Australian universities hesitate on antisemitism definition amid academic freedom concerns
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
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Another huge Pro-Palestine march to block officonic Australian bridge this weekend - as police issue a warning to protesters
Police are vowing to arrest or charge pro-Palestine protesters if they unlawfully block traffic on a major city bridge after a magistrate denied legal protection for a proposed march. Chief Magistrate Janelle Brassington ruled that Sunday's planned march by up to 10,000 people across Brisbane 's Story Bridge would be declared an unauthorised protest. 'I'm satisfied (Queensland Police Service) has established there is a real and significant risk to persons in this case given the proposed route,' she said on Thursday. Ms Brassington said the planned protest was not unlawful but participants would not have protection against being criminally charged for actions such as obstructing traffic. Rally organiser Remah Naji said outside court that participants would still gather at the march's planned starting point in a nearby park. 'The plan is still to go ahead with a peaceful assembly ... we are considering our options at this stage,' she said. Acting Assistant Commissioner Rhys Wildman said police would act to protect the safety of the community and maintain access for emergency vehicles to the major arterial road crossing the Story Bridge. 'We have to make it quite clear that anyone participating in a protest which is not authorised faces the prospect of enforcement action being taken against them, whether that's on the day or post-event,' he said. 'There are a range of offences that are open to investigators to utilise, and we will have a significant policing presence this weekend to manage whatever response the protest organisers wish to take.' Mr Wildman urged Justice for Palestine to stay in contact with the police major events unit. Justice for Palestine Magan-djin proposed the rally as part of Sunday's nationwide day of action that has been billed as the largest pro-Palestine demonstration in Australia's history. Organisers were still considering a court appeal to authorise the march, Ms Naji said. It comes after tens of thousands of protesters marched on the Sydney Harbour Bridge in the days before Anthony Albanese revealed Australia would recognise a state of Palestine. Authorities believed around 90,000 people arrived at the Harbour Bridge on Sunday afternoon, after authorities went back and forth with organisers about what would be permitted in the weeks leading up to it. Joshua Lees of the Palestine Action Group believed the true attendance was three times greater than police's estimate. 'Absolutely incredible day today… we think we had up to 300,000 people,' he said shortly after the event. After hearing emotionally-charged speeches, protesters began marching towards the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Hundreds of Palestinian flags waved above thousands of attendees as they crossed the bridge shoulder-to-shoulder. 'Confusing' police messages did not lead to any incidents as attendees were warned to double back on the march and return to the CBD. Police later said the march could have quickly become 'perilous'. 'I can honestly say in my 35 years of policing, that was a perilous situation,' Acting Assistant Commissioner Adam Johnson said. 'That was a very intense situation. We had more people than I'd ever seen in a small confined space. 'We were overwhelmed by the sheer number of people. We had to make a risky call to halt the crowd with messaging, ensure they stopped, and then redirect them back – and I want to thank everyone for heeding that advice.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Explosive claims emerge about Lisa Wilkinson in court: 'Crafted strategy to maximise the ratings'
Journalist Lisa Wilkinson and Network Ten were trying to fabricate a 'whodunnit' and boost ratings by not identifying Bruce Lehrmann as an alleged rapist, his lawyer has argued. The former federal political staffer - dubbed a 'national joke' by his lawyer on Wednesday - is appealing a civil court finding he raped his colleague Brittany Higgins in parliament house in 2019. The bruising judgment came in April 2024 after Lehrmann sued Ten and Wilkinson for defamation over an interview with Ms Higgins in which she aired the allegations. He was not named in the 2021 broadcast, which Wilkinson has claimed is evidence of how she and Ten acted responsibly when publishing such a serious allegation. But Lehrmann's lawyer contended he wasn't identified because of a plan to provoke a 'buzz' of public scrutiny around the identity of Ms Higgins' alleged assailant. '(It is) viewed as a crafted strategy to maximise the ratings of a story, to achieve an exciting air of mystery akin to a "whodunnit",' Zali Burrows claimed in written submissions for Lehrmann's Federal Court appeal. The 'disingenuous' approach arguably highlighted the 'sensationalism of a complex plot-driven story involving political scandal cover-up of a rape in parliament,' she wrote. 'Although Mr Lehrmann was not specifically named in the program, a sophisticated journalist would be aware when providing enough indica (sic) as to the identity of Mr Lehrmann, is teasing the viewer and inviting greater public engagement and promotion of the story,' Ms Burrows submitted. The trial judge, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee, determined Lehrmann had been identified as the perpetrator of the assault by some viewers, but Wilkinson argues their number was small. Ms Burrows took aim at Wilkinson's defence that she had relied on advice from Ten's legal counsel when preparing the broadcast and a subsequent Logies speech. The journalist was heavily criticised for making the speech in 2022 about Ms Higgins' allegations, which prompted a decision to delay Lehrmann's criminal trial by three months. The trial was later abandoned with no findings against Lehrmann. Wilkinson's speech had been given the green light by Ten's lawyers, the court has been told. But that argument raised the question of whether it was reasonable 'to rely upon legal advice (which) in the face of it is plainly wrong', Ms Burrows wrote. '(The defence) raises the proposition, if a lawyer tells you that you can run a red light, would you do it?' she asked. 'With respect to Ms Wilkinson, a sophisticated highly intelligent and experienced journalist, it appears disingenuous to claim that she would follow the advice of lawyers, notwithstanding it was obviously bad advice.' Justice Lee found the journalist and Ten had acted unreasonably in broadcasting the allegation, in part because they were entwined with claims of a parliamentary cover-up. Ms Higgins claimed she had reported the rape to her superiors at parliament house including her boss, then-senator Linda Reynolds, but little action was taken. But Ms Chrysanthou argued the alleged cover-up should have been considered separately from Ms Higgins' account of sexual assault, because it was not connected to Lehrmann. 'His Honour was distracted by the so-called cover-up when he should have focused on the rape,' she said. The broadcast did not allege there had been a 'cover-up' but rather referred to 'roadblocks to a police investigation', Ms Chrysanthou told the appeal court. Wilkinson and Ten urged the court to uphold Justice Lee's findings that Lehrmann had likely raped Ms Higgins. Among his four grounds of appeal, Lehrmann challenged the definition of rape employed by Justice Lee, contending it was inconsistent with the meaning an ordinary person would understand. He maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins. Lehrmann's appeal hearing had been set down for three days but it finished a day early on Thursday. The appeal judges will hand down their decision at a later date.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Chilling warning for Australia's cashed-up baby boomers as Albanese government signals tax changes
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has signalled sweeping changes to Australia's tax system, focusing on 'intergenerational equity' and fairer treatment for younger workers. And it could come at a cost for the baby boomers. Reforms being considered include cracking down on superannuation tax breaks for wealthy retirees, tightening family trust regulations, and reducing capital gains tax exemptions. The federal government has already moved to double the tax rate on super balances above $3 million, and may introduce a lower company tax rate for smaller businesses. Chalmers said in an interview with the ABC's 7.30 host Sarah Ferguson that more needed to be done to ensure the system does not unfairly favour older Australians and baby boomers at the expense of younger generations. Chalmers told Ms Ferguson, following his three-day economic roundtable, that any future tax reform must address intergenerational fairness. 'I think one of the clear areas of consensus out of the Economic Reform Roundtable is that when we look to reform the tax system, one of the most important objectives is to make it fairer in intergenerational terms,' Chalmers said. 'There's a number of ways that we are looking to improve the tax system, cut taxes for working people, work on the multinational tax agenda, and road user charging. 'There's an agenda there. But one of the most important areas where there was common ground was that when we reform the tax system, we have to make it fairer to the generations that follow us.' One move under consideration is to slash income taxes for workers and fund the changes with a crackdown on super tax breaks for rich retirees. Ms Ferguson asked Chalmers if he was coming for the baby boomers. 'I wouldn't put it like that,' Chalmers said. 'If you look at the tax changes I've made already as Treasurer, that the prime minister's government has made, they've been all about making sure that when it comes to income tax cuts, for example, that those income tax cuts are made available to younger workers and women, people right up and down the income scale. 'Not just people who are already doing very well. So there's an intergenerational lens already being applied to those tax changes that we have made. 'One of the areas where the common ground was most obvious was, if and when we consider next steps in tax reform, we have to care about the intergenerational aspects and the feedback from the group today, from my point of view, is very welcome.' When asked if the government would consider asking retirees to pay tax on earnings and withdrawals to reduce the capital gains discount, Chalmers was non-committal. 'We haven't taken a decision on any of those things,' he said. 'When it comes to making superannuation tax concessions, we haven't taken any decisions to change our policies.' Chalmers said that a fairer, simpler, and more sustainable tax system was 'a matter for Cabinet', with changes possible even without a formal review. The government also asked Grattan Institute chief executive Aruna Sathanapally to deliver a speech on the tax discussion. She said retirees needed to be taxed more to relieve the income tax burden on younger workers. 'Reducing superannuation concessions so the system meets the policy objective of saving for a decent retirement, rather than being a tax shelter; introducing at least a low tax rate on earnings and withdrawals in retirement; reducing the capital gains discount; reforms to family trusts,' Ms Sathanapally said. Chalmers said tax reform could go ahead without a formal review. He said that correcting inequalities between generations was one of the tax system's most pressing challenges, and promised to ensure it better serves working people and funds essential services.
