Melbourne University has adopted IHRA antisemitism definition: This is why it’s the right decision

Academics who oppose the adoption of the IHRA definition by universities are misusing free speech arguments, writes ANDRE OBOLER.

This week Melbourne University became the second university in Australia to adopt the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism in Australian universities, following its adoption by the University of Wollongong last year. It is to be hoped others will follow soon.

The Melbourne University decision has been strongly welcomed by Jewish community leaders and the Australian Union of Jewish Students, particularly in the wake of motions by the University's student union last year, which included claims about Israel that the IHRA definition classes as antisemitic.

The adoption, which came as part of the University's new anti-racism policy, follows a letter from a group of MPs to all university vice chancellors urging them to adopt this definition.

But, as The Jewish Independent recently reported, a letter by some academics, many of them Jewish, to university vice chancellors opposes the adoption of the IHRA definition in Australian universities.

Jewish students on Australian campuses are suffering from antisemitism, some of it from pro-Palestinian activists whose activities cross the line as they employ racist rhetoric and call for genocide.

The IHRA definition states criticism of Israel per se is not antisemitic but gives examples of when such criticism it may, after a consideration of all the circumstances, cross into antisemitism. It is the best framework we have for differentiating legitimate debate from incitement to hate.

The letter opposing the definition is framed as a defence of free speech, but sympathetic to tackling at least some forms of antisemitism. Despite this, in its opposition to adopting the IHRA definition, it uses contradictory arguments from some sources on record as extreme free speech advocates, and others who want an exception to academic freedom in order to ban Israeli students and speakers.

Three of its arguments are not specific to antisemitism and come from positions that seek to allow all forms of racist speech on campus.

The first of these arguments is based on the idea that any restriction on speech, for example prohibitions on racist speech, is harmful in general and particularly in academia. The letter cites the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) to support this argument. This Right-wing think tank takes a free market anti-regulation position on many subjects including opposing health warnings on cigarette packaging.

The IPA led the charge trying to remove section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act on free speech grounds.  In Australia the federal parliament, state parliaments, and the vast majority of the public, take a different view and support regulation of racism, which must include antisemitic speech.

The second argument in the letter is that a policy adopting the IHRA definition would interfere with academic freedom. The law in Australia already provides an extra level of protection for academic freedom. Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act provides an exception to racial vilification law for the expression of “any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose” said or done “reasonably and in good faith”. Our universities also careful protect academic freedom.

The most likely implementation of IHRA would be for universities to require that the IHRA Definition be considered to aid in identification of antisemitism. Other than this preliminary consideration, the usual policies and protections for academic freedom would apply. A statement might be identified as antisemitic under the definition, but lawful under the section 18D exception, and permitted under academic freedom provisions of university policy. As Professor Glyn Davis has explained, academic freedom at Australian universities is strong despite misrepresentations by the IPA.

The third argument is against “speech codes” and is an adoption of a United States debate unique to that country and contrary to Australian law and culture. It relates to a supposed tension between the First Amendment of the US Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The First Amendment makes any law prohibiting racism unconstitutional, while Title VI prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs – including universities. More than 359 US universities have “speech codes” that prohibit racist, sexist, homophobic, or ethnically demeaning speech.

The IHRA definition became part of this broader debate in 2019 when Executive Order 13899 (Combating Anti-Semitism) mandated that the definition be considered when assessing Title VI complaints. Some US academics and unions who oppose speech codes have also spoken out against the executive order. Their concerns that university regulation preventing racist, misogynistic, homophobic, Islamophobic, and antisemitic speech violated the First Amendment are not relevant to Australia.

The letter also draws support from other problematic sources. It cites Professor Rebecca Ruth Gould, a well-known activist who once wrote an article saying the “Holocaust persists and its primary victims are the Palestinian people”. Lord Pickles, the UK’s Special Envoy for Post-Holocaust issues, described Gould’s article as one of the “worst cases of Holocaust denial” he had seen in recent years. Her scholarship attacking efforts to combat antisemitism, including IHRA, is an effort to legitimise such discourse.    

The letter also quotes BDS advocate Nick Riemer, who is not named but identified as NTEU President, Sydney. Quoting a BDS activist, who advocates against academic freedom and in favour of academic boycotts shows that the opposition to the IHRA definition is about partisanship, not academic freedom.

We won’t stop racism if we create an exception for efforts that seek to legitimise the use of antisemitic expression, or any other form of hate or bigotry, when done in service to what a speaker feels is a good cause. If the true concern, however, is ensuring appropriate protections for academic freedom – clarity on when racism and bigotry are and aren’t protected in academia – then a hollowed-out understanding of antisemitism, racism, or bigotry, is no way to proceed. Deliberate blindness to some forms of discrimination on campus would allow universities to avoid the need to balance competing obligations, but such an approach would be the pursuit of ignorance and convenience at the cost of institutional integrity and campus safety.

The letter claims the IHRA Working Definition is “controversial”. While there are certainly some academics who oppose it, the IHRA definition is the most widely accepted definition of antisemitism and described as “the mainstream consensus”. It has been adopted by 38 countries including Australia, 314 universities, and a total of 865 entities.

Melbourne University has adopted the definition as part of its anti-racism commitment. It noted the adopting this definition of antisemitism, and a to-be-determined definition of Islamophobia "does not change the University’s policies on academic freedom and freedom of speech. However, the definitions provide an important educative tool for all University members to understand what constitutes Islamophobia or antisemitism, and thus support their prevention." 

The letter describes the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, created in opposition to IHRA by a group of academics as “less controversial” though it lacks governmental or university support and is considered problematic by many experts. Most importantly, it is not the definition the Australian Government adopted.

There is a great deal to be said for our universities adopting the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism used by so many universities internationally. It would allow us to learn from the international experience and apply it consistently in Australia. Adopting a definition does not end discussion or debate, it merely provides a framework to help address future incidents.

Photo: A billboard in Leicester Square, London, which is part of a new campaign running in nine cities across the UK around Holocaust Remembrance Day on 27 January (Kirsty O'Connor/PA Wire)

RELATED STORIES

Academics reject antisemitism definition (The Jewish Independent)

Academic freedom is a red herring when discussing antisemitism (The Jewish Independent)

Opponents of antisemitism definition fight back (The Jewish Independent)

Note: An earlier version of this article identified the University of Melbourne as the first Australian university to adopt the IHRA definition. That landmark belongs to the University of Wollongong where the definition was adopted and implemented in policy last year.