Australian universities face pressure to emulate their UK counterparts by adopting a definition of antisemitism blamed for restricting academic freedom.
A report from Australia’s Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights urges universities to consider adopting “a clear definition of antisemitism” that “aligns closely” with the 2016 version produced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).
A dissenting report from the committee’s opposition members goes further in demanding legal amendments requiring universities to adopt the “universally accepted and uncontroversial” IHRA definition. It says academic leaders’ “hesitation” to do so “highlights a concerning lack of moral clarity”.
But Greens committee member David Shoebridge argued against “the uncritical adoption of the definition”, which was “not grounded in contemporary anti-racism scholarship or practice”.
The dispute echoes a longstanding debate in the UK, where most universities adopted the IHRA definition following pressure from education secretary Gavin Williamson in 2020.
A 2023 report from the European Legal Support Centre, a Dutch-based service for pro-Palestinian groups, recommended against its adoption in higher education after analysing 38 cases in which UK university staff had faced disciplinary action for alleged antisemitism.
In all cases, the accusations had been thrown out – often after “protracted” and “unreasonable” investigations.
International politics scholar Clive Gabay said Queen Mary University of London’s adoption of the IHRA definition had “not only failed to protect me as a Jew but…also had a detrimental impact on my life and career progression”.
Gabay blamed the definition for “a creeping chilling of research and debate” by discouraging “harsh but legitimate criticism of Israel”.
The debate centres around illustrative “examples” of antisemitism accompanying the definition. The IHRA statement says “criticism of Israel, similar to that levelled against any other country, cannot be regarded as antisemitic”.
But the examples include “accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel…than to…their own nations”, “claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour”, and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”.
Shoebridge cited a claim by one of the definition’s drafters that it “was never intended to be weaponised to muzzle campus free speech”.
Writing in The Boston Globe, US academic Kenneth Stern said the definition had been “designed primarily for European data collectors” and many expressions about Israel fell “in a grey area”.
“When we use the term antisemitism so expansively, it’s emptied of its meaning. Asking the state to suppress disfavoured ideas, especially on campuses, is never acceptable.”
In 2021 advice to its members, Universities UK acknowledged criticism of the definition but said many Jewish groups believed its adoption was “critical” to combat antisemitism.
In testimony to the Australian committee’s inquiry, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry said the IHRA definition “deals specifically with the denial of the collective right of the Jewish people to self-determination, which is a very different thing from Israeli government policies and actions”.
Jillian Segal, the federal government’s special envoy to combat antisemitism, said the IHRA definition was a “gold standard” accepted by dozens of countries and hundreds of universities. But it had been “specifically rejected” by most academic boards in Australia. “In my opinion, that definition is just not going to easily fly with universities.”
Macquarie University vice-chancellor Bruce Dowton told the inquiry that “we have inadequate help from the law in defining what antisemitism really is”.
The proposal to align with the IHRA definition was among 10 recommendations from the committee, which handed down its report six weeks earlier than scheduled.
Others included antisemitism training for students and staff, “more transparent” reporting of complaints, and consideration of tougher workplace laws to deal with university staff who offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Jews.
