It defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews,which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” and lists several examples including drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
The definition says “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”.
Loading
But it also says manifestation of antisemitism “might include the targeting of the state of Israel,conceived as a Jewish collectivity”.
Critics of the definition,including the Palestinian movement,legal experts and human rights groups,have warned it could be used to shut down legitimate debate about the Israeli government.
One of the definition’s drafters,Kenneth Stern,has expressed concern that it is being usedto stifle debate and criticised how it had been deployed by universities.
Australia’s National Tertiary Education Union and some academics also fear the definition has the potential to be misused to restrict academic freedom.
The report,tabled in Parliament on Wednesday,found there was “urgent need for reform” with a rise in antisemitism “exacerbated by the reluctance of many university administrations to enforce meaningful consequences for misconduct,allowing a toxic environment to escalate”.
Hearings conducted last month heard thatAustralian National University found there was no case to punish a student who was in May last year videoed making an apparent Nazi salute,prompting outrage from members of the committee.
Burns,who is Jewish,said it should not have taken a parliamentary inquiry and a national antisemitism crisis for universities to listen to the community and recognise their responsibility in addressing antisemitism on campus.
“The committee witnessed brazen incidents of antisemitism go without consequence or leadership by some of our university vice-chancellors,” he said.
“We are now at a pivotal point where universities must implement the committee’s recommendations to ensure Jewish students and staff go back to campus in semester one knowing that their safety is taken seriously,and if there are incidents on campus,they will be addressed in a timely and transparent way.”
Coalition members wanted the committee to back the creation of a judicial inquiry into antisemitism at universities.
Loading
Instead,it recommended the government should consider a judicial inquiry only if universities’ response to the report was deemed inadequate by Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism Jillian Segal.
The antisemitism definition was not supported by all the committee. Greens Senator David Shoebridge labelled it “divisive” and said it did not reflect the balance of the evidence before the committee.
The report,which made 10 recommendations,also said the government should consider amending workplace laws to make it easier to discipline university staff or recipients of grants who had been found to breach the Racial Discrimination Act.
Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim said the report was correct in recommending universities adopt a clear definition of antisemitism in line with that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance,but would have preferred a straightforward recommendation that it be adopted.
Loading
“The committee has impliedly repudiated the definition of antisemitism recently adopted by the Group of 8 universities,which sharply diverges from the IHRA definition,and has been debunked and rejected by the Jewish community,” he said.
“We welcome the recommendation that a judicial inquiry be kept on the table as a possible future measure if universities do not clean up their act in the next 12 months.
“While the report identifies the correct issues,some of the recommendations are expressed in less forthright language than we think the situation calls for.”
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories,analysis and insights.Sign up here.