Best and worst Australian uni responses to antisemitism

Best practice examples of university responses to antisemitism tend to reflect a proactive approach with regard to ensuring that the physical security of Jewish students, academics and staff is safeguarded.

However, even in best practice examples, we note that there is nevertheless a normalisation of antisemitic discourse in such settings.

While these universities have a far better record than many others in Australia, there remains room for improvement. We note that in the case of all universities, there is a failure to properly identify the boundaries of academic freedom and freedom of speech or to give appropriate berth to the fundamental right of freedom from discrimination.

The best performers

Deakin University demonstrated proactive engagement by organising a pre-emptive meeting with AUJS representatives to explain their position and support from a security perspective. The University also took prompt action by positioning campus patrol units near Jewish events and verbally telling protestors to leave before any other university did. Additionally, the SafeZone app was an effective incident-reporting tool that gave Jewish students a reliable resource for reporting incidents.

It does bear noting that we also understand that some members of the community have lodged complaints through the Safer Communities Act regarding serious incidents and discourse, including the spitting on Jewish students by prominent individuals associated with the encampment and anti-Israel protests. To our knowledge, these complaints have not been responded to or addressed.

University of New South Wales (UNSW) collaboration with AUJS has been notably effective, particularly in managing protests and ensuring Jewish students' safety during these events. The University's commitment to preventing encampments and maintaining a strong security presence during protests has reassured Jewish students. While there have been some reported incidents of antisemitism as well as some incidents that remain confidential, the UNSW administration has generally been proactive and has considered its responses.

However, we note that while the physical wellbeing of students, academics and professional staff has been well-attended to at UNSW, there is nevertheless an issue regarding psychosocial safety in some settings, and the ongoing and disproportionate platforming of particular speakers who have, on occasion, employed antisemitic tropes.

In response to a student representative’s public statement supporting Hamas, the Australian National University (ANU) issued a public statement distancing itself from the remarks. The University reiterated its commitment to not tolerating antisemitic behaviour or messaging, emphasising that such conduct does not align with its policies or values. ANU took immediate and appropriate disciplinary action, which included expelling the student involved.

We note, however, that some Jewish students have been personally targeted and physically threatened, and there has not been appropriate involvement of police in such instances. We also note that there has been a proliferation of antisemitic propaganda around the campus and a failure to remove such materials or to make formal complaints to the police about the vilification of Jews through the use of materials by organisations that are present on campus.

We commend Professor Jennifer Westacott AO, the Chancellor of Western Sydney University, who publicly stated that the ‘hate speech and antisemitism occurring on our campuses is a direct assault on Australia’s multiculturalism and its principles’. We believe that more university representatives must follow in the footsteps of Chancellor Westacott AO and publicly draw red lines of acceptable conduct and recognise the prevalence of antisemitism on campus.

 Before October 7th, Monash University effectively engaged with Jewish students through open communication with AUJS’ campus affiliate, the Monash University Jewish Students' Society (MonJSS), the Vice-Chancellor, university administrators, the Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation (ACJC) and campus security. These consultations with MonJSS have resulted in the university administration understanding the Jewish student experience, which has been pivotal in addressing concerns about rising antisemitism on campuses.

Through proactive relations with MonJSS, the ACJC assisted Monash University in formulating its commitment to support an action-based research program to investigate antisemitism, Islamophobia, and related prejudices, developing initiatives to enhance social cohesion, and making rolling recommendations to the University. Additionally, Monash has committed to facilitating dialogues between students to foster understanding and peacebuilding between Jewish and Arab students.

In response to the Israel-Hamas War, various encampments were established across Australian universities. AUJS, through public statements and meetings with university administrators, brought to their attention that many antisemitic incidents emanating from these encampments were primarily instigated and committed by individuals not affiliated with the universities.

 To address this issue, several universities, including Monash University, the University of Melbourne, and Deakin University, implemented measures to safeguard their campuses. These universities erected signage to clarify that external actors were not permitted to engage in protest activities on campus, with violations potentially leading to further consequences. Measures such as checking for university identification were introduced to ensure compliance. This example highlights how constructive dialogue between AUJS and university administrators can result in practical policies that effectively de-escalate tensions on campus and protect the entire university community.

Inadequate responses

The University of Sydney's handling of antisemitic incidents has been marked by a lack of decisive action and an overemphasis on freedom of speech at the expense of student safety. Despite assurances, the University's reluctance to remove offensive posters without explicit approval from the Vice Chancellor's office has hindered swift action against antisemitic propaganda.

Much of this inadequacy stems from a failure to enforce standards and policies previously set by the University and Vice Chancellor – including “we will not tolerate any pro-terrorist statements or commentary, including support for Hamas’s recent terrorist attacks” (Mark Scott, 26/10/23).

 This has precipitated a widespread loss of faith in the University of Sydney’s internal reporting procedures amongst Jewish students. The inadequate penalties imposed on perpetrators of antisemitic conduct and the bureaucratic hurdles faced by students in reporting incidents have further exacerbated the lack of trust.

For example, after an AUJS stall was vandalised and a flag was stolen, the complaints process was protracted and inefficient. Initially, the University claimed there was no CCTV footage of the incident. Only after AUJS filed a GIPA request did they acknowledge identifying footage, taking six months to close the case. This inconsistency and perceived reluctance to enforce policy has left Jewish students feeling unsafe and unsupported.

Furthermore, the University of Sydney’s administration has regularly misdirected Jewish community stakeholders who have engaged with the Vice Chancellor, with senior university staff having to apologise for the Vice Chancellor’s behaviour towards communal leaders on multiple occasions.

Additionally, the University of Sydney has engaged with student groups with reported links to internationally recognised extremist organisations to participate in a working group review of university investments and defence-related research, further undermining the safety and trust of Jewish students.

The University of Melbourne's responses to antisemitic incidents, while empathetic, have often lacked practical, proactive solutions. Immediately after the October 7th attacks, Jewish student representatives at the University of Melbourne warned the university administration that a failure to intervene early with protests that crossed the line — including calls for an 'intifada' — would lead to the escalation of protest activities. The consequence of the university administration not dealing with a rise in hostility on campus led to the occupation of the Arts West building on campus.

 We believe proactive measures, such as early intervention in protests that crossed red lines, could have prevented the situation from escalating to the point it ultimately did.

This article is an edited extract from the AUJS submission to Senate Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities. The full submission can be downloaded here.

RELATED STORES

Columbia task force finds ‘troubling’ pattern of behavior toward Jewish students on campus (CNN)
In a new report from Columbia University’s antisemitism task force, a student described the situation on campus following the October 7 attacks in Israel.

One person arrested after Jewish students were attacked with a bottle at University of Pittsburgh (NBC)
Two University of Pittsburgh students were treated on Friday evening after a perpetrator with no affiliation with the school allegedly attacked them.