Executive Summary
This document details a persistent pattern of public conduct by Dr Reza Zia-Ebrahimi, Reader in the History of Nationalism and Race, which appears to deviate significantly from the policy framework of King’s College London (KCL). It is particularly noted that while Dr Zia-Ebrahimi’s academic remit involves the study of antisemitism and racialisation, his public rhetoric often diverges from the professional objectivity required by this field, potentially undermining both the University’s pedagogical standards and the safety of its students.
The following summary outlines specific instances where this conduct risks contravening the Dignity at King’s Policy, the Religion and Belief Policy, and the Code of Practice for Academic Freedom, fostering an environment that may be perceived as hostile to Jewish and Israeli members of the King’s community.
A formal complaint was submitted to the university on May 19, 2026. Aside from an acknowledgment of receipt and a promise to address the matter, no response has been received as of the publication of this report on June 22, 2026.
Key Observations & Policy Concerns
- Standards of Discourse and Inclusivity: Dr Zia-Ebrahimi has frequently employed terminology that characterizes Jewish self-determination in terms synonymous with “white supremacy.” Furthermore, his public commentary regarding the marking of Jewish homes, framed as ‘critical thinking’ rather than a matter of communal safety, raises serious concerns. Such rhetoric risks contravening the Religion and Belief Policy by fostering an environment that may be perceived as exclusionary or hostile by Jewish and Israeli members of the King’s community.
- Impact on Student Wellbeing and Campus Safety: There are documented instances where Dr Zia-Ebrahimi has publicly singled out “Zionist students” as a collective. This public categorization of a specific student group as “bad actors” risks undermining the University’s commitment to a safe and inclusive campus. Additionally, his public endorsement of unauthorized student encampments and calls for institutional boycotts appears to be at odds with KCL’s internal protocols regarding health, safety, and institutional neutralism.
- Institutional Reputation and Professional Conduct: Dr Zia-Ebrahimi has repeatedly issued public statements accusing King’s College London of “complicity in genocide” and “institutional racism.” While academic freedom is a foundational principle, the Code of Practice for Academic Freedom assumes a level of professional responsibility. Such public denunciations, made outside of established internal grievance channels, may be viewed as detrimental to the University’s institutional integrity and its standing in the wider community.
- Adherence to the King’s Community Charter: The tone and nature of these public communications often contradict the standards of mutual respect and civility outlined in the King’s Community Charter. By opting for public shaming over constructive academic or internal dialogue, the conduct in question appears to challenge the expectations of professional trust and the University’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion objectives.
The cumulative nature of this rhetoric presents a significant challenge to the maintenance of a harmonious and inclusive academic environment. We believe an immediate formal review is necessary to ensure that the University’s statutory duties to protect all members of its community are upheld, and that institutional standards of professional conduct are maintained.
Documented Incidents and Policy Breaches
Public Accusation of University Complicity in Genocide
Dr Reza Zia-Ebrahimi published a statement on the social media platform X regarding the death of a KCL alumnus, Professor Adnan Al-Birsh. In this communication, Dr Zia-Ebrahimi explicitly characterized King’s College London as being “complicit with the genocide,” citing the university’s lack of public condemnation as the basis for this claim.
Policy Analysis: Code of Practice for Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression
Section 4.5 of the Code acknowledges that while general reputational “inconvenience” does not warrant action, disciplinary measures may be pursued in instances where an individual “brings the University into disrepute.” According to the policy, this threshold is met when the matter is “serious, clearly evidenceable , and pose[s] a material risk to the operations and/or community relations of the University.”
Dr Zia-Ebrahimi’s public assertion that King’s College London is “complicit with the genocide” represents a departure from protected academic critique. While political discourse regarding international conflicts is a recognized component of academic freedom, the direct application of such extreme terminology toward his own employer constitutes a severe challenge to the University’s institutional integrity.
Such public allegations, made without substantiated evidence, appear to undermine KCL’s external community relations and its international standing. Consequently, this conduct would seem to exceed the protections of lawful free expression and instead cross the threshold into actionable reputational damage as defined by University policy.
Adherence to Core Institutional Values (EDI Policy & Community Charter)
King’s College London is formally committed to maintaining a professional environment founded upon “dignity, trust and respect.” The University’s framework further stipulates that staff must engage with “civility, being mindful of our common humanity and the dignity and privacy of others.”
The rhetoric employed by Dr Zia-Ebrahimi appears to indicate a disregard for these established professional boundaries. By opting for inflammatory public declarations rather than constructive engagement, his conduct risks undermining the foundational expectations of mutual trust and civility that are central to the King’s Community Charter and the University’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) objectives. Such a breach of professional standards is not only a matter of decorum but a fundamental challenge to the cohesive environment the University seeks to foster.
Analysis of Inflammatory Publication
This section examines an article authored by Dr Reza Zia-Ebrahimi, published via the Jadaliyya platform and promoted on social media with descriptors including “internalised racism,” “Islamophobia,” and a “self-defeating pursuit of whiteness.” The article frames Iranian support for Israel as a ‘pursuit of whiteness’ rooted in ‘Zionist colonial epistemologies,’ which the author defines as the ‘purest distillation of white supremacy.’
This racialized framing of political and national identity appears to fundamentally conflict with the University’s standards of inclusivity and professional conduct. A review of the content suggests several areas where the rhetoric may fundamentally conflict with KCL’s internal policies regarding dignity, inclusion, and the prevention of harassment.
In Pursuit of Whiteness: Why Iranian Monarchists Cheer Israel’s Genocide
By : Reza Zia-Ebrahimi
Potential Breaches of the “Dignity at King’s Policy”
The Dignity at King’s Policy prohibits conduct related to protected characteristics that creates an “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.” In the article, Dr Zia-Ebrahimi employs racially charged and historically sensitive slurs.
The use of such terminology, regardless of the academic context, risks creating a degrading environment. Furthermore, attributing “malicious intent” to specific national or political groups by claiming they support “systematic murder” with “fanatic zeal” moves the discourse away from academic analysis and toward a rhetoric of dehumanization, which is inconsistent with the University’s standards of conduct.
Assessment Under the “Religion and Belief Policy” (Antisemitism)
King’s College London’s framework for protecting community members from religious-based hate includes a commitment to addressing antisemitic rhetoric.
The text utilizes the term “Jewish supremacists” and defines Zionism as the “purest distillation of white supremacy projected onto the Middle East.”
Framing Jewish national identity and self-determination as inherently synonymous with “white supremacy” aligns with recognized tropes that demonize Jewish identity. Such rhetoric has the potential to foster a hostile environment for Jewish staff and students, directly challenging the University’s commitment to providing a safe and inclusive space for all religious and ethnic groups.
Standards of Academic Civility and Freedom of Expression
While the Code of Practice for Academic Freedom protects the exchange of contentious ideas, it mandates that staff engage with “civility, being mindful of our common humanity.”
The author characterizes those with opposing views as “enablers of mass slaughter” and claims they are “enthusiastic about Muslim suffering.” Such assertions appear to abandon the requirement for academic civility. By utilizing dehumanizing language and public shaming, the rhetoric exceeds the boundaries of contentious academic debate and enters the realm of creating an intimidating and hostile atmosphere.
The cumulative effect of this sustained rhetoric appears to extend beyond the scope of protected academic critique. By employing racial slurs and tropes that target specific minority groups, the conduct in question risks normalizing prejudice within the King’s College London community.
Under the King’s Community Charter and the Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion Policy, the University has a statutory duty to advance equality of opportunity and foster good community relations. It is our concern that the continued use of such language undermines these obligations and fails to uphold the foundational values of dignity, trust, and respect that KCL seeks to guarantee for all its members.
On May 14, 2024, Dr Zia-Ebrahimi publicly endorsed a post by the activist group “KCL Palestine Solidarity” on the platform X. The original post announced the escalation of protests into a physical encampment at the University and included graphics accusing King’s College London of “complicity in Israel’s genocide.” The group’s demands included a formal institutional boycott of several Israeli academic institutions (Technion, Tel Aviv University, and Ben Gurion University).
Endorsement of Prohibited Activities and Breach of Safety Protocols
King’s College London maintains rigorous regulations regarding the conduct of protests to ensure both the safety of the university community and the continuity of campus operations.
Policy Framework:
- Section 10.23 of the Procedures for Events, Protests and Open Space Gatherings clarifies that protest activity outside of normal hours constitutes an “occupation,” which is explicitly prohibited to protect the safety of all participants.
- Section 10.33 states that tents and other structures are strictly prohibited on campus, as they may restrict emergency access and evacuation routes, thereby posing a significant health and safety risk.
Dr Zia-Ebrahimi has publicly issued his “wholehearted support” for students who have “set up camp” on the Strand campus.
It is a matter of serious concern when a senior member of the academic staff chooses to publicly endorse and legitimize activities that the University has explicitly classified as prohibited and hazardous. By encouraging students to disregard the ban on tents and occupations, Dr Zia-Ebrahimi’s rhetoric arguably:
- Undermines Institutional Safety Protocols: It actively encourages students to engage in conduct that the University’s own policy identifies as a material risk to health and safety.
- Conflicts with Professional ‘Duty of Care’: As an academic staff member, Dr Zia-Ebrahimi holds a responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of the student body. Publicly incentivizing student misconduct—particularly actions that compromise campus security—represents a significant departure from this professional duty.
Such public endorsement not only compromises the physical safety of the campus environment but also actively invites a breach of the University’s disciplinary regulations, which King’s College London has a statutory and internal duty to uphold.
Potential Violation of the Code of Practice for Academic Freedom: Institutional Disrepute
Section 4.5 of the Code of Practice for Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression stipulates that disciplinary action may be appropriate where conduct is deemed to be “bringing the University into disrepute.” The policy defines this threshold as a matter that is “serious, clearly evidenceable, and pose[s] a material risk to the operations and/or community relations of the University.”
By amplifying graphics and text that explicitly characterize King’s College London as “complicit in genocide,” and by offering his “wholehearted support” to the group issuing these claims, Dr Zia-Ebrahimi has once again directed severe allegations toward his own institution.
While the University traditionally protects and encourages student activism, a senior academic leveraging their professional platform to validate extreme allegations of institutional criminality represents a significant departure from standard professional conduct. It is our submission that:
- The validation of such severe claims by a member of the academic staff constitutes a direct challenge to KCL’s public and institutional standing.
- This incident is not an isolated occurrence but part of a documented, sustained pattern of rhetoric directed against the employer.
- Such conduct poses a demonstrable risk to the University’s community relations and its operational integrity, moving the discourse beyond the protections of academic freedom and into the category of actionable reputational damage as outlined in Section 4.5.
Creation of an Intimidating and Hostile Environment
King’s College London is formally committed to maintaining a safe and inclusive campus environment, as articulated in the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Policy and the Dignity at King’s framework. These policies explicitly prohibit conduct that has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or exclusionary atmosphere for any member of the University community.
Dr Zia-Ebrahimi has actively amplified demands for a unilateral boycott of specific Israeli academic institutions while simultaneously endorsing an unauthorized physical encampment that characterizes the University’s operations as “complicit in genocide.” It is our submission that this conduct may fundamentally undermine the University’s inclusive objectives:
- Impact on Jewish and Israeli Community Members: For Jewish and Israeli students and staff, the public endorsement of such an encampment by a member of the faculty, particularly one demanding the systematic exclusion of Israeli institutions, directly contributes to a hostile and intimidating environment. Such rhetoric risks making members of these groups feel unwelcome and unsafe within the academic community.
- Breach of the Duty to Foster Good Relations: Under its statutory and internal EDI obligations, the University has a duty to foster good relations between different groups. By lending academic authority to demands for exclusion and boycott, Dr Zia-Ebrahimi’s actions appear to work in direct opposition to this duty, potentially marginalizing a specific minority group based on national or ethnic origin and religious belief.
- Failure of Inclusivity Standards: The promotion of exclusionary rhetoric by a senior academic challenges the foundational principle that all students and staff should be able to participate in University life without fear of harassment or professional prejudice.
Trivialisation of Antisemitic Incidents and Public Conduct
In November 2023, following an incident in Paris where residential buildings were marked with stencilled Stars of David, an act widely condemned by international authorities as a targeted antisemitic provocation. Dr Zia-Ebrahimi published an image of the marked buildings with the following caption: “When the country that considers itself the fortress of critical thinking thinks that a Star of David is an antisemitic graffiti, it means the end of the world is here. #France #racism.”
Violation of the “Religion and Belief Policy” (Antisemitism)
King’s College London has formally adopted a definition of antisemitism which stipulates that: “Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
In a public post, Dr Zia-Ebrahimi ridiculed the classification of marking residential buildings with Stars of David as an antisemitic act. He characterized the widespread condemnation of this marking as a failure of “critical thinking.”
It is our submission that this conduct represents a significant breach of the University’s policy framework:
- Trivialisation of Hostile Manifestations: Regardless of the complex geopolitical motives later associated with the specific incident in Paris, the act of marking residential homes with Jewish symbols is a historically established method of antisemitic intimidation. By publicly mocking the recognition of this act as antisemitic, Dr Zia-Ebrahimi actively trivialises a physical manifestation of hostility directed at residential property.
- Undermining Institutional Frameworks: The University’s commitment to combating antisemitism relies on a shared understanding of what constitutes a “manifestation” of such hate. By leveraging his academic platform to deny the antisemitic nature of such targeting, Dr Zia-Ebrahimi directly undermines KCL’s adopted definitions and its institutional efforts to identify and mitigate religious-based harassment.
- Contradiction of Professional Duty: For Jewish members of the King’s community, a faculty member’s public denial of the threat posed by the targeted marking of Jewish homes fosters a climate of insecurity. This rhetoric appears to be in direct opposition to the Religion and Belief Policy, which mandates a safe environment free from the denial or minimisation of prejudice.
Breach of the “Dignity at King’s – Prevention of Bullying and Harassment Policy”
The Dignity at King’s Policy strictly prohibits unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic (such as religion or belief) which has the purpose or effect of “creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.”
Dr Zia-Ebrahimi’s public commentary leverages an event that caused significant distress and a genuine fear of persecution within Jewish communities globally. By framing the marking of Jewish homes as a subject for ridicule rather than a serious safety concern, the author appears to have violated the standards of conduct expected at King’s:
- Creation of an Offensive Environment: For Jewish students and staff at KCL, a faculty member’s public dismissal of the trauma associated with the targeted marking of Jewish residences creates an objectively hostile and degrading environment. Such rhetoric signals a disregard for the psychological wellbeing and safety of a specific minority group within the University.
- Invalidation of Protected Experiences: The policy focuses on the effect of conduct on the victim. By ridiculing the fear of antisemitic targeting, Dr Zia-Ebrahimi’s actions serve to invalidate the lived experiences of discrimination and historical trauma of Jewish community members.
- Breach of Professional Empathy: This conduct is fundamentally at odds with the University’s commitment to fostering a community based on mutual respect and dignity. The promotion of rhetoric that mocks the vulnerability of a protected group undermines the inclusive environment that the Dignity at King’s framework is designed to protect.
Breach of the “Code of Practice for Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression”: Standards of Civility
The University’s framework for free expression mandates that all staff and students must “engage with civility, being mindful of our common humanity and the dignity and privacy of others.” While academic freedom provides robust protection for controversial or unpopular opinions, it does not extend to rhetoric that amounts to harassment or undermines the foundational principle of mutual respect.
Dr Zia-Ebrahimi’s public dismissal of communal fear regarding potential hate crimes appears to fall significantly short of these mandated standards. By adopting a tone of public mockery toward an event that caused widespread alarm among a minority community.
Public Defamation, Allegations of Institutional Racism, Targeting of Student Groups
In a social media post dated July 4, 2025, Dr Zia-Ebrahimi shared a graphic featuring UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, which included a quote directed at King’s College London (KCL) alleging that the University’s research collaborations “obscure Palestinian erasure.”
In his accompanying commentary, Dr Zia-Ebrahimi launched an explicit attack on the University’s leadership and its policy of institutional neutrality, branding it “hollow” and stating that “there is no neutrality in genocide.” He further accused the University of “institutional racism” and concluded with the declaration, “Shame on King’s College London.”
Analysis under the “Code of Practice for Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression”: Institutional Disrepute
Section 4.5 of the Code of Practice stipulates that disciplinary action may be pursued where conduct is deemed to be “bringing the University into disrepute.” This threshold is met when a matter is “serious, clearly evidencקable, and pose[s] a material risk to the operations and/or community relations of the University.” Furthermore, Section 3.5 reinforces King’s commitment to an institutional operating approach of “value-based impartiality.”
Dr Zia-Ebrahimi has publicly issued severe denunciations of his employer, explicitly accusing King’s College London of “institutional racism” and complicity in genocide, while declaring “Shame on King’s College London.”
While academic commentary regarding international reports is protected, the explicit branding of the University as a racist and complicit entity constitutes a direct challenge to KCL’s institutional integrity. By publicly shaming the employer and actively undermining its policy of impartiality, Dr Zia-Ebrahimi’s conduct arguably poses a material risk to the University’s public standing. Such actions move beyond protected scholarly critique and enter the territory of actionable reputational damage.
Breach of the “Dignity at King’s Policy”: Targeting of Student Groups
The University strictly prohibits conduct that has the purpose or effect of “creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.” Heads of Departments and all academic staff bear a specific responsibility to maintain a studying environment that is inclusive, respectful, and safe.
Dr Zia-Ebrahimi has publicly singled out “Zionist students” as a collective, accusing them of engaging in harassment and framing them as a protected, antagonistic faction on campus.
For an academic staff member to utilize a public platform to make sweeping, negative allegations against a specific segment of the student body represents a significant breach of the duty of care. Given that Zionism is a central component of identity for many Jewish and Israeli students, publicly characterizing them as perpetrators of harassment creates an objectively intimidating and hostile campus environment. Such rhetoric risks marginalising these students, undermining their right to a safe educational space, and potentially inciting further victimisation against them by the wider campus community.
Failure to Adhere to the “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Policy” and Standards of Civility
King’s College London requires all staff to “engage with civility” and is committed to a working environment founded on “dignity, trust and respect.” The University’s framework assumes that staff wishing to raise concerns regarding systemic issues or the application of policy will utilize established formal grievance procedures.
The aggressive characterisation of the University as a racist entity, epitomised by the declaration “Shame on King’s College London”, represents a profound breakdown of professional boundaries and academic civility. By bypassing formal internal channels in favour of public shaming and inflammatory accusations, Dr Zia-Ebrahimi has acted in a manner inconsistent with the professional expectations of mutual trust and respect. This conduct not only contravenes the King’s Community Charter but also challenges the University’s ability to maintain a cohesive and professional working environment.