‘Good job': Uni's claim about Palestine protest
Sydney's largest and most exclusive universities appeared before a parliamentary committee into anti-Semitism in NSW on Monday to explain what challenges they have faced since October 7, 2023, and what measures they have implemented to combat allegations of anti-Semitism.
Among them was The University of Sydney, which has come under fire for its handling of a pro-Palestine encampment, including emails last month that revealed that staff mulled over providing a separate entrance that could be used by Jewish students during mid-year exams last year.
In her opening address, USYD vice-chancellor Annamarie Jagose acknowledged the university 'did not get everything right' in responding to the aftermath of Hamas's October 7 attacks on Israel and subsequent protests and had implemented changes to its speech and security policies.
'We have, however, committed to learn from these hugely challenging and complex events and from the experiences of other universities around the world and to listen to those who would work with us to ensure our campuses are safe and welcoming for all,' Professor Jagose said. The pro-Palestine protest took over the lawns of the campus for about two months. NewsWire / Max Mason-Hubers Credit: News Corp Australia
Asked later about why the university didn't 'shut down' the months-long encampment, Professor Jagose told the committee that staff 'did a good job in peacefully resolving the longest running encampment in Australia', with an 'absolutely clear policy to de-escalate, to keep calm'.
Professor Jagose and external engagement vice-president Kirsten Andrews refuted many allegations levelled at the university during Monday's hearing, including emails containing minutes that outlined plans to provide a separate entrance for exams amid the encampment.
The email, dated May 14, detailed discussions about mitigations to be implemented during the exam, namely ensuring 'Jewish students have ways to avoid the encampment
when gaining entry to exams', though USYD had refuted that the entrance was intended for Jewish students.
'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,' USYD said in a statement,
The hearing is the second into anti-Semitism in NSW and was established following a wave of anti-Semitic attacks in the state over the summer, many of which have since been linked to a criminal conspiracy debate that is being canvassed by a separate parliamentary inquiry.
Universities around the world grappled with an outpouring of protests and counter-protests following the October 7 attacks as pro-Palestine encampments became widespread, including allegations that the actions of protesters made Jewish students and staff feel unsafe on campus.
The Australian universities appearing on Monday morning, including USYD, UTS, and UNSW, each detailed wide-ranging changes to their social media and public speech, campus access, and security policies, including in the case of UYSD following an independent review. Protests continue across the country amid Israel's ongoing war in Gaza. NewsWire / Damian Shaw Credit: News Corp Australia
University of NSW vice-president Verity Firth AM said staff were 'gravely concerned by the sharp escalation in anti-Semitic events that have occurred in the wake of the appalling events of October 7' and 'deeply distressed by the ongoing conflict and tragic loss of life' in the Middle East.
'As a university, our foremost responsibility is to ensure that all members of our community students, academic and professional staff can engage in, study, research and work in an environment that is secure, respectful and inclusive,' Professor Firth told the parliamentary inquiry.
Since the protests, Professor Firth said the school had updated its anti-racism policy to include anti-religious vilification, employed additional guards, increased 'connectivity' with law enforcement, and revised student orientation with a focus on the university's code of conduct.
University of Technology Sydney deputy vice-chancellor Kylie Readman told the committee that among other measures the school had also provided additional training to teaching staff, strengthening the complaints mechanism, and expanded student support services.
Nonetheless, committee chair and NSW Shooters MLC Robert Brosak grilled all three campuses over the policies at the time of October 7 that they claimed were well established and, rather than being deficient, needed a 'deep look' and to be 'updated', Professor Firth said.
More to come.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
What is a state, and how do you start a new country? Statehood: Explained
NICHOLAS MAHER, REPORTER: Right now, a lot of people are talking about statehood, specifically Palestine being recognised as a state by Australia. But what does that actually mean? What is a state and who gets to decide who gets to be one? Let's start with that first question. In Australia, when we hear the word state, we usually think of these, but in international law, a sovereign state is a term used to describe countries like Australia or China. In order to be considered a sovereign state, there are four criteria that need to be met. You need a permanent population, a defined territory, a government that's not under the authority of another government, and the ability to enter into agreements with other states. So, who gets to decide when a state officially becomes a state? In international law, there two main ideas that dictate when a state is considered to be a state. The constitutive theory, which was the model in the 19th century and the declaratory theory, which was developed in the 20th century as a way to address some of the issues people had with the constitutive theory. When the constitutive theory was dominant, statehood wasn't automatic. There were no formal legal rules or criteria that needed to be met. Basically, a state could only become a state when it was recognised by other, already established states. This put a lot of power in the hands of the few established states that existed at the time. And because there weren't any real guidelines, recognition was often influenced by politics, or the strategic interests of these established powers. In the 20th century a new idea started to emerge, declaratory theory. This was expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, which outlined the four criteria we talked about earlier that are still used today. Introducing a universal checklist for statehood challenged the idea that powerful countries could control who gets to be a state. The basic idea is that an entity is a state if it meets certain criteria, whether it's recognised by other states is a completely separate issue. In theory, this made becoming a state less political and more legal and objective, and in the years since World War II, we've seen a massive jump in the number of new countries being recognised. However, the story doesn't end here, and the way all of this actually plays out in reality isn't quite as clear cut. Despite declaratory theory meaning you can pretty much just declare yourself a state today if you meet the criteria, it doesn't mean you're automatically granted all the rights and status that other states may have. The reality is, being recognised by other states, constitutive theory, still plays a huge role in how much power and influence a state actually has on the international stage. A good example of this is Palestine. Today, the state of Palestine is recognised by more than 140 countries. In the eyes of the Palestinians and those 140 plus countries, Palestine meets the criteria for statehood, and is therefore a state, full stop. However, to countries that don't recognise it, like the United States, Palestine isn't a state. This leaves Palestine in a bit of a weird limbo. It can still function normally when it deals with other states that recognise it; for example, signing treaties or trade deals. It doesn't have the full international rights and status that a country like Australia has. The clearest example of this is the fact that Palestine still isn't a full member state at the United Nations, which is often seen as one of the final steps in achieving full international status. To become a member of the UN, you need the approval of at least two-thirds of the UN's member states, which Palestine has. You also need approval from at least nine of the 15 members of the UN Security Council, which Palestine also has. So, what's the problem here? The UN Security council, which is in charge of maintaining international peace and security, has five permanent members that can veto any decision. And when a vote on Palestinian membership came up in 2024, it was vetoed by the United States. This is why stories about countries deciding to recognise Palestine often gain international attention, despite most of the world having already made up its mind about this issue a while ago. Try to think of it this way: If you're looking at things from a strictly declaratory theory standpoint, the UK and France recognising Palestine may not seem like a big deal for Palestinians, because in their eyes it's just confirming what they already know: Palestine is a state. However, from a constitutive theory standpoint recognition from France and the UK is a big deal because it means two permanent members of the Security Council are now a lot less likely to veto Palestinian membership at the UN. Recognition from countries like France and the U.K. Also potentially puts pressure on the United States, now the final remaining permanent Security Council member in opposition to Palestinian statehood, which, to Palestinians, represents one of the final hurdles standing in the way of Palestine achieving the full UN membership status it's been waiting for a long time.
Sky News AU
5 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accuses Anthony Albanese of rewarding 'Hamas terror' in explosive letter
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has penned a blistering letter admonishing Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for failing to confront the 'epidemic' of antisemitism that has 'intensified' under his watch. Mr Netanyahu accuses Mr Albanese of pouring 'fuel on this antisemitic fire' by calling for recognition of a Palestinian state, saying it 'rewards Hamas terror, hardens Hamas's refusal to free the hostages', 'emboldens those who menace Australian Jews and encourages the Jew-hatred now stalking your streets.' 'It is not diplomacy, it is appeasement,' Mr Netanyahu declares in the letter. Sky News has obtained a leaked copy of the extraordinary letter, dated August 17th 2025, in which Mr Netanyahu implores the Australian government to follow United States President Donald Trump's lead and take firm action against antisemitism. Mr Netanyahu sets a date, in a month's time, by which urges Mr Albanese to 'replace weakness with action' and 'appeasement with resolve' and act on the antisemitism crisis. 'Prime Minister, antisemitism is a cancer. It spreads when leaders stay silent. It retreats when leaders act. I call upon you to replace weakness with action, appeasement with resolve, and to do so by a clear date: the Jewish New Year, September 23, 2025,' Mr Netanyahu writes in the letter. It's an unprecedented letter from the highest level of the Israeli government to Australia, which has in the past been a strong ally of the democratic, Jewish nation. The letter also follows a relentless campaign of hatred towards the Australian Jewish community, which has included fire-bombings of synagogues, a pre-school and racist vandalism of residential cars and buildings. 'Following Hamas's savage attack on the people of Israel on October 7, 2023, pro-Hamas extremists and left-wing radicals began a campaign of intimidation, vandalism and violence against Jews across the free world,' Mr Netanyahu wrote to Mr Albanese. 'In Australia, that campaign has intensified under your watch.' Mr Netanyahu outlined several recent incidents of antisemitism that have plagued the Australian Jewish community. He also pointed out that since Mr Albanese publicly stated that he would vote to recognise a Palestinian State at the United Nations General Assembly, antisemitism has only intensified. 'In June, vandals defaced a historic Melbourne synagogue with graffiti praising Iran and calling to 'Free Palestine',' Mr Netanyahu wrote. 'In July, arsonists targeted the East Melbourne Hebrew Congregation during Shabbat dinner, forcing twenty worshippers to flee for their lives. 'That same night, masked rioters stormed an Israeli-owned restaurant in central Melbourne, destroying property, hurling furniture and shouting 'Death to the IDF'. These are not isolated incidents. This is an epidemic.' The Israeli Prime Minister points to President Trump as the example for confronting antisemitism and not allowing radical hatred to flourish. 'As President Trump has shown, antisemitism can and must be confronted,' he states. 'The President is protecting the civil rights of American Jews, enforcing the law, protecting public order and prosecuting antisemitic crimes. He has also deported Hamas sympathizers and revoked the visas of foreign students who incite violence against Jews.' Mr Netanyahu ended his personally-signed letter with a final comment that said: 'History will not forgive hesitation. It will honour action.' The letter comes after escalating diplomatic tensions between the Albanese government and Israel. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke cancelled the visa of an Israeli politician on Monday, a day before he was due to arrive in Australia. In turn, Israel has revoked the visas of Australian diplomats working in the West Bank. Mr Albanese has not adopted any of the recommendations from the Sky News Antisemitism Summit, held in February, nor from Antisemitism Envoy Jillian Segal's report.
Sky News AU
5 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘It's awful': Megyn Kelly reacts to MSNBC's rebrand ‘disaster'
'The Megyn Kelly Show' host Megyn Kelly has ripped into MSNBC for changing its name to 'MS NOW' – labelling the rebrand 'awful'. Social media users were quick to slam the new name and home of anti-Trump hosts such as Rachel Maddow and Nicolle Wallace. 'It sounds like they have caught a terrible disease,' Ms Kelly told Sky News host Paul Murray. 'However you slice it, it's a disaster and they still haven't solved the basic problem that they have more letters in their call name than they do viewers.'
