Published: 14 May 2026
Last updated: 26 May 2026
An independent assessment of Australian universities has found that no institution meets the requirements for adopting a definition of antisemitism, the foundation on which all other measures depend.
The assessment, conducted by former Vice-Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, Professor Greg Craven AO, was designed to compare individual universities’ performance against an Antisemitism Report Card developed by Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal.
The original intention was to issue separate report cards for each university but Professor Craven said “sectoral failure” meant the issue of definition first has to be addressed at a sector-wide level.
“It quickly became apparent that the university sector as a whole had failed adequately to address the threshold issue of adopting a definition of antisemitism. Without such a basal definition as a criterion for judgement, it is impossible to assess such operational matters as dispute and complaint handling and programs to cultivate awareness of antisemitism."
Professor Craven said definition was the “indispensable and fundamental context within which any attempt to combat antisemitism must take place”.
“Moreover, ‘adoption’ of such a definition comprises a very public commitment to reject the very concept of antisemitism as defined and to take action against designated behaviour.”
The report noted that to many Australians the offensive activity on campuses “necessarily imply that disciplinary measures, complaints procedures, student and staff safety, and campus security are deficient” and that “universities themselves are less than appropriately concerned with antisemitism as an educational phenomenon."
Comments5
Phillip Adler29 June at 08:06 am
The Royal Commission, Interim Report – 1.14 – Mike Burgess AM, Director-General of Security, ‘Director-General’s Annual Threat Assessment 2025 (19 February 2025) gave his sixth Annual Threat Assessment address. His comments on that occasion included:
• Australia has entered a period of strategic surprise and security fragility.
• Over the next five years, a complex, challenging and changing security
environment will become more dynamic, more diverse and more degraded.
• Anti-Semitism festered in Australia before the tragic events in the Middle East,
but the drawn-out conflict gave it oxygen – and gave some anti-Semites an excuse.
• JEWISH AUSTRALIAN WERE ALSO INCREASINGLY CONFLATED WITH THE STATE OF ISRAEL,
leading to an increase in anti-Semitic incidents.
So how is it helping when there is continued and ongoing aggressive and defensive protection of the behaviour of the state of Israel within the community? When it is clear the protestors are protesting Israel’s Genocide. By defending Israel publicly it will only enrage and escalate anti-Semitism. What is the desired eventual outcome? We dont want anti semitism so let’s stand up against the behaviour of the Israeli state.
Deborah Stone26 May at 09:48 am
I’ve added a link to the pdf – Editor
judy22 May at 08:58 pm
could somebody please provide a link to the craven report? i cannot find it anywhere, anyhow. also – a link to the report card and criteria for rating?
…
i read the article, and i’m seriously confused about the concerns expressed, the report itself, and what it means to “[adopt] a definition of antisemitism.”
i reviewed the universities australia definition (as suggested in a comment below).
“Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, harassment, exclusion, vilification, intimidation or violence that impedes Jews’ ability to participate as equals … ” i concur: what kept craven from working from this definition?
“It quickly became apparent that the university sector as a whole had failed adequately to address the threshold issue of adopting a definition of antisemitism.” what’s the importance of the “university sector” adopting a single definition; what makes that necessary?
“Craven said ‘sectoral failure’ meant the issue of definition first has to be addressed at a sector-wide level.” this makes absolutely no sense to me; this seems as an excuse for not working with what’s provided at each university.
i found this article, as well as other media reports, to focus more on the sensationalism of “NO definition” and “total failure.”
peace, judy
Michael Wise14 May at 08:58 am
While everything in the article is correct, I believe the article and the wider debate in the Jewish community miss the point. Yes, student politics has always had its noisy and nasty elements,but have any of the outrages and violence been caused by university associated people? Student political activity is visible. Jew haters are hidden. The issue has always been the extreme right – since at least the New Guard – and, recently, extreme Islam and Iranian government actions. Going after a noisy minority of students is just leaning into the politics of university-bashing (an old sport) while missing the real point of educating and working to a belief in shared humanity.
Dennis Altman14 May at 08:07 am
Craven’s comments are puzzling, given there is à Universities Australia definition of ant Semitism which was agreed to by the great majority of Vice Chancellors last year. Why is this ignored? And what specific examples of anti Semitism cannot be dealt with under existing University disciplinary rules—which were apparently ignored in a couple of clear instances of harassment over the past couple of years?