved the destruction of a people rather than the liberation of one?” he asked.
“People in this country have the right to express themselves,” Blanton said. “That is not in question. But the university has the right to express itself as well.
“If someone’s views as stated threaten the safety and wellbeing of the university’s students and staff, we are obligated to act to protect our community and our people. That’s clear under Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. We have an obligation to find out if that’s the case,” Blanton continued.
Attorneys with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair), which is representing Woodcock, say that the petition is constitutionally protected speech. Had Woodcock been speaking about any other country in the world, including the United States, “he would have been free to do as he pleases”, Gadeir Abbas, Cair’s deputy litigation director, told the Guardian. “But because it’s about Israel, the University of Kentucky has given into the hysteria.”
According to a letter sent to Woodcock by the university and reviewed by the Guardian, the investigation was initiated after individuals outside the university complained about Woodcock’s statements against Israel at off-campus academic conferences, on a website he runs and in private chat groups of the Association of American Law Schools. The investigation is being led by Farnaz Farkish Thompson, an attorney who contributed to the rightwing Project 2025 blueprint. Thompson did not respond to a request for comment.
The Kentucky state senate adopted a resolution in April directing the state’s public universities to combat antisemitism by using the IHRA definition, which conflates some criticism of Israel with antisemitism. State legislators hailed the university’s investigation into Woodcock as soon as it was announced, calling his statements “incredibly disturbing”. “Kentuckians have every right to expect that our public universities will foster free and open debate,” said Lindsey Tichenor, a Republican state senator who co-sponsored the resolution and is a co-chair of the Kentucky-Israel caucus. “But when speech crosses the line into targeted hate, institutions must act.”
While challenging Woodcock’s suspension on free speech grounds, the lawsuit also alleges the university violated its own protocol, which previously permitted suspending faculty only upon a showing of “immediate harm”. According to the suit, the university revoked the policy after Woodcock complained about its violation. The university denies its policy changes were linked to Woodcock’s case.
‘Fighting words’ or academic freedom?
Woodcock strongly rejected the suggestion that his views threatened campus safety.
He said his calls for military intervention against Israel, and his views that the future of Palestine should be determined by Palestinians alone – including Jews who lived in Palestine before large-scale Jewish immigration began in the late 19th century – are consistent with recognizing Israel as a colonial project. Woodcock, who is part Algerian, often refers to that country’s experience of ending French colonial rule as a basis for his argument.
“If Israel has a right to exist, then French Algeria had a right to exist and the British Raj had a right to exist,” Woodcock told the Guardian in an interview.
Woodcock rejects the argument that his position is antisemitic but confirmed that his view of Israel as a colonizing power means the state should be brought “to an end”. The future of the land Israel occupies, he says, should be for Palestinians “alone” to decide – and “that includes according to Palestinians the right to decide the legal status of the colonizer population”. He adds: “While the principle that Palestinians alone should decide is essential to maintaining a rule against colonization, it is likely that Palestinians would grant equal rights to the colonizer population.”
Alvin Goldman, a retired law professor at the University of Kentucky and self-described “lifelong Zionist”, was an outspoken advocate of Woodcock’s free speech rights when the university announced its investigation. Goldman strongly disagrees with Woodcock’s premise of Israel as a colonizer and agrees with the university that his views might be interpreted as calling for a destruction of a people based on their national origin. But, he adds, “that of itself is not grounds for a state university to discipline or dismiss a professor”.
“It is not surprising to me that the call for the destruction of Israel can prompt an emotional response from many. I am among them,” Goldman wrote in a letter sent to the law school faculty a day after Woodcock’s suspension, which he also sent to administrators. In certain contexts, he adds, such calls might amount to “fighting words” – a reference to speech not protected by the first amendment – but says Woodcock’s calls don’t qualify as fighting words.
Goldman, who has challenged Woodcock’s views on private faculty channels, called on administrators to reverse their decision and instead sponsor opportunities for debate.
“Unfortunately, in the years since I began teaching, faculty have become more and more divorced from the principles of academic freedom and the principles of what constitutes a sound university environment,” Goldman said in an interview.
He said that Woodcock’s calls for Israel’s “end” are wrong but not antisemitic. He added: “He is entitled to be wrong.”
• This article was amended on 13 November 2025. An earlier version misspelled Jay Blanton’s surname.
