Sanctioning universities for failing to address antisemitism
Sep 12, 2024
Liberal MP Julian Leeser has accused Australian universities of “studied indifference to Jew hatred on our campuses”. His solution is a Private Member’s Bill to establish a judicial inquiry into antisemitism at universities. The Commission of Inquiry will have the powers of a Royal Commission. The Bill constitutes a major assault on academic freedom, critical inquiry and the independence of universities.
Michelle Berkon’s article Inquiry into antisemitism a Trojan Horse for the Israeli lobby, discussed the Bill’s adoption of the highly contested International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which conflates antisemitism with criticism of the State of Israel and the political ideology of Zionism. Even Kenneth Stern, the definition’s principal author, has denounced the weaponising of the definition by right-wing Jews. Problematic as the IHRA definition is, the Bill’s flaws go much deeper.
The Commissioner’s role will include inquiring into whether universities have taken steps to ensure that antisemitic content is not included in course and teaching materials, or delivered during classes. Given the Bill’s definition of antisemitism, if it became law, every volume in my small collection of books on Israel and Palestine, including those authored by John Lyons, the ABC’s Global Affairs Editor, and anti-Zionist Jewish writers such as Judith Butler, Illan Pappé and Antony Loewenstein, would be deemed antisemitic. Yet these titles would be required reading in any decent university history course on Israel and Palestine.
As well as silencing and punishing students and staff for criticising Israel and the political ideology of Zionism, the Bill would shut down expressions of support for the rights of Palestinians to freedom, justice and equality. It would repress teaching and learning about what Zionism has meant for Palestinians.
Teaching the history of the founding of the state of Israel as a settler-colonialist project which involved the killing, expulsion and massive dispossessions of the indigenous Palestinian population, and their replacement with European Jews, would be deemed antisemitic. So, too, would a critique of the forms of state violence instituted and maintained by Zionism, including the continuing expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank, which are clearly designed to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian State. Even teaching materials on the recent Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice (variously denounced by the ardently pro-Israel Executive Council of Australian Jewry as mendacious, a rewriting of history, and a devastating blow to international law) would be problematic.
The Inquiry will consider whether universities have put in place adequate arrangements to deal with antisemitism on campus including policies, rules, disciplinary procedures, barring and excluding people from campus, and preventing academics, staff and students from engaging in boycotts against collaborations with Israeli institutions. It will determine whether any legislative or regulatory changes are necessary or appropriate to enable the imposition of sanctions on academics, staff, students and organisations that engage in antisemitic conduct. Even more alarmingly, the Commissioner will consider whether legislative or regulatory changes are needed to enable the imposition of sanctions on universities that do not take adequate steps to address antisemitism. The Inquiry will also look at whether any “ministerial intervention powers” are necessary or appropriate to ensure that antisemitism on university campuses is addressed appropriately.
Everyone who cares about academic freedom, maintaining the integrity of critical inquiry, and the importance of robust debate on campus and of universities’ freedom from political interference should be deeply concerned by this Bill. Protecting these foundational principles is crucial, especially in our current political climate in which pro-Israel organisations and politicians of both major parties are weaponising antisemitism to silence and demonise those who support Palestinian rights. Supporters of the rights of Palestinians include many Jews, and liberal Jewish organisations such as the Jewish Council of Australia which has recommended that the Bill be rejected in its entirety.
Racism is on the rise. All forms of racism, including genuine antisemitism (hatred of Jews by reason of being Jews) and Islamophobia, are abhorrent and must be opposed wherever they occur. The right-wing ECAJ and Jillian Segal, the Council’s immediate past president and the government’s recently appointed Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, are strong supporters of the Bill. However, as the Jewish Council has observed, by exceptionalising antisemitism, the Bill has the “potential to create a hierarchy of categories of racism, exacerbate division, and undermine collaborative, multicultural, multi-faith efforts to tackle racism”.
The Australian Human Rights Commission is already conducting an independent study of racism in universities, with a particular focus on the incidence of antisemitism, Islamophobia and the experience of First Nations’ peoples. Its findings will inform the government. The AHRC is the appropriate body to investigate the issue.
If the Bill is enacted into law, the minister responsible for the legislation and for appointing the Commissioner is Mark Dreyfus, the Attorney-General. Dreyfus supports the adoption by universities of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The definition has been used by universities in other jurisdictions, including the UK and Canada, to intimidate, harass and initiate disciplinary measures against those supporting justice for Palestinians. Freedom of speech and intellectual inquiry is being suppressed. If passed, this Bill would have a similar chilling effect on Australian campuses.
Leeser’s Bill has been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which has received hundreds of submissions. The Committee will report on 4 October. The Bill is an alarming overreach. It should be rejected in its entirety.
Angela Smith
Angela Smith is a former lawyer with broad legal experience including in refugee law and the university sector. Her writing has been published widely and can be found in such places as The Guardian (online), Griffith Review, Meanjin, New Philosopher and Overland.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
