Australian universities hesitate on antisemitism definition amid academic freedom concerns
Months after the release of a new definition of antisemitism, a string of Australian universities are yet to adopt it amid concerns it may contravene academic freedom.
The academic board at the Australian National University (ANU) has declined to adopt the definition, paving the way for the university to become the first to reject the policy, while at least 11 other institutions have not yet made a decision.
Peak Jewish groups last week accused the ANU of allowing an 'unsafe and unwelcoming campus' over the board's decision not to adopt the definition endorsed by Universities Australia (UA) in February that closely aligns with the contentious International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, after a parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism on campuses.
The UA definition has faced some criticism since its release.
The National Union of Students (NUS) and National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) rejected the definition over free speech and academic freedom concerns. University of Sydney students overwhelmingly voted to reject university management's adoption of the definition, over similar concerns, at a meeting convened by the Student Representative Council.
UNSW, Deakin University, Victoria University, University of Technology Sydney and RMIT University were waiting for the outcome of consultation between the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency and the Higher Education Standards Panel, which were tasked by UA to ensure the definition upholds higher education standards and freedom of expression.
James Cook University will examine the definition when it reviews its discrimination policy later this year, as will the University of Adelaide at the request of its council, while Charles Darwin University is considering the 'best positioning' of the definition within its policy framework to 'ensure that academic freedom and expression is honoured'.
The University of the Sunshine Coast's academic board will consider the definition in coming months, while the University of Newcastle is 'actively engaging' with stakeholders to consider 'different perspectives' on the matter.
The University of Queensland senate endorsed the definition, which was later discussed by the academic board in March, and is working to 'finalise' its decision.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
On Friday 23 May, the last day of term, ANU's academic board chair, Prof Tony Connolly, informed the ACT Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS) the board would recommend against adopting the definition and instead intended to adopt a broader anti-racism definition based on a 2023 report released by the university's anti-racism taskforce.
An ANU spokesperson confirmed the board had recommended a definition of racism be adopted and 'anti-racism culture' be developed in accordance with the taskforce's recommendations.
The academic board holds significant authority in developing and approving university policies but it is ultimately up to the executive to decide whether to endorse its decision.
The spokesperson said the university had not rejected the UA definition and was 'continuing to work with our community to determine the best approach and consider the matter through the appropriate governance processes'.
Last Friday, the heads of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) and the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism (5A) wrote to the ANU vice-chancellor, Prof Genevieve Bell, expressing their 'dismay' at the board's decision.
'By reason of many examples of antisemitic behaviour at ANU, your campus has become unsafe and unwelcoming for Jewish students,' the letter read. 'Absent a credible definition of antisemitism at ANU, we do not see how the university intends to identify antisemitic conduct and respond appropriately to it.'
The working UA definition, first developed by Group of Eight institutions, was unanimously endorsed by 39 vice-chancellors in February, based on work with Jillian Segal, the special envoy to combat antisemitism.
The definition says criticism of Israel can be antisemitic 'when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and when it calls for the elimination of the state of Israel or all Jews or when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel's actions'.
'Substituting the word 'Zionist' for 'Jew' does not eliminate the possibility of speech being antisemitic,' the definition states.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
Liat Granot, a co-president of the AUJS, addressed ANU's academic board last month, encouraging it to adopt the definition.
Granot said rejecting the definition made Jewish students feel 'incredibly exposed, unsupported and disillusioned'.
'This definition was seen as the last straw … to a hope we had in the institution's ability to protect us. That's been crushed,' she said.
In March, the NTEU's ACT division secretary, Dr Lachlan Clohesy, wrote to Connolly urging him to oppose the UA definition.
Clohesy said the definition was 'inconsistent with fundamental principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech', and risked conflating legitimate criticism of the Israeli state and government with antisemitism.
Clohesy said some Jewish NTEU members had taken particular issue with the 'inclusion of Zionism as part of Jewish identity' in the definition, and the 'underlying assumption that a Jewish person is likely to be Zionist'.
'NTEU is also concerned that the adoption of this definition could lead to attempts to initiate disciplinary [action] against ANU staff in future,' he wrote.
The ECAJ and 5A urged the board to reconsider its position and to 'recognise that a non-legally binding, working definition of antisemitism that reflects the Jewish lived experience, is essential'.
'The ANU academic board … comprised of academics with no specialised anti-racism mandate, and which has a focus on academic freedom, is not the appropriate body to evaluate whether the UA definition should be adopted.'
A UA spokesperson said the body respected the autonomy of universities to make their own decisions, 'including how best to implement policies and principles that support student safety and free expression'.
More than 20 universities did not provide a comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Trump reveals Harvard University feud may be coming to an end as he floats 'historic' deal
President Donald Trump has teased that his months-long battle with Harvard University may soon be over, announcing that a deal could emerge 'over the next week or so.' Thus far, Harvard has been one of the main enemies of the Trump administration, which has lobbed numerous serious accusations at the Ivy League college and yanked billions of dollars in federal funding. The accusations range from the university not doing enough to constrain antisemitism on campus, to it admitting students with views hostile to American values. More than three months after the White House 's initial letter to the university calling for major reform, Trump appears optimistic that an agreement is possible. 'We have been working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so,' Trump wrote Friday afternoon on Truth Social. 'They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right,' he added. 'If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be 'mindbogglingly' HISTORIC, and very good for our Country.' Harvard hasn't publicly responded to Trump's sentiments. Daily Mail approached the university for comment. This comes as a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from revoking Harvard's ability to admit foreign students. On June 4, Trump issued an executive order called Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University, which suspended the school's student visa program - calling it a 'privilege granted by our government, not a guarantee.' Harvard has nearly 6,800 international students, making up more than 27 percent of its enrollment in the past academic year. About one-third of those international students are from China, and Trump has previously accused Harvard of 'coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party,' a claim echoed in the executive order. Friday's preliminary injunction by US District Judge Allison Burroughs extends a prior temporary block she issued last month against the administration for stopping international students from coming to Harvard. Outside of Trump's fears about foreign influence on Harvard, he has also expressed concern that university leaders have fostered a breeding ground for antisemitism, making Jewish students feel uncomfortable and unsafe. A large encampment of pro-Palestine students protesting the Israel-Hamas war formed on Harvard Yard during the 2024 spring semester and lasted for three weeks. The students wanted the university to divest from the Israeli government and Israeli businesses, but the administration did not acquiesce. Even before the encampment in April and May of 2024, there were widespread protests at Harvard immediately following the Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. One such protest descended into a confrontation where pro-Palestine demonstrators surrounded a Harvard MBA student and repeatedly shouted 'shame' at him. Claudine Gay, Harvard's president during much of this turmoil, resigned in January 2024 after she refused to condemn students calling for the genocide of Jews when pressed by members of Congress. Gay presided over billions of dollars in lost potential donations from wealthy Jewish families appalled by what took place on campus. That's now on top of the approximately $3.2 billion in grants and contracts Harvard has lost out on from the federal government since Trump took office. Harvard sued the Trump administration for the federal funding freeze and denies accusations of alleged bias against Jewish students. Lawyers for Harvard also argue that the attempted revocation of foreign student visas violates its free speech and due process rights under the US Constitution as well as the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that constrains what federal agencies are allowed to do. Harvard says the Trump administration is retaliating against it because it refused to obey the government's demands to control the school's governance, curriculum and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students. The federal government sent a letter to Harvard President Alan Garber on April 11 claiming that the school has 'failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment.' The letter demanded university leaders adopt merit-based admissions policies, stop admitting students who are 'hostile to American values', enforce viewpoint diversity in all academic departments, and immediately end all DEI programs. Officials explained that they wanted what amounted to progress reports on these goals sent to them so they could ensure that their orders were being followed.
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
Toyota disciplines employee accused of calling BBC editor ‘vile Zionist Jew'
The Japanese car giant Toyota has disciplined an employee who allegedly abused a Jewish BBC journalist on social media. Piotr Klarowski is accused of describing Raffi Berg, the BBC's online Middle East editor, as a 'vile Zionist Jew' and a 'little rat'. Responding to a BBC story about Palestinians in Gaza protesting against Hamas, he is alleged to have written on March 27: 'The little rat and Israel fanboy Raffi Berg, the Middle East editor at BBC, was definitely happy to publish this one.' On April 10, in response to a BBC article on the violent treatment of some Palestinians in Israeli prisons, Mr Klarowski's X account said: 'Is Raffi Berg, the vile Zionist Jew, supporter of Israel's genocide and war crimes and the Middle East editor at BBC on his annual leave?' And on May 31, the same X account posted a tweet asking if Berg, 'the filthy Zionist Jew', was 'finally sacked'. An investigation was launched by Toyota's future technology subsidiary, Woven, which employed Mr Klarowski as a senior product experience designer for three years. It is now understood that following the investigation, Mr Klarowski was subjected to disciplinary measures. Toyota sources told The Telegraph it took complaints of anti-Semitic and other discriminatory behaviour by its employees 'extremely seriously' and that action had been taken. A spokesman for the firm said: 'We are aware of media reports regarding alleged social media posts made by one of our employees. Woven by Toyota is committed to maintaining a respectful workplace, and we firmly condemn all forms of discriminatory speech or behaviour. 'An internal investigation was conducted in accordance with our company policies and Code of Conduct, and appropriate action was taken based on the findings. We are unable to comment on specifics of the investigation or the employee for privacy reasons.' Mr Klarowski's biographical field on his X social media page reads: 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. Israel, a settler-colonial, genocidal, Jewish, apartheid state, has to be destroyed. BDS isn't enough.' A post from his X account from April 8 said: 'Who runs the world? Jews (Jews).' That was followed by a post from the same account on May 26, which called Israeli Zionist Jews the 'sickest, most disgusting supremacist, genocidal and subhuman creatures on Earth'. The post continued: 'Absolute filth. Calling them rats or pigs would only be offensive to these animals and wouldn't come close to capturing how f----d up and irredeemable this society is.' The posts have since been deleted from Mr Klarowski's account. Mr Klarowski studied for a bachelor's degree in visual communication and graphic design at Edinburgh College of Art, according to his LinkedIn account. The account has now been removed. Mr Klarowski was approached for comment.
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
I am proud to be a Zionist and you should be one too
Zionist bitch. This was what my friend discovered a colleague had called her. Not just a bitch. But a Zionist one. Over the past year it has become increasingly normal for people in this country to use Zionist as a slur. To say that simply believing in the State of Israel's right to exist is fundamentally reprehensible. I can think of no other religion or nation state that has to put up with this. It is only the Jewish state that has the right to its very existence challenged in this way. Only Jewish people who should be denied a homeland. A homeland in the place Jews have lived, loved, worked and prayed for thousands of years. It should be clearly understood that believing in Israel's right to a place amongst nations is not the same as saying you are in agreement with everything the government of the country does. Yet when it comes to Israel, growing numbers of people are unwilling to separate the decisions of politicians from the right to a national homeland. Personally I abhor the statements made by Right-wing extremists Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich in the Israeli government. Does that make me believe that an entire nation should be cancelled? A nation that also happens to be the only democratic state in the Middle East? Take Iran as a comparison. Israel and Iran could not be more different. In Tehran, free speech and political opposition are violently suppressed in a country run autocratically and often brutally by ayatollahs. Women are not equal citizens and the gay community have to live in fear. Yet do you hear anyone calling for an end to the existence of Iran? Are there placards at mass marches on Britain's streets calling for the extinction of that nation? Is believing in the right of Iran to exist an increasingly common insult in public, on social media or the workplace? The obvious question is why this is happening with Israel but not other countries. For me and many other people who share my faith the reason is horribly clear. It is because Israel is the homeland of Jews. The fightback against this denial of a Jewish state in the Middle East must be clear, determined and high profile. It must be led by those in our country who have the most influence. Let's start with the leader of our nation. Sir Keir, a simple question: do you believe in the State of Israel's right to exist? If the answer is yes, then please state publicly that you are a Zionist. Please say this loudly and clearly so that this growing tide of anti-Zionist hate, which is ultimately a mask for anti-Jewish hate, can be arrested before conditions worsen further for Jewish people in this country and become truly dangerous. I call on the Government's front bench MPs to be equally clear that they believe in Israel's right to exist, that they too are Zionists. In the current climate it will take some courage, but isn't that what leadership is all about?
