Student pro-Palestinian protesters are “self-censoring” in the wake of Universities Australia’s new definition of antisemitism, according to Staff for Palestine activists.

Paddy Gibson, a historian at the Jumbunna Institute at UTS and Staff for Palestine organiser, told Central News: “I already know people who are self-censoring as a result of this definition.

“I’ve heard from both staff and students that they’re changing what they say and how they express things publicly. There’s certainly been students who have expressed concerns about whether you can even attend protests for Palestine anymore as a result of this new definition.”

Ahead of a planned protest tomorrow, Central News reached out to the Vice-Chancellor’s office for further clarification about the UA definition’s impacts on freedom of speech on the UTS campus and whether students chanting ‘from the river to sea’ would contravene the new definition but received no response.

However, in a letter seen by Central News and sent to to Staff for Palestine two weeks ago, Vice-Chancellor Andrew Parfitt seemed to indicate no different actions are likely to be taken until further processes have been enacted.

The communication that we received from the university was also clear that there is some process, that’s going to be required, before the definition comes into force.

“Universities Australia (UA) will provide this definition to Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and request that it works with the Higher Education Standards Panel to best determine the positioning of the definition within the Higher Education Standards Framework,” he wrote. “This should include consideration of how the working definition interacts with university responsibilities to uphold and protect academic freedom and freedom of speech.”

The letter came in response to a joint submission by Staff for Palestine along with the UTS Student’s Association to Parfitt last month expressing concern about the new definition of antisemitism, in particular, the equation of opposition to the state of Israel and the ideology of Zionism with antisemitism.

The joint letter said: “While we stand firmly against antisemitism in all forms, the current definition is a direct threat to academic freedom, the principles of open debate, and intellectual inquiry.”

Parfitt’s response reassured staff and students that there was no intention to stifle criticism of Israel.

Andrew Parfitt’s response to Staff for Palestine and UTS Students Association Joint Letter (supplied).

Regarding Parfitt’s letter, Gibson said: “The communication that we received from the university was also clear that there is some process, that’s going to be required, before the definition comes into force.”

But Gibson made it clear he thought “the purpose of this definition, is to try to scare people and intimidate people into not criticising Israel and not criticising Zionism”.

It comes as UTS prepares for a National Day of Action protest tomorrow on the alumni green. The protest will call for UTS to cut ties with the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion), weapons companies and to “end repression” on campus.

Honorary Professor Peter Slezak, a Jewish philosophy academic will be at the protest to speak against the definition.

“We do only have one way of actually protecting our rights to academic freedom and to the right to actually advocate for Palestine, and that’s by continuing to do it and doing it in stronger numbers and with a stronger collective voice,” said Gibson.

In past rallies, students have been prevented from handing out leaflets with the word “genocide” on them. This decision was quickly reversed and in keeping with the UTS policy on academic freedom and freedom of speech, students have subsequently been permitted to hand out leaflets containing the word “genocide”.

In an earlier statement by Parfitt to Central News that the new definition has been crafted to ensure academic freedom of speech and freedom of expression are protected, adding the adoption of this new definition was important for ensuring community safety.

“This working definition is an important step, and one that reinforces our commitment to ensuring the safety of Jewish students, staff and community, while also helping to educate our staff, students and visitors,” he said in the statement.

The controversial UA definition states: “Criticism of the policies and practices of the Israeli government or state is not in and of itself antisemitic. However, criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when… it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel…

“For most, but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity. Substituting the word “Zionist’’ for ‘’Jew’’ does not eliminate the possibility of speech being antisemitic.”

The Jewish Council of Australia has opposed the definition claiming it “threatens academic freedom, will have a chilling effect on legitimate criticism of Israel, and risks institutionalising anti-Palestinian racism”.

Human rights lawyer Sarah Schwartz, the executive officer of the Jewish Council of Australia, said the definition’s contention that Zionism is an essential aspect of Judaism for most Australian Jews was misleading.

“As a political ideology, Zionism should be subject to debate, not insulated from critique,” she added. “By conflating Jewish identities with the state of Israel and the political ideology of Zionism, this definition risks increasing antisemitism by suggesting that all Jews support the state of Israel, and can be held responsible for Israel’s egregious human rights abuses.”

Last year, the International Court of Justice found Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory was in violation of international law, including the prohibition of apartheid and racial segregation.

International law expert Sara Dehm, a senior lecturer at UTS, said adoption of the new UA definition could impact both students and staff.

“There is a real risk that teaching and discussing this mainstream international law position could now potentially be seen as antisemitic,” Dehm said.

“The new UA working ‘definition’ of antisemitism is deeply concerning and [may] have serious ramifications for academic freedom and university culture at UTS and beyond.

“There is a real concern that the UA ‘definition’ will lead to increased misconduct complaints against university students, researchers and staff who support equality and justice in Palestine/Israel “from the river to the sea”, or who question the racial foundations of the State of Israel.” 

UA said it agreed to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Join Committee on Human Rights, which included “adopting a clear definition of antisemitism that aligns closely with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition”.

The IHRA definition has been condemned by several human rights groups. In a letter to the United Nations, 104 civil societies including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, urged the UN not to adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.

The letter claims “the IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and…sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism”.

Main image by Ned Stevens.