Elite universities reject ‘gold standard’ definition of anti-Semitism

The Group of Eight universities have refused to accept the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, sparking a new split with the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism Jillian Segal.

The encampment at The Australian National University last May. Picture: Martin Ollman

The nation’s elite Group of Eight universities have refused to accept the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, sparking a new split with the Albanese government’s special envoy to combat anti-Semitism Jillian Segal and peak Jewish organisations.

The Go8 universities – most of which hosted a pro-Palestine encampment protest in the first half of 2024 and were rocked by anti-Semitic incidents since the start of the Israel-Hamas war – were asked to adopt a definition of anti-Semitism by Ms Segal.

She identified the lack of a definition “almost across the board … was, I think, stark evidence of the fact they didn’t have effective complaints schemes”.

The Australian can reveal the Go8 adopted a watered-down version of the IHRA definition in December and it is now before university councils to adopt the working definition.

“Although I am disappointed that the Go8 won’t be adopting IHRA like many other universities around the world, I am pleased they are taking the first steps to creating a system where the concerns of Jewish students are appropriately responded to,” Ms Segal told The Australian.

Go8 chief executive Vicki Thomson said “consistent and clear advice from our members is that IHRA is not workable without adaptation to Australian conditions and context” and the group’s definition “represents our best efforts to achieve the delicate balance between adopting what is ostensibly an Australian version of IHRA that can be operationalised in the university setting, while upholding academic freedom and associated obligations”.

The University of Melbourne and Monash University have previously accepted the definition – as had the federal government and various state governments – but it has been a subject of controversy with the rest of Australia’s top universities. Both the ­Coalition and Labor MPs have previously called on universities to adopt the IHRA definition.

University of Sydney vice-chancellor Mark Scott and Australian National University vice-chancellor Genevieve Bell, whose universities have previously rejected the definition, citing academic freedom, are scheduled to appear before the parliamentary inquiry into campus anti-­Semitism on Wednesday.

The split over the definitions is expected to be a key plank of questioning at the hearing.

The new Go8 definition reworks controversial parts of the IHRA definition. For example, the IHRA definition says it may be anti-Semitic “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour”.

The Go8 definition does not go as far, failing to say explicitly it is anti-Semitic to say the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour. “All peoples, including Jews, have the right to self-­determination,” the definition reads. “For most, but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity.

“Substituting the word ‘Zionist’ for ‘Jew’ does not eliminate the possibility of speech being anti-Semitic.”

In a letter obtained by The Australian, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry told the Go8 that “criticism of Israel’s right to exist is anti-Semitic because … it singles out the Jewish people as unworthy of the collective right of self-determination … and it impliedly advocates, in the face of a long and terrible history, that the Jewish people should once again be relegated to the status of vulnerable minorities in the host ­nations in which they live”.

ECAJ also took issue with the lack of mention in the Go8 definition about minimising the Holocaust. “Anti-Semitism is discrimination, prejudice, harassment, exclusion, vilification, intimidation or violence that impedes Jews’ ability to participate as equals in educational, political, religious, cultural, economic or social life,” the Go8 definition reads. “It can manifest in a range of ways, including negative, dehumanising or stereotypical narratives about Jews. Further, it includes hate speech, epithets, caricatures, stereotypes, tropes, Holocaust denial, and anti-­Semitic symbols.”

ECAJ said this list should include “minimisation of the Holocaust or other human rights atrocities committed against Jews as examples … For instance, minimisation of the 7 October massacre or mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries in the 1940s is anti-Semitic”.

“The modern iteration of Holocaust denial or inversion is the minimisation of atrocities committed against Jews on the basis of their race.”

ECAJ leadership told the Go8 they had not been consulted on the definition and this “speaks to the broader issue, namely that the self-determination of the Jewish people, and our right to define what constitutes racism against us, remains something universities fail to properly recognise”.

“Anti-Semitism at Australian universities does not operate in a vacuum,” the letter reads. “Like universities themselves, anti-Semitism reflects what is happening in society more broadly. It is regrettable that this essential context, and the lived experiences of Jewish people themselves, seem to have been overlooked in the Go8’s attempt to formulate a definition of anti-Semitism applicable to its own milieu.”

Critics of the IHRA definition have said it could chill valid criticism of Israel.