Bold opening: Balancing academic freedom with steps to curb antisemitism isn’t just policy talk—it shapes who feels safe to learn, speak, and grow on campus. And this is the part most people miss: the right approach protects Jewish students and staff while preserving robust debate for everyone.
Australian universities are heading into a new academic year amid heated conversations about racism and antisemitism. Critics argue they have not adequately safeguarded either freedom of expression or the safety and wellbeing of Jewish communities, while others contend that meaningful protections threaten open inquiry.
A recent Australian Human Rights Commission study highlighted a troubling reality: over 90% of religious Jewish students and staff report experiencing racism at university, with similarly high figures among secular Jewish, Middle Eastern, Indigenous, and Asian students. The core challenge universities face is clear: how to foster respectful learning environments while still encouraging engagement with challenging ideas.
Academic freedom covers speech and work tied to teaching, study, or research, while freedom of speech generally applies to activities on university grounds or connected to the institution, but not necessarily to teaching, study, or research processes. Australia’s framework requires universities to uphold both freedoms and to have policies that support them. Enterprise agreements commonly include explicit academic freedom provisions.
A practical backbone for many institutions is the voluntary Model Code on academic freedom and freedom of speech, created in 2019 by former High Court Chief Justice Robert French at the government’s request. It aims to safeguard lawful speech and academic freedom, while permitting appropriate restrictions.
New accountability in 2026: universities will be graded on how effectively they regulate antisemitic speech. Report cards, ranging from A to D, will appraise policies, complaints processes, and antisemitism awareness. Former Vice-Chancellor Greg Craven leads the assessment effort, with the first round of results due in May. Universities will have a chance to respond and improve after feedback.
What steps can universities take when antisemitic speech arises in classes or on campus?
- Disciplinary action for unlawful speech (incitement to violence or hatred toward protected groups, including race, religion, or nationality; displaying prohibited symbols or performing Nazi salutes).
- Action against speech that disrupts teaching and research or undermines wellbeing (derogatory slurs in classrooms, in-class protests, or disruptive chants near libraries and lecture halls).
- Protection against threatening, humiliating, or intimidating behavior (distinct from merely offensive remarks).
These distinctions can be nuanced, often requiring detailed legal guidance. The Model Code serves as a framework to protect safety while upholding freedom of speech and academic freedom.
Looking ahead to 2026, universities must demonstrate tangible steps to regulate antisemitic speech without infringing on core academic freedoms. For example, students should be able to debate Israel and the Gaza conflict in an international law class without it becoming an attack on academic freedom. Conversely, bringing such debates into a biology lecture in a way that disrupts teaching could fall outside the realm of academic freedom and into permissible disciplinary territory.
Outside classroom walls, the same questions apply. If derogatory slurs, personal attacks, or loud, aggressive conduct occur in corridors or common areas, institutions must assess whether these actions disrupt learning or threaten wellbeing. The university can restrict visiting speakers if their commentary is unlawful, undermines wellbeing, or drags scholarly standards below the institution’s character. Protests and demonstrations on campus likewise require safeguards to avoid disrupting teaching and research while still honoring the right to expression.
In short, universities face a careful balancing act. The goal is to maintain spaces for vigorous, diverse debate, while ensuring that all students and staff feel safe to study, teach, and participate in these conversations.
