By Caitlin Cassidy
Australia’s universities have confirmed they will unilaterally enforce a new definition of antisemitism on campuses after an inquiry recommended higher education providers “closely align” with the contentious International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition.
The working definition, developed by Group of Eight (Go8) institutions, was unanimously endorsed by Universities Australia’s 39 members this week and made public on Wednesday, based on close work with Jillian Segal, the special envoy to combat antisemitism.
Here’s what you need to know.
Why has it been introduced?
The adoption of a sector-wide definition emerged as a key recommendation of a report on antisemitism on Australian university campuses, which found there was an “urgent need for reform” to ensure the safety of Jewish students and staff.
The report, tabled this month by the chair of the parliamentary joint committee on human rights, the Labor MP Josh Burns, found the reluctance of university leaders to enforce “meaningful consequences” had allowed a “toxic environment to escalate”, resulting in a “lack of trust” between the Jewish community and universities.
The committee received more than 600 submissions, many from Jewish students and staff detailing their experiences of antisemitism since the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.
Universities were criticised by the opposition and some Jewish groups for their handling of pro-Palestinian encampments, which were disbanded largely peacefully last year.
What is the new definition?
The definition states:
Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, harassment, exclusion, vilification, intimidation or violence that impedes Jews’ ability to participate as equals in educational, political, religious, cultural, economic or social life.
The definition states that criticism of the policies and practices of the Israeli government or state is “not in and of itself antisemitic” but further reads:
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 …
All peoples, including Jews, have the right to self-determination. For most, but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity. Substituting the word “Zionist” for “Jew” does not eliminate the possibility of speech being antisemitic.
Thomson said the Go8 had consulted widely with various stakeholders, including “select eminent members of the Jewish community”, to craft a definition that addressed “practical concerns”. It was endorsed by the Go8 board in December and will be reviewed after a 12-month period.
How does it differ from the IHRA definition?
The IHRA’s definition of antisemitism has been adopted by many countries and organisation around the globe, including the US state department, several European governments and the Australian government. It has also been contentious due to concerns it could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of the state of Israel.
It defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
It lists 11 specific examples of antisemitism in public life, including: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”.
The definition agreed to by universities does not include some of the IHRA’s specific examples of antisemitism but it does refer directly to criticism of Zionism as potentially being antisemitic, unlike the IHRA definition, which does not mention Zionism.
The chief executive of the Go8, Vicki Thomson, said “consistent and clear advice” from members was that the IHRA definition was “not workable” without adaptation to the Australian context, acknowledging concerns raised about the IHRA’s potential limiting of academic freedom.
Critics have cited “unreasonable” accusations on campuses after many UK universities adopted the IHRA definition.
Australian universities have been split on whether to adopt the IHRA definition. In January 2023 the University of Melbourne became the first institution to announce it would adopt it as part of its broader anti-racism commitment.
How will the new definition be applied?
The university definition will act as a non-legally binding guide for individual providers to interpret when determining antisemitic conduct.
It will not change freedom of speech policies, and is unlikely to apply to contested phrases such as “from the river to the sea” because there is no clarity about when or whether using them would be against the law.
But it will factor into how universities make rulings on allegations racial discrimination, harassment or vilification that could lead to disciplinary proceedings against individual students and academics.
A report into the application of the IHRA definition in a UK context found 40 cases between 2017 and 2022 where staff or students were accused of antisemitism based on the definition. Almost all the claims were ultimately rejected but the report found many led to long disciplinary processes, two led to threats of legal action, and 11 prevented events, student activism or scholarship on campus.
Why are some academics concerned about the new definition?
Some academics at Australian universities have warned the definition could have a “chilling” effect and limit the scope of what can be taught on the Middle East.
Naama Blatman, a Jewish-Israeli academic of settler-colonialism and Israel/Palestine, said she believed the definition could be “weaponised” to silence her work.
She said on a practical level, funding could be removed for research that applied critical theory on Israel/Palestine, while promotion applications could be delayed or rejected and “entire literature” would be excluded from courses.
“There is a genuine risk in terms of academic freedom and rigour to have an entrenchment of cultural intimidation,” she said.
A sessional academic at the University of Sydney, Fahad Ali, said he would not comply with the direction and “looked forward” to a court challenge if he were disciplined.
Ali posted on social media that universities would “not seek to prohibit First Nations from criticising Australia as a state built on anti-Indigenous bloodshed and prejudice”.
Do Jewish groups and leaders think it will be effective?
Some Jewish groups that had pushed for the IHRA definition to be adopted are lukewarm on how effective the new definition will be.
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, which acts as the umbrella organisation for more than 200 Jewish groups across the nation, said the body hoped to see “better identification of antisemitic conduct and more effective complaints-handling at universities” and would wait to see the new definition in practice.
Late last year it wrote to Thomson expressing “disappointment” that it hadn’t been consulted on efforts to develop the definition.
The Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism, a coalition of members across universities and medical centres, said that unlike the Universities Australia definition, the IHRA “does not set a high threshold requiring proof of a particular adverse impact”.
“Conduct or accusations, such as ‘Israelis/Zionists are the new Nazis’, which … do not actually impede a Jewish student’s ability to attend classes or a Jewish academic’s ability to attend a staff meeting, can easily be antisemitic yet still pass muster under the Go8 definition,” they said.
Sarah Schwartz, a human rights lawyer and executive officer of the Jewish Council of Australia, said Zionism, as a political ideology, “should be subject to debate, not insulated from critique”.
“This definition risks increasing antisemitism by suggesting that all Jews support the state of Israel, and can be held responsible for Israel’s egregious human rights abuses.”
Caitlin is a higher education reporter for Guardian Australia
27 February 2025
Source: theguardian.com
