Dror Liraz, president of the University of Sydney branch of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, said the adoption of the antisemitism definition had provided a framework the university must adhere to after previously dismissing students’ complaints.

“The only constraint here is you can’t criticise Israel in an antisemitic way. You can have proper criticism. No one’s saying you can’t do that. You just can’t have racist criticism,” she said.

“If I told you China shouldn’t exist … if I told you, any country shouldn’t exist, you’d say I was racist. But how come, when it comes to Israel, it’s not racist?”

She said the adoption came after more than 18 months of intimidating behaviour towards Jewish students on campus.

“We had terrorist flags, we had chants of Intifada – that was very highly ignored by the university. It means blowing up school buses, it means random stabbings, it means bombings at petrol stations, it means shootings at shopping malls,” she said.

”The university [was] saying: Oh, no, this can be used differently in different contexts. And [we’re] saying, ‘OK, but the context is an anti-Israel rally’.“

University of Sydney sociology professor Salvatore Babones said Jewish and Israeli students at the university, and other universities, would reasonably feel threatened.

“The University of Sydney branch has repeatedly passed resolutions critical of Israel through the mechanism of special members’ meetings,” he said, noting similar tactics were at work among the Student Representative Council.

“In both cases (student and staff), the organisations concerned take foreign policy positions overwhelmingly on Israel. The SRC and [the National Tertiary Education Union] are not foreign policy think tanks, but they have been co-opted into becoming anti-Israel mouthpieces.

“The strident accusations of Israeli Jewish misconduct in these resolutions might reasonably be seen as threatening and creating an unwelcoming environment from which Jewish and Israeli students cannot easily distance themselves.

“My personal view, which is not based on my research and scholarship as a sociologist, is that the organised criticism of Israel and the objections made to the Universities Australia definition of antisemitism by the SRC and staff groups are primarily motivated by antisemitism, which I believe to be widespread in elite universities throughout the English-speaking world.”

Student Representative Council president Angus Fisher rejected the notion that students were only interested in taking positions on Israel.

“We discuss things like global issues, like the war in Russia and Ukraine, or domestic issues like sexual violence on campus, the importance of free university, and First Nations justice,” he said.

Dr Nick Riemer said the meeting would give colleagues an opportunity to discuss this new and controversial definition of antisemitism, which he said university management imposed on staff and students without consultation or debate.

“Doing this is particularly important when the charge of antisemitism is regularly used to silence and discredit opponents of Israel’s genocide in Palestine,” he said.

“The meeting’s purpose is to increase awareness of the definition and understanding of why it is controversial. It is open to all staff and students, regardless of whether they agree with the definition or not. If we vote on anything, that vote will be democratic and will reflect the meeting.”

Australasian Union of Jewish Students public affairs co-ordinator Jack Mars attended and spoke at last week’s student meeting.

“There was a lot of discussion about whether we speak because it is a bit pointless. But it is for our own community and other students to see that there is nuance to these issues,” he said.

Since the adoption of the definition this year, he said the situation had improved. “There are still incidents that have occurred this year – they’re fewer. The uni has been more responsive. Initially, we were treated suspiciously and in bad faith,” he said.

Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim said a small group of anti-Israel students at that university who wished to further their antisemitic agenda under the guise of academic freedom had made a mockery of these commitments. “As happened last year, a sham meeting featuring overtly antisemitic rhetoric and behaviour has been allowed to go ahead despite the university being warned well in advance of what would be likely to occur,” he said.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.

date: 2025-05-27 03:00:00

sydney University Antisemitism Rules: Academics Resist Definition Adoption

Table of Contents

sydney University Antisemitism Rules: Academics Resist Definition Adoption

the debate surrounding antisemitism on university campuses is complex and highly charged.At the heart of discussions at the University of Sydney lies a potential adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.While proponents argue this definition is crucial for identifying and combating antisemitic behaviour, a significant number of academics are voicing strong opposition, citing concerns about its impact on academic freedom and open debate, notably regarding criticism of Israel’s policies.

The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism: A Primer

The IHRA definition, adopted by numerous countries and organizations, defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The definition includes a list of contemporary examples, some of which relate too Israel. This is where much of the controversy stems from. Examples cited by the IHRA that could be antisemitic “taking into account the overall context” include:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated wiht classic antisemitism (e.g.,claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Supporters argue the IHRA definition provides a necessary tool for institutions to recognize and address antisemitism effectively. Critics, though, contend that these examples can be interpreted broadly, possibly silencing legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and stifling discussions on Palestinian rights.

Academic Resistance: Why Sydney University Faculty Are Pushing Back

The proposed adoption of the IHRA definition at Sydney University has sparked considerable debate and resistance among faculty members.Their concerns revolve around several key issues:

Threat to Academic Freedom

A primary worry is that adopting the IHRA definition could chill open inquiry and academic freedom. Academics fear that criticizing Israeli policies,even robustly,could be misconstrued as antisemitic,leading to self-censorship and a reluctance to engage in research or teaching on sensitive topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Vagueness and Ambiguity

Concerns have also been raised about the vagueness and ambiguity of certain aspects of the IHRA definition, particularly its examples. This lack of clarity, critics argue, leaves the definition open to subjective interpretation, potentially leading to inconsistent and unfair application.

silencing Palestinian Voices

Some academics believe that the IHRA definition is being used strategically to silence Palestinian voices and delegitimize discussions about Palestinian rights. They argue that the definition unfairly equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, thereby stifling advocacy for Palestinian self-determination.

Alternative Definitions and Approaches

Some faculty advocate for alternative definitions and approaches to combating antisemitism that they believe are less likely to infringe on academic freedom. These suggestions often include focusing on education and awareness programs that address antisemitism without restricting free speech.

the Debate’s Impact on Campus Climate

The controversy surrounding the IHRA definition is undeniably impacting the campus climate at Sydney University. It has created divisions among faculty, students, and administrators, leading to tense discussions and heightened emotions. Students on both sides of the issue feel their voices are not being adequately heard, and the debate has the potential to further polarize the university community.

Student Perspectives

student perspectives on the IHRA definition are diverse and often reflect their backgrounds and political views. Some Jewish students feel that the definition provides a much-needed framework for addressing antisemitism on campus and ensuring their safety and well-being. Others worry about the potential for the definition to be used to suppress criticism of Israel. Similarly, Palestinian students and their allies express concerns that the definition will silence their voices and delegitimize their advocacy for Palestinian rights.

Case Studies: Similar Controversies at Other Universities

The debate surrounding the IHRA definition is not unique to Sydney University. Similar controversies have erupted at universities around the world, highlighting the complex challenges involved in addressing antisemitism while safeguarding academic freedom. Examples include:

University College London (UCL): UCL initially adopted the IHRA definition but later faced significant criticism from faculty who argued that it stifled academic freedom.
Rutgers University: Rutgers also faced backlash after adopting the IHRA definition.Faculty and students expressed concerns about its impact on discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
University of Toronto: The University of Toronto’s Faculty Association successfully challenged the IHRA definition, arguing it violated academic freedom.

Navigating the Complexities: Finding a Balanced Approach

Finding a balanced approach to addressing antisemitism on university campuses that respects both the concerns of Jewish students and the principles of academic freedom is a significant challenge. Several strategies can be implemented to navigate these complexities:

Open and Obvious Dialog: foster open and transparent dialogue among faculty, students, and administrators to discuss the IHRA definition and its potential impact on campus climate.
contextualized Application: Emphasize the importance of contextualizing the IHRA definition and its examples to avoid misinterpretations and ensure that it is applied fairly and consistently.
Robust free Speech Protections: Reinforce robust free speech protections that allow for critical discussions of political issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without fear of censorship or reprisal.
Educational Initiatives: Implement educational initiatives that promote understanding of antisemitism, its history, and its contemporary manifestations. These initiatives should also address other forms of prejudice and discrimination.
Alternative Definitions and Frameworks: Explore alternative definitions and frameworks for addressing antisemitism that are less likely to infringe on academic freedom. Such as, The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) is designed to offer clarity and provide guidance to assess more objectively whether controversial statements are antisemitic or not.
Focus on Intent and Impact: In assessing whether a statement or action is antisemitic, consider both the intent of the speaker and the impact of the statement or action on Jewish individuals and communities.

The Role of university Leadership

University leadership plays a critical role in navigating the complexities of this issue. It is indeed essential that university administrators:

Demonstrate a commitment to both combating antisemitism and upholding academic freedom.
Engage in meaningful consultations with faculty, students, and community members before making decisions about the IHRA definition.
Develop clear and transparent guidelines for applying the IHRA definition, if adopted, to ensure that it is indeed used fairly and consistently.
Provide resources and support for educational initiatives that promote understanding of antisemitism.
Create a campus environment where all students feel safe, respected, and valued.

benefits and Practical Tips for Supporting a Diverse and Inclusive Campus

Creating a diverse and inclusive campus environment is essential for fostering intellectual growth, promoting social justice, and preparing students for success in a globalized world. Here are some benefits and practical tips for supporting diversity and inclusion at Sydney University:

Benefits of Diversity and Inclusion

Enhanced Learning environment: Diverse perspectives enrich classroom discussions and broaden students’ understanding of complex issues.
Improved critical Thinking Skills: Engaging with different viewpoints challenges students to think critically and develop nuanced perspectives.
Increased Innovation: Diverse teams are more likely to generate innovative ideas and solutions.
Stronger Sense of Community: Inclusive environments foster a sense of belonging and connection among students from different backgrounds.
Readiness for a Global Workforce: Exposure to diverse perspectives prepares students for success in an increasingly globalized workforce.

Practical Tips for Promoting diversity and Inclusion

Diversify Curriculum: Incorporate diverse voices and perspectives into course materials and reading lists.
Promote Inclusive Teaching Practices: use inclusive teaching strategies that cater to the needs of all students.
Create Affinity Groups: Support the creation of affinity groups and organizations for students from underrepresented backgrounds.
Offer Diversity Training: Provide diversity training for faculty, staff, and students to promote understanding and sensitivity.
Establish Reporting Mechanisms: establish clear reporting mechanisms for incidents of bias and discrimination.
Support Diverse Hiring Practices: Implement hiring practices that promote diversity among faculty and staff.
Celebrate Cultural Events: Celebrate cultural events and holidays to promote understanding and thankfulness of different cultures.
Foster Dialogue: Create opportunities for students from different backgrounds to engage in dialogue and build relationships.

First-Hand Experiences: Campus Conversations

To encapsulate the nuanced atmosphere surrounding this issue, here are examples of potential first-hand accounts. Note: these are fictionalized for illustrative purposes.

Sarah, Jewish Student: “I want to feel safe on campus. The IHRA definition, for me, is a starting point for the university to acknowledge experiences of antisemitism that often go unnoticed. It’s not about silencing anyone, it’s about creating a standard for what is unacceptable.”
Omar, Palestinian Student: “I fear the consequences will be dire. Can I even organize a protest against the occupation without being accused of antisemitism? It feels like our voices are being intentionally suppressed.”
Dr. Emily Carter,History Professor: “My concern is the chilling effect on research. I specialize in Middle Eastern history,and the IHRA definition,in its current form,poses a real threat to academic inquiry. We need to find a better way to combat antisemitism without sacrificing intellectual freedom.”

Comparison of Definitions on Antisemitism

Several definitions of antisemitism exist.here’s a brief comparison, highlighting key differences:

Definition	Focus	Key Characteristics	Criticisms
IHRA Definition	Perception of Jews; Hatred	Includes some criticisms of Israel as possibly antisemitic (depending on context)	Potential to stifle free speech; Vague
Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA)	Hatred, discrimination, or violence against Jews	More explicitly supports criticism of Israel, differentiating it from antisemitism	Seen by some as weakening the fight against antisemitism
Working Definition of Antisemitism (European Union Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia – EUMC) – Precursor to IHRA	Negative feelings or actions toward Jewish people and institutions	Broader definition; Aimed to ensure equal protection	Concerns about application in political discourse

The Future of the IHRA Definition at Sydney University

The future of the IHRA definition at Sydney University remains uncertain. The university’s leadership faces a difficult decision in balancing the need to protect Jewish students from antisemitism with the importance of upholding academic freedom. Ultimately, the outcome will depend on the university’s ability to engage in meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders and find a solution that respects the rights and concerns of all members of the campus community.

Sydney University antisemitism rules: Academics resist definition adoption