‘New Jim Crow': Sydney uni slammed over plan to ‘segregate' Jewish students during Palestine protest
Emails obtained under a Government Information Public Access (GIPA) application shed new light on the university's rolling response to the pro-Palestine encampment, which took over the campus for almost two months last year.
In an email on May 14, 2024 titled 'Student encampment planning #20', USYD associate director of risk strategy and operations Lauren Macaulay detailed discussions from the university's midday meetings about the exam period.
'(The exam) should go ahead in the MacLaurin Hall and the Great Hall but we need to be clear of our expectations and that it would be counter-productive for both our students and the protest itself for them to disrupt exam activities,' the minutes stated.
'Mitigations include installing the large electronic signs (big and visible) stating our expectations and ensure that Jewish students have ways to avoid the encampment
when gaining entry to exams (see actions).
'If there is disruption we need to manage this through our misconduct/consequence framework and through contingency planning (e.g. special consideration and a new exam in the replacement exam period) (see actions).'
Further actions were detailed and assigned to various staff, including communication to student groups, discussion of 'safe spaces for students and staff' – including exam spaces – and 'contingency planning processes offline'.
Jack Pinczewski, a board member at the Great Synagogue in Sydney, submitted to a state parliament inquiry into anti-Semitism in NSW – the first session of which was held in Sydney this week – that the university 'took the view that to separate Jewish students from their peers was the most effective way of ensuring their safety'.
'Despite their good intentions – to protect Jewish students – that university executives contemplated separate entries for Jewish students to exam rooms is an impossibly shameful racist enterprise,' Mr Pinczewski said.
'As a society, would we accept separate entries to buildings for Asian or Aboriginal students? We would not.
'We acknowledge that notions of 'separate but equal' is not equality at all. What university executives were engaged in through this process was, likely inadvertently, a new form of Jim Crow,' he added, referring to the US laws and practices that segregated black people from whites.
It was not immediately clear to what extent the plans were enacted, though the proposals were defended by a university spokesperson who said there was 'no suggestion (the access points) were intended for a select group of students'.
'Tent-based protest camps were a new phenomenon for Sydney and other universities around the world, and we worked hard to ensure our campus remained peaceful, our community safe, and our teaching and research could continue uninterrupted,' the spokesperson said.
'During the exam period we implemented a number of measures to safeguard both the wellbeing of our students and the academic integrity of our assessments.
'These included offering different access options for all students or staff wishing to avoid the encampment, and we installed electronic signage where exams were taking place to remind members of the encampment that disruptions would not be tolerated.
'The different access points offered were available for anyone wishing to use them, there was no suggestion they were intended for a select group of students.'
Mr Pinczewski accused USYD of having 'again shirked accountability for their failure to keep Jewish students and staff safe'.
'Their denial of what exists in black and white – contemporaneous documents showing senior university executives were set on segregating Jewish students from their peers – calls into question their commitments to the Jewish community since October last year,' he said.
'As long as attitudes like this persist, one can but wonder if the university's apologies really mean anything at all.
'The university should be called before the Legislative Council committee inquiring into anti-Semitism to account for themselves.'
USYD's scramble to respond to 'unprecedented' crisis
The emails obtained under the GIPA application reveal the wide-reaching but sometimes frantic response The University of Sydney and its staff took to what was an unprecedented protest on its campus, including damage to the quadrangle and counter-protests.
Staff kept diligent records of incidents, and corresponded among departments ahead of time about potential protest and counter-protest activity, including when the right-wing Australian Jewish Association attended the site.
'Political differences aside, the AJA is planning to come to openly antagonise the situation,' an email from an unknown sender to campus security stated on May 2.
'I am unsure if non-student and staff groups are allowed on campus in order to protest, but Campus Security, and the police, need to be ready for such an event.'
In an email dated May 2, meeting minutes stated that staff had agreed that 'should police intervene' in the protest, the 'priority should be on de-escalating violence'.
The school's social media teams also provided updates to staff on what was being posted online, including from the AJA and mainstream media.
In a 'wellbeing update' dated May 17, staff noted that 'Muslim protesters' reported 'feeling profiled' when trying to enter the library.
'Sarah reiterated to protective services staff that they can't just pick out certain people for screening,' the update stated.
'Reported instances female SUMSA students were being sworn at around campus (particularly when close to roads).'
Questions were also raised in an email chain that included the vice-chancellor about whether face coverings contravened university policy.
Following the end of the encampment in June 2024, the university introduced a new Campus Access Policy 'designed to better safeguard the wellbeing of our students and staff while ensuring free speech on campus, and are reviewing and updating our relevant policies and processes'.
The policy, which followed an independent review into the university's policies and procedures, made several changes, including a 'New Civility Rule' requiring speakers at the university to 'make the meaning of contested words and phrases clear'.
NSW Council for Civil Liberties chief executive Tim Roberts warned that USYD had 'shown a tendency to overreact and, in doing so, undermined both the ideals of open free debate in a university' and were 'taking a position where they're restricting conversations'.
'If you specifically single out students, a group of students in the response, what you only seek to do is further embolden sort of divisions and the divisive aspect of debates, as opposed as coming at it from a human rights perspective,' Mr Roberts said.
In the statement, the USYD spokesperson said the university remained 'absolutely committed to freedom of speech and academic freedom with zero tolerance for any form of racism, threats to safety, hate speech, intimidation, threatening speech, bullying or unlawful harassment, including anti-Semitic or Islamophobic language or behaviour'.
The university also instituted changes to its campus security set-up, including the installation of 50 additional CCTV cameras.
It also pledged to engage with the Jewish student leadership and with the Sydney Jewish Museum and has five further changes, including about social media use, pending.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Australia's commitment to recognise Palestine met with 'disappointment and disgust' by Trump administration
The US ambassador to Israel says the Australian government's decision to recognise Palestine was met with disgust by senior members of the Trump administration. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee told 7.30 he discussed Australia's decision with US President Donald Trump. "There's an enormous level of disappointment and some disgust," Ambassador Huckabee said. "I don't know that the president used that word, [but] I would say that is a characterisation of a sentiment. Ambassador Huckabee also said Australia's timing was "terrible". "I think the timing has been very hurtful to any prospects of negotiating some settlement in Gaza with Hamas … this is a gift to them, and it's unfortunate," he said. The ambassador continued his critique of the Albanese government's decision, saying it would have a direct impact on the remaining hostages of Hamas. "For this to come at a time like this, further endangering them and endangering any hopes of some peaceful resolution of dealing with Hamas and getting them to lay down their arms," he said. Australia followed similar commitments to recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September, that were made by France, Canada and the UK. "As Israel's closest partner, we would have expected that there would have been some heads up," he said. On 7.30 this week, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said she had spoken to the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio about the government's intentions. "As a matter of courtesy, I did want to give him advance notice of our announcement," Ms Wong said. Earlier in the week, Minister Wong warned there would be "no Palestine left" to recognise if the world did not act. Asked about Senator Wong's comments, Mr Huckabee claimed Australia's decision could inadvertently push Israel towards annexation of the West Bank. However, in July, the Israeli Knesset passed a non-binding motion calling for the annexation of the West Bank. On Thursday, multiple outlets reported that Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich threatened an expansion of settlements outside Jerusalem. "Those who try to recognise a Palestinian state will receive from us an answer on the ground … and ensure that by September the hypocritical leaders in Europe will have nothing to recognise," he said. Pressed on whether the Trump administration should have sought to influence Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's conduct of the war in Gaza, the ambassador said: "I guess if we wanted to tell them what to do we would, but we respect the fact they were attacked on October 7." On Wednesday, the total number of hunger-related deaths since the war began in October 2023 rose to 235, among them 106 children, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Asked about Mr Trump's recent comments expressing discomfort at images of malnourished children, Mr Huckabee said Mr Trump had done "more than anyone else" to stop starvation. "He was the one who authorised us to create the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) to start feeding people … get food to people who are hungry to give it to them in a way where Hamas cannot steal it," he said Since the GHF has been operating in Gaza, more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid, according to the UN. The UN also says 500,000 people are facing famine and every child under five is at risk of acute malnutrition. Watch 7.30, Mondays to Thursdays 7:30pm on ABC iview and ABC TV Do you know more about this story? Get in touch with 7.30 here.

ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
What is the US response to Australia committing to recognition of a Palestinian state?
SARAH FERGUSON, PRESENTER: Mike Huckabee was appointed by President Donald Trump as the US ambassador to Israel earlier this year. He joins me now from Jerusalem. Ambassador Huckabee, welcome. MIKE HUCKABEE, US AMBASSADOR TO ISRAEL: Thank you, Sarah, an honour to be with you. SARAH FERGUSON: What is the US response to Australia joining other key allies in committing to recognition of a Palestinian state? MIKE HUCKABEE: Well, the US is disappointed that nations like Australia, UK and others, have decided to pick this particular time to unilaterally recognise a second state. I think that the timing has been very hurtful to any prospects of negotiating some settlement in Gaza with Hamas. They basically walked away. This is a gift to them and it's unfortunate. And also, it is a violation of the agreement that was done in Oslo that any type of recognition of a Palestinian state would involve the Israelis. This clearly does not, and I would say that it is unfortunate, but it's also very disappointing to the United States. SARAH FERGUSON: I think it's worth pointing out that Prime Minister Netanyahu has said in the past that he was proud to have put the brakes on Oslo. But let me ask you a specific question, have you discussed this issue with Donald Trump, President Trump? MIKE HUCKABEE: Absolutely and we discussed it at State Department level with the Secretary. There is an enormous level of disappointment, and some disgust. You perhaps heard the Secretary Rubio's interview this past weekend and he made it very clear that the result of this has been to completely halt any type of thoughtful negotiations going forward, and it's just very terrible timing for this to come about. SARAH FERGUSON: Can you be precise? We have heard what Secretary Rubio said. What did President Trump specifically say about this decision? MIKE HUCKABEE: Well, I don't want to disclose personal conversations with the President, that wouldn't be appropriate for me to do. SARAH FERGUSON: Perhaps, ambassador, you could characterise them for us? MIKE HUCKABEE: I can characterise them as sharing what I just shared. That is disappointing and frustrating. Frustrating that there was no communication with the United States. As Israel's closest partner, we would have expected that there would have been some heads up. There wasn't. This was done unilaterally. That was a disappointment. In the case of the UK, the President had had an extensive visit with the Prime Minister in the UK and about an hour after the President left to go back to Washington, that's when this decision was announced. One would think that it would have been an appropriate topic of conversation while the two were sitting there together. SARAH FERGUSON: And just if I could come back, you used the word "disgust", that's a very strong term. Who expressed disgust? Was that the President? MIKE HUCKABEE: I don't know that the President used that word. I would say that it is a characterisation of the sentiment - whether or not that word was employed by anybody in particular other than me. I think that it does express, though, the emotional sentiment, a sense of, you've got to be kidding! Why would they be doing this? And why would they be doing it now? And why wouldn't they not be telling the United States, or telling Israel, for that matter. But to go out and make a public announcement like this - it was unseemly. SARAH FERGUSON: Let me just put to you some of the arguments that were made by the Australian Government in making this decision. They felt, for example, that they had no option than to recognise a Palestinian state before Israel annexed the West Bank and to use their words, there was no state left to recognise. What do you say to the Australian Government in relation to that? MIKE HUCKABEE: I would say what Australia and the other countries may have done inadvertently is to push Israel towards doing exactly what they're afraid of. SARAH FERGUSON: But just talk to me about the US. This is really a question as to whether or not the US is becoming isolated? Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong said that they had to do this because shortly, given what we've heard from the Israelis in relation to annexing the West Bank, there would be no state left to recognise. So how do you respond to that? MIKE HUCKABEE: Well, I would be very quick to tell you, I don't think that the United States feels isolated at all. You asked do we feel isolated? No, we don't. We're a sovereign country, so is Israel. So is Australia. Australia can do what it wants to do but we certainly don't have to agree with it. We don't have to like it. We don't have to pretend that it's okay, because in our view, it's not okay. And it was ill-timed, and I think, when hostages are being held, and tortured, not just held. They're not being fed. They're being forced to dig their own graves. We have seen the videos. And for this to come at a time like this, further endangering them, and endangering any hopes of some peaceful resolution of dealing with Hamas and getting them to lay down their arms. And Sarah, something that I think is very important to note, in the very week that the Australian Government, along with many others, were declaring publicly for a Palestinian state, you know who wasn't declaring for a Palestinian state? The Arab League. What they were calling for, that very week, was for Hamas to disarm and to let all of the hostages go. SARAH FERGUSON: I think that I just have to interrupt you there, ambassador, because it is clear that the Arab League has welcomed this recognition of a Palestinian state. But let's move on. Let me ask you a different question. MIKE HUCKABEE: They weren't calling for it last week, Sarah. They weren't calling for it last week. They were calling for Hamas to lay down their arms and surrender the hostages, and I think that it is an issue of timing. So I want to be very clear that, of course, they probably all support a second state, that they knew that there was a time and a place. Last week wasn't the time or the place. SARAH FERGUSON: Let me ask you this question. Do you take it as a starting point for any discussion on this conflict that the idea of a two-state solution is dead? MIKE HUCKABEE: The idea of a two-state solution is only alive if Israel and the Palestinian Authority can figure out a way to make it work. But as long as you have people chanting "From the river to the sea", as long as the Palestinian Authority continues to pay terrorists stipends for murdering Jews ... SARAH FERGUSON: I think to be clear, that Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, has committed to stop doing that. But please continue. MIKE HUCKABEE: No, actually, he hasn't, Sarah. He said in Arabic, that if there is only one penny left in the Treasury, that penny will go to the martyrs. So whatever he may say in one language to sound as if he's appeasing, the truth is that he has not given up on that policy. It is still going on today. SARAH FERGUSON: Let me ask you another question. This is really looking at the situation in Gaza, which was along with the question over the annexation of the West Bank was the other set of circumstances that the Australian Government described as motivating them in this decision. Why is the Trump administration apparently powerless in its ability to impact on the way Benjamin Netanyahu has conducted this war? MIKE HUCKABEE: Well, I don't know that it is the role of the United States to tell Israel how to prosecute a war. I want to remind you that there were 100 Americans who were held hostage, too. Two of them, who are deceased, their remains are still being held hostage. Some of them are out. Others have been killed, and we have their remains back. SARAH FERGUSON: Does not the United States' very large military aid, billions and billions of dollars to Israel, give you some leverage over how the war is conducted? MIKE HUCKABEE: I guess if we wanted to tell them what to do, we would but they're our partner. We respect the fact that they were attacked on October 7. They're not the attacking country. They were attacked country and there were 1,200 people... SARAH FERGUSON: Sure but the question here... MIKE HUCKABEE: No, Sarah, I'm going to stop you there. SARAH FERGUSON: Go ahead. MIKE HUCKABEE: Because I'm so tired of people blaming Israel for the fact that it is defending themselves against the monsters who raped women in front of their families, who mutilated their bodies, who burnt babies, who beheaded people, who burned elderly people in their wheelchairs, who took 250 people hostage - continued to torture them - many of them Holocaust survivors, many of them children and infants and somehow, we're supposed to blame Israel because it's trying to defend its country. No, I'm sorry, we're not going to tell them how to defend themselves. SARAH FERGUSON: As I have said many times on this program, the actions of Hamas are repulsive to all right-thinking people. This is a question however about the extended coverage of the war, not Israel's right to defend itself. Israel has dropped 100,000 tonnes of explosives on Gaza, a very small territory. That is more than the combined ordinance dropped on Hamburg, Dresden and the United Kingdom in the Second World War. That is the question. You cannot do that over a tiny space without mass casualty. So why doesn't the US have anything to say about the huge extent of civilian casualties in Gaza? MIKE HUCKABEE: We do. We have a lot to say about it. The first thing that we say is that Hamas should have surrendered on October the 8th. That would have ended the war and there wouldn't have been civilian casualties. The second thing that we say is that Hamas shouldn't do what it does routinely, which is put its civilians in front of targets that the Israelis announce in advance they're going to hit. I've got to be very clear to you. Not even the US military, and I think that we have one of the best and most ethical that have ever existed, but we don't announce in advance when we're going to hit a target, where we're going to hit and tell people to get out of it. Israel does that. They get no credit for that but Hamas on the other hand, they move their civilians right towards the target that Israel has announced, and then they threaten to shoot anyone who gets away from the target. So do they have a lot of civilian casualties? Yes, they do and a lot of the reason that they do is because Hamas makes sure that they have civilian casualties, because then, everybody can blame Israel for it. SARAH FERGUSON: I just note that you're not answering the question about Israel's conduct of the war. But let me ask you a different question about the war. MIKE HUCKABEE: No, I just did. I told you that Israel, I did announce that. I told you very clearly. SARAH FERGUSON: A partial answer, if I may, ambassador. A partial answer about warnings that are not universal. Let me ask you a different question. We all pay a lot of attention to your President. You are aware of that. We watched him express some disquiet, some upset over pictures of starving children in Gaza. When understand he doesn't like it. Why doesn't he make it stop? MIKE HUCKABEE: I think that the President has done more than anyone else I know to stop it. He was the one who authorised us to create the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, to start feeding people. He gave us two directives, Sarah. He gave us one, get food to people who are hungry. Two, give it to them in a way where Hamas cannot steal it or loot it and turn it into a commodity that they can sell, which they have been doing, to the tune of $500 million last year. So the President has been very clear what he wants to see done. I just wish people would recognise that the real reason for any deprivation in Gaza and starvation that may be happening is because Hamas has taken control of the food. This morning, I got the reports that of the UN food that goes in, as of this week, 91.5 per cent of food was stolen or looted. SARAH FERGUSON: We are running out of time but I am going to jump in there because I need to say something to the audience which is that since that organisation took over there, there has been a fundamental change in the way that aid is distributed inside Gaza. There are now only four centres. There were 400. There is only one crossing, one road in and more than 1,000 people have been killed while seeking that aid. But the issue here, I'm afraid here, is that we're running out of time. Ambassador Huckabee, I'm very grateful for the time that you've given us. Thank you for joining us. MIKE HUCKABEE: Thank you, Sarah. SARAH FERGUSON: Thank you.

ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Why do we need to boost productivity?
INGA TING, ABC DATA JOURNALIST: For those of us toiling five full days a week, the idea of a working four days a week – at 100 per cent of pay – sounds almost too good to be true. But at the upcoming economic roundtable, Australia's unions will cite research showing it not only boosts living standards, but also productivity. To understand how that might work, we first need to understand what productivity is, what it measures and what it doesn't. Put simply, productivity measures how much we output compared to how much we input. It's about quantity, not cost or profit. Today, the average Australian worker takes just one hour to produce the same amount produced over an entire day in 1901. That's thanks to a bunch of factors like economies of scale, higher skilled and educated workers, better management practices and - the single biggest factor historically – technology. A series of reports from the Productivity Commission have highlighted a long-standing productivity problem, showing Australians are working record-long hours and yet productivity growth is at its slowest in 60 years. And that trend is across most industrialised countries, not just Australia. So how does that work? Labour productivity typically measures the number of hours it takes to produce a good or service. This is fairly straightforward when you're looking at manufacturing or agriculture, and measuring, say, the number of cars or tonnes of wheat produced per worker. But it gets trickier when applied to sectors like care services, health or education, where the maths might tell you that bigger class sizes mean more productive teachers while the reality for students suggests the opposite. Bear in mind that nearly 90 per cent of Australians now work in the service industry, and we start to see how the way we typically measure productivity is starting to unravel. The picture gets muddier still, when we consider that labour isn't the only driver of productivity. Physical capital – like buildings, machines and equipment – as well as intangible capital like intellectual property, also have big impacts. This chart compares labour productivity to multifactor productivity, which measures the combined input from both labour and capital. It shows both types of productivity have been declining but capital productivity has lagged labour productivity for the best part of 30 years. The Productivity Commission has made the same point; that the added hours workers are putting in have not been matched by business investment in the systems and technologies that would allow workers to use those hours more efficiently. So, can we actually work less but produce more? The data suggests, yes especially if investments in better management and new technology are matched with less burnout, better staff retention and more motivated employees. Work smarter, not longer - that's the challenge for next week's roundtable.