censorship Archives

Why Segal’s plan to combat antisemitism in education is dangerous and should be rejected

In her plan to battle antisemitism, Jillian Segal, the federal government’s special envoy to combat antisemitism, has delivered a recipe for racial discord in schools and universities. It will stifle free speech and undermine superior attempts to combat racism. Segal will have the right to define the offences of antisemitism, the offenders and the punishments and will also shape the re-education of the various parties.

Responses

Prominent progressive Jews and Jewish groups, academics, cultural and political commentators and human rights, Muslim, Palestinian, Indigenous groups highlight the plan’s considerable deficiencies.

These commentators have identified the plan’s partisan definitions and arguments, untrustworthy evidence base and unreasonable and unwarranted policy recommendations. Segal’s claims are seen as excessive, and her proposals as repressive— potentially threatening democracy. If implemented, they believe her plan will undermine free speech, academic freedom and the right to protest.

The Minister for Education, Jason Clare will not be bullied into ‘immediate action’. He is waiting for the report from the Islamophobia envoy (August) and the Australian Human Rights Commission’s review into racism in universities (November).

Bad education, bad youth and a redemptive definition

Teachers, schools, universities and young people are in Segal’s sights. Her focus on education, Segal says, stems from the generational differences between the over and under 35s as to their ‘media consumption’, ‘perceptions of the Middle East and the Jewish community’ and the ‘Holocaust and its impacts on society’.

To Segal, the under 35s are uninformed and misguided. They must be re-educated. Their universities and schools cannot be trusted to do this job because within them, antisemitism is ‘ingrained and normalised’. So, despite her lack of educational expertise, Segal must step into the breach.

She will start by insisting that all educational institutions and systems adopt a particular definition of antisemitism. In its examples, this definition conflates anti-Israel and anti-Zionist sentiments with antisemitism. It has been persuasively discredited because of this dangerous conflation and because of its weaponisation.

But Segal wants to stick with it anyway. Afterall, it allows her to see examples of antisemitism whenever, wherever and however critical views about Israel and Zionism are expressed. It thus stretches her influence, multiplies her opportunities for denouncement and helps deflect wider attention away from Israel’s ever-more appalling treatment of the Palestinian people.

Rescuing universities?

This overzealous envoy expects universities to bow to as suspect definition She wants to

· develop and launch a university report card, assessing each university’s implementation of effective practices and standards to combat antisemitism, including complaints systems and best practice policies, as well as consideration of whether the campus/online environment is conducive to Jewish students and staff participating actively and equally in university life.

· work with government to enable government funding to be withheld, where possible, from universities, programs or individuals within universities that facilitate, enable or
fail to act against antisemitism. …

We argue there are shades of authoritarianism here. Segal wants surveillance over university courses, teachers and researchers. She wants to repress speech and protest. She wants to intensify the current persecution of pro-Palestinian staff and students— those already silenced by many universities. In short, she seeks to purge the university of voices and activities that she regards as illegitimate.

We think Segal also exhibits moral blindness. and fails to acknowledge that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people, currently and over time, provides a fertile context for anti-Israel sentiments.

In our view, her compassion appears to be reserved exclusively for those experiencing antisemitism— as defined above. We have seen no ovidence that she shows pity for the fear and pain of others — certainly not for the anguish of the people in Gaza experiencing genocide, ethnic cleansing, starvation. Is she blind to this increasingly recognised ‘moral emergency of our time’?

Saving schools?

The envoy’s proposed Key Actions for schools include working with appropriate authorities to

embed Holocaust and antisemitism education, with appropriate lesson plans, in national and state school curricula
provide guidance to government on antisemitism education for educators and public officials
provide recommendations to government on enhancing education about Jewish history, identity, culture and antisemitism in high school curricula ..

Segal has no expertise in curriculum and pedagogy or in the philosophies and practices of anti-racist education. Those with such expertise are unlikely to welcome her ‘lesson plans’, ‘guidance’ and curriculum ‘enhancement’. They are more likely to see her approach as counter to the best available programmes and practices and as unaware of the composition of current classrooms.

Many classrooms include students from all sorts of cultures, religions and circumstances — some very difficult. Under Segal’s racially hierarchical regime these students would be entitled to ask, ‘What about my family’s and community’s struggles with racism? What about our ‘history, identity, culture’? What about other experiences of genocide?’

Alternative and superior approaches are available and necessary—including critical racial literacy alongside anti-racist, decolonial methods. These recognise that racism may be experienced differently by different groups. But they do not prioritise one racially subjugated group over another or pit racially subjugated groups against each other. Rather they adopt ‘systemic, intersectional, strengths-based, and coordinated action’ as the National Anti-Racism Framework explains.

Jane Kenway is an elected Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, Australia, Emeritus Professor at Monash University and Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne. Her research expertise is in educational sociology.

Main image: Student encampment at Adelaide University – Kaurna Yerta 5 May 2024. Photo: Jack Desbiolles. There is no evidence to say that any of these patterns of censorship occurred during this encampment.

These are deeply disturbing patterns of censorship across Australian universities

To stifle growing pro-Palestinian activities on Australian campuses, university authorities are developing and applying disparate techniques of control. Consequently, the university as a place of free speech, political activism and the right to protest is under attack.

The Universities of Sydney, Melbourne and WA are particularly punitive. The intricate intrusiveness and hyper-vigilance of their techniques of control are well known and widely criticised.

All these techniques have been identified by members of Educational Researchers for Palestine — a group I belong to. Such patterns are evident in the views and material we have gathered from universities and from our own experiences, observations and communications with other staff and students. While the following techniques are not equally evident in all universities, various combinations are evident in many.

1. Control through double-speak

Universities claim to uphold free speech and academic freedom. But on matters related to Israel/Palestine they shut both down. They also claim to balance free speech with their antiracism agendas. But these agendas are selective. Antisemitism is their focus. Anti-Palestinian racism, including their own, is not. Anti-Palestinian racism involves ‘actions that silence, exclude, erase, stereotype, defame, or dehumanise Palestinians and their narratives.’

They say they balance free speech with ensuring a safe environment. But their main concern is the political backlash associated with purported complaints about the safety of Jewish students and staff. In contrast, the university itself creates an unsafe environment for Palestinian staff, students and their allies including their Jewish allies.

2. Control through distraction

By focusing on antisemitism, universities distract attention from anti-Palestinian racism on campus and from Israel’s dreadful treatment of the Palestinian people. This distraction involves endless debates about what constitutes antisemitism. And universities’ ambiguous definitions of antisemitism allow them flexibility in classifying hateful and threatening speech.

In February 2025, Universities Australia (UA) released its highly ambiguous ‘working definition of antisemitism’. This was endorsed by all 39 members. How individual universities will embed their endorsement is not yet clear but further distraction is guaranteed.

3. Spatial control

Restrictions are placed on the spaces where Palestinian supporters might gather to prepare banners and posters, distribute materials and hold events. Students are not allowed to announce events in classrooms or lecture theatres, to leave fliers on desks or posters on walls. These who don’t ‘belong’ to the university are prohibited from involvement in protests on university grounds and threatened with trespass.

4. Language and image control

The campus is to be cleansed of posters, fliers, flags, chalked messages. Almost any image, phrase or slogan may be deemed antisemitic. Hence, all images of Palestine or messages of Palestine advocacy or solidarity can be defined as contravening university rules.

5. Political control

Student and staff activities relating to Palestine are strongly discouraged — clubs, film screenings, speakers’ forums, petitioning, distributing leaflets, chalking— even fundraising. University approval can be sought but such approval is largely a delaying and censorship ploy involving microscopic bureaucratic hurdles.

Some academic staff are expected to become agents of the university’s political control in their classrooms. They must ensure that nothing is said or seen that is unrelated to their immediate teaching topic.

When linked to Palestine/Israel, certain research, teaching and learning are considered dangerous — justice and ethics, human rights, international law, settler colonialism, apartheid, imperialism and the history and geopolitics of the ‘middle east’. Those pursuing such ‘dangerous knowledge’ may feel the need to water-down their curriculum and research.

6. Technological surveillance

In some cases, if they are to use a university account staff and students must agree to being monitored. Whether they agree or not technology is used to monitor pro-Palestinian activities, to identify ‘ring leaders’ and participants. Pro-Palestinian activists may also have their technology use restricted thus making it difficult to share information. Certainly, over time, universities have increased their surveillance of all staff and students — usually with little or no follow up. However, their surveillance and follow up have intensified in response to pro-Palestinian activism.

7. Discipline and punishment

Students and staff are subjected to various forms. Their self-defence is time-consuming, costly and emotionally draining.

Peaceful events are often redefined as potentially threatening and violent. Hence security staff and police are used to ‘keep the peace’ and to identify and report ‘leaders’ and ‘troublemakers’. They have been used to shut down encampments and protests. At encampments they have not protected students from violent attacks by extreme right-wing groups. Their presence is implicitly threatening, and their behaviour is sometimes physically violent.

Undergraduate and graduate students have been ‘spoken to’, warned, suspended, fined and expelled. Staff have also been ‘spoken to’ and warned, had their teaching and other activities monitored and reported by pro-Israeli/Zionist students and other staff. They have had their research questioned and some have had their grants suspended.

8. Climate control

A climate of fear and distrust is created. It has a chilling effect on everyday university activities and relationships. Fear causes self-censorship. Events are relocated or re-badged.

Staff feel their opportunities for jobs, tenure, promotion and academic leave are at risk. Students feel at risk of suspension and expulsions. They often don’t know if their peers, lecturers or supervisors will support or report them. Palestinian, Muslim and Arab staff feel extra visible and vulnerable.

The result: universities of bad faith and ethical emptiness

They have allowed themselves to be intimidated by politicians and special interest groups. They have tried to bury discussion of an inexcusable tragedy involving genocide. They have sacrificed the notion that knowledge must be free and fearless — corrupting truth and undermining trust and collegiality. Timid and small minded, they implicitly encourage staff and students to be the same.

Were they not so ethically empty universities could have practised an ethic of care, courage and compassion in response to the ongoing horrors visited by Israel on Gaza and the West Bank. They could have developed this into a sector wide ethos. They could have responded to the desperate calls for help from Universities in Gaza. They could have explored, with staff and students, ways to help Gaza recover from the educational obliteration of scholasticide. They could have mobilised their knowledge and expertise to contribute to understandings of the issues and to consider how university members might help alleviate the Palestinian people’s terrible suffering.

Could have? Should have.