Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ)
Australian universities will have to adopt their own definitions of racism as of next year. This includes antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism towards First Nations people.
It is to make complaints easier and clearer, and enhance safety and inclusion on campus. But according to the new rules, introduced by the federal government this week, universities will not have to adopt any specific definitions.
This comes as the royal commission on antisemitism hears from university leaders, students and staff about the difficulties universities have had responding adequately to antisemitism on campus in recent years.
On Wednesday, University of Sydney vice chancellor Mark Scott said
When I spoke to members and leaders of the Jewish community, they felt quite strongly that a definition of antisemitism was important and significant and we needed some level of clarity to know what we were talking about, although no definition is complete or perfect in every circumstance.
It also follows a May 2026 review which found “no [Australian university had] met the requirements for adopting a definition of antisemitism”.
What definitions do we have?
Under the new requirements, universities can draft their own definitions. But it is more likely they will draw on existing definitions – each with their own advantages and disadvantages.
Peak body Universities Australia drafted a definition last year that has already been endorsed by Australian universities. There is also the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition supported by many Jewish organisations and adopted by some universities.
In addition to those two definitions, there is the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism and the Nexus Document. Both were drafted by experts in antisemitism and Jewish studies.
All of these definitions have been criticised. Why is it so complex to agree on a single definition?
What are the key points of contention?
Some academics and human rights organisations argue the Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and the Universities Australia definitions conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism and stifle free speech about the rights of Palestinians.
Critics of the Jerusalem Declaration say it leaves loopholes for coded antisemitic speech and allows too much harmful anti-Zionist speech. For others, the declaration does not go far enough in separating anti-Zionism from antisemitism.
For a definition to be useful and workable it also needs to provide clarity to those using it.
Supporters of other definitions argue they provide greater clarity than the Holocaust Remembrance Alliance that defines antisemitism in somewhat vague terms as a “certain perception of Jews that may be expressed as hatred towards Jews”. The Jerusalem Declaration, for example, describes antisemitism as
discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).
The Universities Australia definition takes a similar approach and defines antisemitism as conduct that
impedes Jews’ ability to participate as equals in educational, political, religious, cultural, economic or social life.
Why is it so hard to agree?
These criticisms show how difficult agreeing on a definition can be.
All definitions agree on core aspects of what constitutes antisemitism, such as holding all Jews responsible for the actions of the state of Israel or using harmful antisemitic tropes and stereotypes that describe Jews as “sinister”, “bloodthirsty”, and “conspiring against others”. This includes using such stereotypes in criticism of Israel.
However, the definitions take different perspectives on when anti-Zionism turns into antisemitism. For example, the Holocaust Remembrance Alliance suggests it may be antisemitic, in light of the overall context, to deny
Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
However, the Jerusalem Declaration suggests it is not per se antisemitic to accuse Israel of racism as long as it is evidence-based.
More broadly, these disagreements also reflect debates within the Jewish community about the relationship between Zionism and Jewish identity. While some Jews identify as non-Zionist or anti-Zionist, many Australian Jews maintain that Zionism remains an important part of their identity.
Ideally, definitions provide space for this pluralism but also recognise that certain criticisms of Zionism can rely on harmful stereotypes and incite hatred of Jewish people.
Can we have more than one definition?
So, universities may end up adopting different definitions and this is not necessarily a problem. It allows universities to tailor definitions to their specific culture.
Even scholars of antisemitism do not all agree on a specific definition. They acknowledge definitions need to be tailored to their specific purpose and might change over time.
For example, it can be helpful to have one definition for antisemitism to collect data on hate incidents and another to analyse the history of Jews in medieval Europe.
What do unis need to do now?
Definitions are most useful when they are fit for their specific purpose. For universities, this means they should provide a common language while allowing space for nuance and the consideration of context.
When adopting a definition, universities must be mindful of internal Jewish pluralism and consult broadly with different community representatives.
When drafting these definitions, universities also need to balance the need to protect students and staff from antisemitism with their obligations to uphold free speech and academic freedom.
Any definition must provide space for evidence-based arguments and reasonable critique, even if uncomfortable, as long as debates do not exclude, stigmatise or marginalise students or staff because of their identities.
We still need more
But a definition alone cannot create an environment in which critical and respectful debate can flourish and where staff and students feel safe.
Staff and students need to learn about different historical and contemporary forms of racism, such as antisemitism, so they can recognise and avoid it.
Definitions are also just one tool in the fight against antisemitism and other forms of racism.
This is why the government also requires universities to create an environment that fosters understanding of the systemic and institutional dimensions of racism and antisemitism.
Fighting antisemitism and racism requires broader structural and cultural changes – not just in universities but in the whole of our society.
Mareike Riedel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/15/why-is-it-so-hard-for-unis-to-agree-on-a-definition-of-antisemitism/