Sandstone barons had power to act
University leaders had the powers to act against campus antisemitism but too often chose not to use them.
In their evidence to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion last week, we heard how the ruling barons at our sandstone universities lack understanding of their basic governance powers and responsibilities to discourage racist antisemitic behaviour within their academic castles.
University of Melbourne interim vice-chancellor Glyn Davis informed us that his university aimed at “every point” to end the campus encampment protests without violence. But he suggested the university’s hands were tied. “The university does not have a police service, doesn’t have its own enforcement agency. Security guards who work at the university are not empowered to move people on. They’re certainly not empowered to arrest people who are breaking the law, and only the Victorian police can decide that something is trespass and act on it, not the university,” he said.
He was correct to say that the university doesn’t have a police service. But, nevertheless, Victoria Police may allocate resources upon request by arrangement with the university and must attend at serious crimes, such as rape or bodily harm. Moreover, a university is the owner occupier of its campus. It has powers on its premises to ensure compliance with its policies and codes. Security working on site, as used by many universities, have the responsibilities to implement compliance, to the extent of the powers extended to them by the university.
Private security can have the same powers of arrest of any private citizen under Crimes Acts, the same as in a shopping centre. If security finds a person committing an offence such as vandalism or trespass, it has arrest powers to the extent allowed by the university. That power exists even if a university doesn’t support a guard acting in such a manner.
Concerning actions that are not initially offences, a person who had conditional permission to be on campus can later find it revoked automatically on account of their subsequent conduct, their offensive behaviour, against conditions on which permission was granted. When asked to leave the premises, failure to comply within a reasonable timeframe constitutes a trespass offence.
The bottom line here is clear: Acting on behalf of the university, security could have required troublemakers to “move on” for offending against the university’s rules and policies. Compliance with policies and codes were probably not enforced because of fear of the optics: shrieking girls pulled away by guards while boys assault security. All on repeat on video. Escalation. Vice-chancellors are fearful of social media, lawsuits and criticism.
Vice-chancellor Mark Scott of Sydney University admitted fear of encampment protesters. He asserted that his university’s guiding priority was de-escalation, driven by concern about preventing violence. He acknowledged that the encampment on campus had a real “psychosocial impact” on most Jewish staff and students, many of whom found its constant presence distressing, particularly chants such as “from the river to the sea” and “globalise the intifada”, which he accepted could be antisemitic in its contextual reality. He admitted that the university deprioritised impacted staff and students and had let them down. He offered them therapy in the form of public recognition of his error. “Yes, I now see you” (sad face).
Scott was warned by a Jewish student body that Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT) had likely joined the university encampment. HuT is widely known for praising and celebrating attacks against Israel and against Jews more widely. They have provide the “mood music” for violence. Scott said, however, he was advised against acting by the police to find or remove HuT members from his grounds. Rather than accepting the burden of autonomous university judgement, he looked away. HuT was later banned here as a designated hate group.
Scott asserted that the University of Sydney, under the NSW Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901, lacks power to remove encampments, protesters or any persons from its campus. But that Act confirms the legal right of the university to remove people from its campus, including for offensive conduct. The University Campus Access Policy also allows it to remove offenders from campus.
In May 2024, the University Chancellors Council considered a letter from the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism complaining about vice-chancellors’ inaction on campus antisemitism. The UCC said, “We are confident that the management of our university sector has policies, procedures and sanctions in place.” More than two years later, it’s apparent that the chancellors’ communication missed the point.
The real problem is that most sandstone barons do not wish to see, hear, or utter anything about non-implementation of their university policies against extremism, group think infringements against academic freedom, or campus antisemitism that might be fraught, embarrassing or tough. The pattern of leadership failures discussed at the Royal Commission are symptomatic of deeper academic malaise.
We must hope that an enlightened government, in hand with the next generation of academics and students, might soon bring renewed academic vigour, courage and integrity to academic life.
Anthony Bergin is the former deputy director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and for 20 years lectured in political science at the Australian Defence Force Academy, University of NSW.