Australian universities have unilaterally adopted a controversial new definition of antisemitism following a parliamentary inquiry finding which recommended universities enshrine a defintion closely aligned with that used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). 

The new definition drafted by the Group of Eight (Go8) Universities was unanimously endorsed by the 39 members of Universities Australia on 24 February. The Go8 worked closely with Jillian Segal, the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, to draft the new definition before making its adoption public on 26 February. 

A report on antisemitism tabled by Labour MP Josh Burns, the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, highlighted an “urgent need for reform” to ensure the safety of Jewish staff and students on university campuses.

“It should not have taken a national antisemitism crisis and a parliamentary inquiry for universities to take the concerns of Jewish staff and students seriously.”

Burns said that while the current status quo is not good enough, the early release of the report allows for the recommendations by the committee to be implemented before the commencement of the 2025 semester.

The report made 10 recommendations, among them requiring Vice Chancellors to hold a formal meeting with Jewish student bodies and staff in semester one to discuss antisemitism on campuses, requiring Australian universities review their complaints procedure and  report on the outcome of complaints with greater transparency, and adopt a definition of antisemitism similar to that of the IHRA. 

The definition adopted by the 39 member institutions of Universities Australia describes antisemitism as “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 definition states that while criticism of the government or state of Israel and its practices and policies is “not in and of itself antisemitic…criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel or all Jews or when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions. It can be antisemitic to make assumptions about what Jewish individuals think based only on the fact that they are Jewish.”

The definition further reads, “All peoples, including Jews, have the right to self-determination. 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 antisemitic.”

Since its introduction in 2005, the IHRA definition has been adopted by multiple organisations and nation-states around the world, including the Australian government, various organisations, and universities across Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The IHRA definition of antisemitism states that “antisemitism is 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 IHRA’s working definition goes on to list 11 examples of antisemitism in everyday life, such as “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”, “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel” and “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.”

While the definition adopted by Universities Australia does not include all examples listed by the IHRA, it similarly regards criticism of zionism as antisemitic. 

The new definition adopted by Universities Australia will act as a non-legally binding guide for individual institutions to interpret when determining what constitutes antisemitic conduct when it comes to disciplinary proceedings. 

Universities across the globe that have adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism have observed a swift suppression of student protests and activism.

A report published by the European Legal Support Centre and the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies found that between 2017 and 2022, of the 40 cases of alleged antisemitism by staff and students on British university campuses, 38 were ultimately rejected.

While almost all of the cases were dismissed, the allegations resulted in dragged out disciplinary proceedings, loss of scholarship opportunities and cancelled events that had severe debilitating effects on the staff and students, impacting their education as well as future career prospects.

The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network unequivocally condemned the adoption of the new definition by Universities Australia, stating that instead of protecting Jewish staff and students “this move manipulates genuine concern about antisemitism to silence political dissent, shield Israel from accountability and shut down Palestinians and their allies.”

In a statement released online, Amnesty International Australia’s Occupied Palestinian Territory Spokesperson, Mohamed Duar wrote that “policing freedom of speech, academic debate, and protest is not a solution to student safety–it is an outrageous and blatant act of repression where freedom of thought and academia should flourish.”

Duar argued that if universities were committed to combating racism, they must adopt a comprehensive, rights-based approach that protects all students without eroding fundamental freedoms and rights.

Student activism has been paramount in demanding First Nations justice in Australia, ending the apartheid in South Africa, demanding civil rights in the United States, as well as ending the Iraq war.

“By adopting this definition, universities will be characterising peaceful protest as a punishable offense. This sets a chilling precedent where students exercising their political rights are vilified and silenced.”

Student protests have been at the heart of human rights struggles, and universities should champion, not crush, activism.”

Similarly, the Jewish Council of Australia has expressed strong disapproval of the move by Universities Australia, stating that the definition developed by the Go8 and adopted by Universities Australia categorises Palestinian political expression as inherently antisemitic and that it will be unworkable, unenforceable, and stifles critical political debate, which is at the heart of any democratic society. 

“Today, Australia’s 39 universities endorsed a dangerous and politicised definition of antisemitism which threatens academic freedom, will have a chilling effect on legitimate criticism of Israel, and risks institutionalising anti-Palestinian racism. They did so without meaningful consultation with Palestinian groups or diverse Jewish groups who are critical of Israel.”

The University of Melbourne in 2021 became one of the first universities in Australia to publicly adopt the highly contested definition of antisemitism from the IHRA.

While student activism and protest have been critical for fundamental human rights struggles for generations, the University of Melbourne has stifled these actions over the years.

With the start of the 2025 semester, Vice-Chancellor Emma Johnston has introduced new restrictions to student protests and activism, banning indoor protests, protests that disrupt student activity, access to buildings or research facilities.

Students breaking these new protest regulations will be faced with expulsions.