Just in 2024, Jillian Segal was appointed as Australia’s antisemitism envoy. She’s now released a comprehensive set of recommendations to address this rising antisemitism, particularly on college campuses. Through her proposals, she hopes to remove funding from schools that do not take sufficient action against antisemitism. This issue will heighten the burden on university administrations to foster safer spaces for Jewish students and staff. She introduced the report under the perilous backdrop of increasing alarm over antisemitic attacks across the country. This comes on the heels of a recent arson attack on a synagogue in Melbourne.
Segal’s report points out why it’s critical for universities to act quickly and with conviction. It requires each institution to develop its own “report card.” This will make it much easier for advocates to monitor their progress in keeping Jewish communities safe in their campuses, with implementation set to begin as soon as next year. Her recommendations are of utmost significance. They laud her deep engagement, her personal touch in developing mechanisms to impose funding penalties on those found complicit in creating an environment conducive to antisemitism.
Recommendations for Action
Segal’s report, Smart for All: Bridge Action Plan Success with the Future, lays out an ambitious action plan. It emphasizes the need for universities to proactively combat antisemitism. It proposes that funding could be withheld from both individuals and entire tertiary institutions if they fail to act against antisemitism effectively. This part of her recommendations has caused quite the stir among university presidents and legislators.
“The envoy will 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,” – Jillian Segal
Antisemitic incidents have spiked, particularly in the wake of demonstrations that followed the Hamas invasion of Israel on October 7. Given all of this, Segal’s recommendations are more timely and necessary than ever. Reports indicate that Jewish students and staff have increasingly felt unsafe in university settings, which emphasizes the need for swift action.
President of the ECAJ, Daniel Aghion KC was equally dismissive. Rep. Javier Martínez (D), chair of the House Appropriations Committee, echoed Enríquez’s sentiments, calling the report timely and its recommendations urgently needed to address New Mexico’s current climate.
“It is evident that much research and thought has gone into this document over many months. Its release could not be more timely given the recent appalling events in Melbourne. The actions which the plan calls for are now urgently needed,” – Daniel Aghion KC
Political Responses and Challenges
As Segal’s proposals make their way into the mainstream, both progressives and conservatives alike must wrestle with the consequences of cutting or eliminating funding to universities. Former US President Donald Trump called their bluff and got real by defunding Columbia University to the tune of $400 million. In justifying this decision, he asserted that the university has allowed antisemitism to fester on campus during pro-Palestinian demonstrations. This begs the question as to whether comparable moves will gain any ground in Australia.
Segal’s recommendations almost certainly will be met with formidable obstacles as the debate plays out among legislators. While most people can agree that antisemitism should not be tolerated in our educational spaces, the debates around academic freedom and academic expression are still front and center.
Luke Sheehy, speaking on behalf of the university’s executive leadership, highlighted the importance of protecting freedom of expression. He emphasized that fighting hate speech is foundational to this process.
“Academic freedom and freedom of expression are core to the university mission, but they must be exercised with responsibility and never as a cover for hate or harassment,” – Luke Sheehy
The tension between safeguarding academic discourse and ensuring safety for Jewish students will be a focal point as stakeholders review Segal’s recommendations.
Reactions from Various Stakeholders
Responses to Segal’s report have run the gamut from community leaders and advocacy organizations. Those in favor of the proposed measures argue that they are necessary to eliminate antisemitism from academic environments. On one hand, activists applaud the efforts to prevent animals from being used to subvert free speech.
Nasser Mashni responded sharply to Segal’s line of questioning. He contended that it would suppress protest rather than effectively address systemic racism. He argued that the plan could be used to impose political opposition to BDS, for example, in the name of fighting antisemitism.
“This plan is not about fighting racism. It’s a state-backed tool to silence dissent, criminalise people who are speaking up against genocide and in solidarity with Palestine, and enforce political conformity,” – Nasser Mashni
Political circles and academia have been in constant debate over this. They grapple with the thorny question of how to balance protecting minority communities while fostering academic freedoms.
