Nearly eight months after the Collège de France cancelled the " Palestine and Europe , The Weight of the Past and Contemporary Dynamics" conference, organised by the Paris branch of the Arab Centre for Research and Policy Studies, an administrative court in the French capital held a hearing on Wednesday, 1 July, regarding a legal challenge to the decision.
The court's rapporteur-general considered the conference's cancellation to have been "disproportionate", recalling that French law provides a high degree of protection for academic freedom and that the Collège de France administration, if it believed the conference posed "a particular kind of risk", could have proceeded with security arrangements that would have allowed it to take place, rather than cancelling it outright.
The rapporteur-general's conclusions are not binding on the court, but they provide an important indication of the direction the ruling may take. The judgement is due on 15 July.
The conference had been scheduled for 13 and 14 November 2025 at the Collège de France, jointly organised by the Chair of the History of the Contemporary Arab World at the institution, held by French historian Henry Laurens, and the Arab Centre for Research and Policy Studies in Paris.
But on 9 November, the director of the prestigious academic and research institution, Thomas Römer, announced that the event would be cancelled at the Collège, citing what he described as the surrounding "controversy" and the "risks" associated with holding it.
The event had come under a political and media campaign alleging its "bias" and "pro-Palestinian" character.
Lawyer Raphaël Kempf, who represents 18 conference organisers and participants, told The New Arab that the rapporteur-general considered the Collège de France decision to cancel hosting the conference last November should itself be annulled because it was "disproportionate".
He stressed the importance of academic freedom, namely the freedom of researchers and university professors to meet, work and disseminate knowledge.
Kempf also pointed to what he described as "an extremely important" point: that organising a conference on Palestine "also constitutes a way of affirming the presence of the Palestinian people" in the academic sphere and public debate in France .
In the view of the conference organisers and defenders of academic freedom, the dispute extends beyond an administrative decision taken by an educational institution regarding a single event.
It is closely linked to a broader context in which activities and discussions related to Palestine in France have become the target of repeated political and media campaigns.
In a joint statement issued on 10 November last year, the Arab Centre in Paris and the Chair of the History of the Contemporary Arab World at the Collège de France said the cancellation followed an article published by the conservative magazine Le Point and direct pressure from Higher Education Minister Philippe Baptiste.
According to the statement, this amounted to political interference in academic research and "a contradiction of its mission, which is based on protecting academic freedom".
Even the conservative newspaper Le Figaro , which is not known for defending the Palestinian cause, wrote on 9 November that the conference had been cancelled " under pressure from the Ministry of Higher Education ".
The newspaper also reported that the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism (LICRA) had "denounced" the event, describing it as an "anti-Zionist exhibition" that contributed to the "distortion" of the role of a prestigious institution such as the Collège de France.
Kempf focuses on the roles of both the Le Point article and the association Action Avocats, an organisation bringing together several lawyers practising in Paris.
The group describes itself as "fighting terrorism, antisemitism and racism" and defending what it calls "Western values" through "lobbying activities and legal and human rights action".
Kempf said the association does not represent any client in the case but is a group of lawyers who "denounced the conference in letters sent to the minister of higher education and to the director of Collège de France".
The French lawyer also criticised the Le Point article, describing it as "shameful" because it "did not present the content of the research produced by the invited scholars", who were not approached for comment by the publication.
He added that it "distorted the facts by portraying them as supporters of Hamas, which is not true".
Kempf said preparations for the conference had been under way since the beginning of 2025, involving months of organisation to bring together researchers from several universities around the world, arrange their travel and accommodation, and provide simultaneous interpretation services.
He stressed that the Collège de France had originally approved the conference before changing its position.
"However, things escalated in November because of pressure exerted by the 'Action Avocats' association, the Le Point article, and the Minister of Higher Education," he said.
By contrast, lawyer François Molinié, representing the Collège de France, defended Thomas Römer's decision during Wednesday's hearing.
He argued that the institution's director had no choice but to cancel the conference "reluctantly" because of the "severe tensions" stemming from "strong controversy" surrounding the event, including graffiti near the institution's building and abusive messages on social media.
Molinié stressed that Römer "values academic freedom, just as we all do", but was confronted with "an exceptional situation" that led to his decision.
However, according to the conference's defenders, these arguments do not address the core of the dispute; instead, they reinforce the view that the Collège de France administration yielded to pressure when it deemed the "controversy" alone sufficient reason to cancel the event, rather than seeking ways to ensure it could proceed.
The rapporteur-general himself took this view, describing the move as "a strange defeat".
He questioned why the institution had not called on police to secure the conference venue and regulate access instead of cancelling an event that should have enjoyed the protection of academic freedom, even if its discourse "runs counter to the prevailing thinking" in France regarding the Palestinian cause.
Kempf also challenged the "risk" argument on which the Collège de France administration based its decision to cancel.
According to the claimants' legal team, after the decision was issued, the institution sought to provide it with an acceptable legal justification by linking it to a threat to public order, whereas the original motivation had been the "controversy" surrounding the conference's content and chosen perspective.
This interpretation is based on the view that the evidence presented to demonstrate the existence of a risk remained limited.
It consisted only of a Le Point article criticising the conference without presenting any evidence of a security threat, graffiti that did not mention the conference, social media comments that appeared after the cancellation decision, and a complaint filed later, meaning they could not, chronologically, be regarded as the basis for the decision.
Kempf therefore does not believe the case concerns avoiding a security threat as much as it concerns using the controversy surrounding the conference to prevent it from taking place at the institution.
The claimants argue that the Collège de France could have strengthened security procedures for attendees or requested police assistance to secure the area around the institution, particularly as its lectures are already open to the public under standard security measures.
They also note that the conference was held at the Arab Centre in Paris on its original dates, with no incidents recorded.
Kempf believes the seriousness of the case lies in the fact that objections based on ignorance of the research and academic work involved prevented a scientific conference from taking place at its intended venue.
He said people "who know nothing about the researchers' work and have not read it" intervened to demand the cancellation of an event "they know nothing about".
On that basis, upholding the cancellation in the forthcoming 15 July ruling would mean granting this type of objection the power to obstruct academic debate whenever Palestine is involved.
Wednesday's hearing was not limited to the conference organisers and participants.
Human rights, trade union and academic organisations also joined the legal challenge, viewing the case as a broader attack on academic freedom in France.
In a written response to questions from The New Arab , the Human Rights League in France said it had joined the case as one of the claimants, alongside seven other parties.
These included the National Union for Higher Education, the Association for Middle East and Islamic Worlds Studies, the Association for Academic Freedom, and the French Political Science Association.
The league said that the conference's subsequent holding at another venue does not resolve the underlying problem created by the cancellation decision.
It said the central issue is not whether the organisers could find an alternative venue but whether a public academic institution can legitimately cancel a scientific conference it was due to host after it became the subject of "controversy".
The league also recalled that the rapporteur-general described the decision as "disproportionate".
Salam Kawakibi, director of the Arab Centre for Research and Policy Studies in Paris, told The New Arab that he believes the rapporteur-general "relied on clear evidence".
He argued that the arguments put forward by the Ministry of Higher Education and the Collège de France administration were "weak and not based on any objectivity or any specific security threat".
"There was no reason to cancel the conference other than yielding to the dominant lobby," Kawakibi said.
He expressed hope that the French court's ruling would be "consistent with the rapporteur-general's opinion", while acknowledging that this "is not entirely guaranteed".
Although the rapporteur-general's conclusions do not determine the judgement in advance, they provide the claimants with an encouraging signal ahead of the 15 July decision.
Kempf said the court often follows the rapporteur-general's opinion, although it is legally free not to do so.
If the claimants prevail, the impact of the ruling would extend beyond its symbolic significance.
The lawyer said such a judgement could also allow the organisers to recover at least part of the expenses incurred in preparing the conference. Article translated from Arabic by Afrah Almatwari. To read the original, click here .