A watershed moment is unfolding across Australian universities as a parliamentary inquiry hands down urgent recommendations to combat rising antisemitism on campuses. The joint committee report, tabled by Labor MP Josh Burns, is calling for sweeping reforms to policies, procedures, and definitions before Jewish students return for a new semester, warning that the “status quo is not good enough”.
At the heart of the recommendations is a contentious push for universities to adopt a definition of antisemitism that “closely aligns” with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition. Critics argue this definition conflates legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, potentially chilling free speech. But supporters, including Jewish student groups, insist it’s a crucial tool to identify and call out antisemitic conduct.
Toxic Environment Escalates
The impetus for the inquiry was a deluge of harrowing accounts from Jewish students and faculty who say antisemitism has reached crisis levels:
- Students report being excluded from campus life and activities
- Some Jewish students avoid attending classes out of fear
- Academics describe a lack of institutional support against harassment
The reluctance of university leaders to enforce meaningful consequences has allowed a toxic environment to escalate.
– Parliamentary inquiry report
In a blistering condemnation, the report found an “urgent need for reform” and a “lack of trust” between universities and the Jewish community. It said complaints procedures were opaque and convoluted, and university responses were “hopelessly inadequate”.
Sweeping Recommendations Ahead of New Semester
The committee issued 10 key recommendations for rapid implementation, ideally before the start of semester one:
- Align antisemitism definition with IHRA wording
- Publish transparent reports on antisemitism complaints
- Enable disciplinary action against staff/academics who breach codes
- Simplify and streamline complaints policies and procedures
- Deliver ongoing antisemitism training campus-wide
- Increase research on antisemitism and collaboration opportunities
The report also raised the specter of a future judicial inquiry if universities fail to take sufficient action within the 12-month deadline.
Contested Definition Sparks Backlash
While Jewish organizations have largely embraced the IHRA definition and the report’s findings, it remains hugely controversial. Palestinian advocates and some civil society groups argue it stifles legitimate speech by conflating criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
The IHRA definition is not grounded in contemporary antiracism scholarship or practice.
– David Shoebridge, Greens committee member
In dissenting remarks, Greens committee member David Shoebridge said he was “disappointed” in the push to uncritically adopt IHRA and “restrict legitimate academic freedom”. Critics point to the UK, where universities have wielded the definition to lodge “unreasonable” accusations and create a repressive climate on Israel/Palestine debates.
Looming Showdown as Semester Approaches
As the new academic year rapidly approaches, universities find themselves under immense pressure to decisively stamp out antisemitism on campuses. But will they uniformly embrace the controversial IHRA wording, or will some assert their independence and academic freedom?
With the very definition of antisemitism in dispute, it sets the stage for a showdown between universities, parliamentarians, and a range of interest groups. As tensions simmer, Jewish students are left wondering whether they’ll finally find a safe and welcoming campus environment – or if this explosive report will only deepen the divisions.
