Amid Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism has been used to suppress academic freedom and freedom of expression on campuses worldwide. In Australia, this definition has had a chilling effect, particularly with regards to criticism of Israel’s human rights violations and war crimes. At the University of Melbourne, the highest-ranked institution of higher education in Oceania, the administration has embraced the IHRA definition and refused to condemn what legal experts have called a textbook case of genocide.
The adoption of the IHRA definition has led to attempts at censorship and silencing of those who speak out against Zionism on campus. Threats of lawsuits and accusations of anti-Semitism have intimidated student groups, restricting their political freedom. Palestinian and Muslim students, whose criticism of Zionism is often dismissed as anti-Semitism, face challenges to their expertise and experiences of racism. Both Palestinian and Jewish academics argue that the IHRA definition undermines the fight against racism and fails to address contemporary anti-racism scholarship or practice.
The adoption of the IHRA definition by five Australian universities, including the University of Melbourne, and the rejection by seven others, has sparked controversy and division. The definition’s mischaracterization of lived experiences and its potential for stifling critical discourse in the classroom have raised concerns among students and staff. The risks to students include disciplinary action and threats to their education. Academics in various disciplines fear being targeted and smeared with charges of anti-Semitism for teaching critically about political violence.
Despite these challenges, students and staff at the University of Melbourne and elsewhere have not remained silent on the Israeli war on Gaza. Vice-Chancellor Duncan Maskell’s statement, presenting Israel as the injured party defending itself against terrorism, sparked outrage. An open letter, signed by thousands of staff, students, and alumni, expressed grave concern about the misrepresentation of Israel’s actions and called for the university to rescind its adoption of the IHRA definition. The letter aimed to challenge censorship and defend academic freedom on campus.
Other groups on campus, such as the criminology discipline, also voiced their opposition to the vice-chancellor’s statement and the conflation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Trade unions, including the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), joined over 100 other unions in condemning Israel’s assault on Gaza. As Palestinian trade unions call for international workers to leverage their labor power to pressure Israel, there is an urgent need for higher education workers to take action beyond verbal condemnation.
In conclusion, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is seen as a hindrance to critical scholarship and action in denouncing Israel’s atrocities. Its use on Australian campuses is controversial, with concerns about its impact on academic freedom and freedom of expression. The adoption and rejection of the definition by universities have sparked division and debate among students and staff. Despite challenges, voices against the Israeli war on Gaza have not been silenced, with open letters and statements challenging the censorship imposed by the IHRA definition.
