New national data shows racism is widespread across Australian universities. The challenge is responding fairly, without elevating one community’s suffering over another’s.

I admit that I have been deeply troubled by a recent report about Australian universities. I am sure others would be troubled as well, particularly since universities are viewed not only as places of learning but also as homes for our brightest girls and boys who are to lead our society.

The report indicates that racism is not confined to isolated incidents or marginal behaviour; it is widespread, deeply embedded, and experienced by students and staff from almost every racial, ethnic, and religious background.

The issue, as I see it, is no longer whether racism exists in higher education – it is how we respond to it fairly, coherently, and without privileging one group’s suffering over another’s.

The _Respect@Uni_ Study, led by Race Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman and commissioned by the Australian Government, surveyed more than 76,000 students and staff across 42 universities. Its findings are stark.

Seventy per cent of respondents reported experiencing or witnessing indirect racism – including racist jokes, stereotyping, or social exclusion. Fifteen per cent reported direct interpersonal racism such as ridicule, threats, or discriminatory treatment. The data also show that Jewish (religious) and Palestinian students reported racism at rates exceeding 90 per cent. In contrast, First Nations, Chinese, Jewish (secular), Middle Eastern, and Northeast Asian respondents reported rates above 80 per cent.

Only six per cent of those who experienced direct racism lodged formal complaints. This ‘culture’ of silence is very concerning. Fear of retaliation, lack of trust in complaint systems, and scepticism about outcomes were among the main reasons cited.

The message is clear: racism is systemic, and existing means are failing those they are meant to protect.

The report rightly calls for urgent structural reform – improved complaint mechanisms, stronger institutional accountability, and policies that foster genuinely inclusive academic environments. But beyond these practical recommendations, the findings raise two broader and more delicate questions.

First, if Australia already has a Race Discrimination Commissioner and an established anti-discrimination framework, why the proliferation of additional commissioners or special envoys for groups? Most notably, why appoint a dedicated envoy on antisemitism when the data demonstrate that racism affects a wide array of communities at comparable rates?

The principle of anti-discrimination law in Australia, as I understand it, is that protection applies equally to all. The creation of separate roles for specific communities risks fragmenting that principle. It may also give the impression – whether intended or not – that some forms of racism are institutionally prioritised over others. In a multicultural democracy committed to equality before the law, this perception alone can be corrosive.

Second, why does one lobby appear to command greater public and political attention than others? The data show that Palestinian, First Nations, Asian, Middle Eastern and other communities experience racism at similarly high levels. Yet public discourse often centres disproportionately on antisemitism, sometimes to the exclusion of parallel or intersecting forms of racism.

This is not to diminish antisemitism. It is real, dangerous, and must be confronted unequivocally. But so too must anti-Palestinian racism, anti-Asian racism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, and discrimination against First Nations peoples. A hierarchy of victimhood undermines social cohesion. It risks turning anti-racism into a competitive enterprise, where groups vie for recognition and resources rather than standing together for universal justice.

Australian universities should be spaces of critical inquiry and respectful disagreement. In a time of global polarisation, particularly regarding the Middle East, campuses have become sites where political conflict can spill into interpersonal hostility. The answer, however, is not to elevate one narrative above all others. It is to strengthen universal safeguards and apply them consistently.

If racism is indeed “the rule, not the exception”, as the report suggests, then the response must also be systemic and even-handed. Strengthening the authority and resources of existing anti-discrimination bodies may be more coherent than multiplying special envoys. Ensuring transparency in complaint processes, protecting whistleblowers, and fostering genuine intercultural dialogue would benefit all communities.

Multicultural Australia rests on a simple but powerful premise: citizenship, not ethnicity or religion, defines belonging. No group is more Australian than another. No group’s suffering is more worthy of protection than another’s. The fight against racism must reflect that foundational principle.

The challenge before us is not merely to condemn racism in all its forms – that is easy – but to resist the politicisation of victimhood and to uphold equality without fear or favour. Only then can our universities become what they claim to be: places of learning grounded in justice, dignity, and mutual respect.