Published: 16 September 2024
Last updated: 13 September 2024
The Australian Group of Eight Universities (Go8) has made a submission to the Senate Committee considering the Bill before Parliament to establish a Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities.
The Go8 submission sets out the position of Australia’s leading universities: ANU, Sydney, UNSW, Melbourne, Monash, Adelaide, Queensland and WA.
It argues that any inquiry should not be limited to examining antisemitism at universities. Rather it should be broadened to incorporate “all forms of racial or religious intolerance and include universities, the media, schools and other key components of Australian society”.
The submission insists that the Go8 rejects all forms of hate or prejudice, including ‘antisemitism, Islamophobia or any other form of racial or religious intolerance’. It points out, rather curiously, that the scenes at the Opera House on 8 October and antisemitic incidents elsewhere in public places did not occur on campuses. The submission does not identify the antisemitic incidents that did occur on campuses. A reading of the submission by the Australian Alliance Against Antisemitism will remedy the omission.
The insistence on regarding antisemitism as just one example, among many, of racism and hatred both minimises and misdiagnoses the nature of the problem.
The Go8 submission is seriously flawed:
- The Go8 submission does not come to grips with the unique, continuous and catastrophic history of antisemitism and the links between the history and current experiences. The insistence on regarding antisemitism as just one example, among many, of racism and hatred both minimises and misdiagnoses the nature of the problem.
- The Go8 submission fails to acknowledge that it is not unusual to hold inquiries into specific forms of racism, such as that experienced by First Nations people.
- Like the responses of many tertiary institutions to complaints about antisemitic conduct or speech, the submission equates antisemitism with Islamophobia. While both are abhorrent, the sources and manifestations of each are quite different. If the phenomenon of Islamophobia warrants a separate investigation, an inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities would hardly be a barrier to such an investigation.
- The Go8 submission takes refuge in the difficulty of drawing the boundaries between freedom of expression and justifiable constraints on that freedom. It is not necessary for universities to attempt a definitive analysis of where the line should be drawn. In particular, it is not necessary for tertiary institutions to adopt the broad definition of antisemitism supported by the Zionist Federation of Australia and the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism.
It is enough for universities to identify speech and conduct which, on any view, is antisemitic, for example chants of ‘All Zionists are racist’ or ‘Zionists [or Jews] are not welcome here {at the university]’. (Attempts to require institutions to define antisemitism to include extreme criticisms of Israel, however hurtful the criticisms may be, are problematic and are unlikely to be generally accepted by tertiary institutions). - The emphasis in the Go8 submission on the difficulty of drawing boundaries for legal purposes overlooks the Go8’s own Principles on Demonstrations on Campus, which expressly state that the Go8 rejects all forms of antisemitism. It must follow that if speech or conduct on campus is plainly antisemitic, whatever the difficulty of formulating a comprehensive definition, tertiary institutions should take appropriate measures to curb the speech or conduct, for example by invoking disciplinary sanctions. It is entirely irrelevant whether or not the antisemitic speech or conduct on campus contravenes the criminal law or anti-discrimination legislation.
- The Go8 submission makes the rather extraordinary claim that universities merely reflect the broader society. The limits of freedom of expression in the wider community are marked out by legal rules, criminal and civil. Tertiary institutions themselves recognise they have functions and responsibilities setting them apart from other large institutions in Australia. After all, for centuries universities in the western tradition have claimed and performed a special role in the pursuit of knowledge and ideas. This role carries with it significant privileges, such as academic autonomy and security of tenure.
The universities’ responsibilities include taking reasonable measures to protect the safety and wellbeing of staff and students and to ensure their unhindered participation in the educational and intellectual life of the university. That plainly requires appropriate action to prevent and, where necessary, to impose disciplinary sanctions for plainly antisemitic conduct or speech on campus. - The Go8 submission refers at some length to recent remarks of the Director-General of ASIO to the effect that mere ‘rhetorical support’ for Hamas (whatever that means) is not a problem. The Director-General has sought to clarify his remarks.
In any event, it is difficult to understand the relevance of the Director-General’s comments to antisemitism on campuses. He was concerned with the national security implications of the procedures for vetting people seeking refuge in Australia from the terrible situation in Gaza. This has nothing to do with the responsibilities of tertiary institutions to combat antisemitism.
The Go8 submission inadvertently illustrates the inadequacy of the responses by some (not all) universities to the problem of antisemitism on campuses. The submission is of little assistance in formulating and implementing effective measures to combat the problem. It is certainly not an answer to the calls for an inquiry into antisemitism on the campuses of tertiary institutions.
Comments
No comments on this article yet. Be the first to add your thoughts.