Australian universities are under fire from advocates on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict over attempts to agree a definition of antisemitism, in an episode?that illustrates just how difficult the issue is for the sector to navigate – and which could test the bounds of institutional autonomy.
Shadow education minister Sarah Henderson said?the definition endorsed by 39 universities on 27 February arrived “too late” and is not “robust” enough to deal with a crisis “so serious” that extremists have been allowed to “menace” students “under the false cloak of academic freedom”.
Greens higher education spokeswoman Mehreen Faruqi has the same definition as “dangerous, politicised and unworkable”. She said universities had “betrayed” their students, staff and reputation by “shutting down” legitimate criticism of Israel.
“They are weaponising antisemitism to sanitise campuses of anyone who speaks up for Palestinian human rights,” Faruqi said. “Universities have shown utter cowardice in succumbing to conservative political forces…rather than defending political debate. They are also taking advantage of this political moment to silence legitimate criticism of their partnerships with companies complicit in genocide.”
The 193-word draws on sources including the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and four US universities. Universities Australia said it had been developed in accordance with a recommendation from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, with a view to incorporating it in regulatory standards, disciplinary processes and education about antisemitism.
The text says criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitic, but can be if it calls for the elimination of the state of Israel. “Substituting the word “Zionist” for “Jew” does not eliminate the possibility of speech being antisemitic,” the definition adds. “For most but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity.”
The Jewish Council of Australia Zionism was “a political ideology of Jewish nationalism, not an intrinsic part of Jewish identity”. It said the definition meant people could be labelled antisemitic for demanding a “single binational democratic state” where Palestinians and Israelis had equal rights.
“As a political ideology, Zionism should be subject to debate, not insulated from critique,” said executive officer Sarah Schwartz, a lecturer at the University of Melbourne’s law school. “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.”
The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils the definition “silences a broad spectrum of voices concerned with human rights”, while the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network it as “McCarthyism reborn” and a capitulation to the Israel lobby: “Universities are criminalising discussions about Israel’s apartheid, settler-colonialism and genocide in Palestine.”
Meanwhile, Henderson said that if her Liberal Party regained government it would “require all universities” to implement and enforce the “more robust” and considerably longer IHRA definition of antisemitism.
She said university administrators were “seeking refuge against their responsibilities on false grounds” by conflating academic freedom with freedom of speech. Citing an by University of Melbourne academic Marcia Langton, Henderson said the universities’ approach was giving campus activists “free license…to spread antisemitism and hatred”.
The IHRA definition says criticism of Israel “cannot be regarded as antisemitic” if it resembles the types of censure levelled at other countries, and goes on to list “contemporary examples” that would not be acceptable. They include “accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel…than…their own nations”, “claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour”, and “applying double standards” by holding Israel to “behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”.
Griffith University vice-chancellor Carolyn Evans said the sector had no objection to the principal clauses in the IHRA definition, but several of the examples accompanying the definition raised issues. “Most of the examples pose no problem at all, and the others would pose no problem most of the time. But there could be occasions where adoption of the IHRA definition puts us in conflict with our legislated obligation to uphold academic freedom.”
The Free Speech Union Australia said it opposed any government restrictions on freedom of academic inquiry or the language and concepts people used in academic work.
Union president Alan Davison said antisemitism “may well be common within academia”, as might “self-imposed censorship due to ideological pressures…that come from academics themselves”. But restrictions on free speech were no solution, he said.
“Such restrictions threaten academic autonomy as well as the institutional autonomy of universities to collectively come to positions that reflect their values and priorities.”
