Sydney University’s “Good Job” claim under fire amid lawsuit

The University of Sydney has ignited fresh controversy after its senior leadership declared it ‘did a good job’ in managing the country’s longest-running pro-Palestine encampment.

This assertion stands in stark contrast to mounting criticism, a newly launched class action lawsuit, and findings from an independent review, all alleging a failure to protect Jewish students and staff.

Speaking before a New South Wales Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism today, Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor Annamarie Jagose staunchly defended the university’s approach to the months-long encampment, which occupied campus lawns between April and June 2024. ‘We think we did a good job in peacefully resolving the longest-running encampment in Australia,’ she stated. Jagose emphasised that the university’s primary goal was de-escalation, crediting staff with navigating an extremely complex environment while striving to preserve both student safety and protest rights.

 

However, Jagose’s self-congratulatory comments drew immediate and widespread backlash from community leaders. They also came amidst the ongoing class action lawsuit that had been launched in the Federal Court. The suit targets not only the University of Sydney but also two of its academics, Dr Nick Riemer and Professor John Keane, whose actions and vocal support of Palestine are central to allegations of a hostile environment for Jewish students and staff.

The class action, spearheaded by law firm Levitt Robinson, directly challenges the university’s ‘good job’ narrative. It alleges that the University of Sydney failed in its duty of care and breached racial discrimination and work health and safety legislation by not adequately protecting Jewish students and staff from harassment and unsafe learning conditions. Plaintiffs claim this environment emerged in the wake of the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023. While no specific lead plaintiff is named, as the suit is a class action, the firm has been actively recruiting students and academics to participate.

Central to the lawsuit’s allegations are the specific actions of Dr Nick Riemer, who has been an outspoken supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement for decades, and Professor John Keane, a politics professor. Riemer has faced accusations of creating a divisive atmosphere. For instance, the day after the 7 October attacks, Riemer reportedly argued that condemning the ‘Palestinian resistance’ would unjustly imply their cause is ‘unjust’.

Professor Keane has drawn criticism for allegedly sharing an image of the Hamas flag on X (formerly Twitter) on 7 October 2023 and has also been accused of doxxing for allegedly publishing an internal email revealing personal information about Jewish academics. Professor Riemer has publicly denounced the lawsuit as a ‘nonsensical attempt to silence us and other Palestine advocates from speaking out against the obscenity of Israel’s crimes’.

The university has not issued specific statements regarding the academics’ inclusion in the lawsuit but has broadly asserted its zero tolerance for any form of racism or hate speech.

The lawsuit further alleges the university’s vicarious liability for reported breaches of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA). This directly contradicts the notion of a ‘good job’, aligning instead with a significant admission made by Vice-Chancellor Mark Scott in September 2024 to a parliamentary inquiry, where he conceded that the university had failed Jewish students and staff in adequately addressing antisemitism.

The legal team supporting the complainants includes prominent figures such as former Federal Court judge Ron Merkel and barrister Adam Butt, who previously succeeded in a similar case arguing a breach of the RDA against Brighton Secondary College’s leadership for failing to protect students from antisemitic bullying.

At the inquiry hearing today, Professor Jagose faced questions regarding the university’s delayed action in dismantling the encampment, despite guidance from SafeWork NSW indicating its authority to intervene earlier. She highlighted the university’s ongoing coordination with police and the engagement of Arabic language specialists after reports surfaced that Hezbollah and Taliban flags had been displayed at the protest site. Jagose dismissed some of these claims as media-driven misinformation and insisted the administration remained engaged with law enforcement throughout the encampment’s duration.

The university’s claim of a ‘good job’ was further challenged by the findings of the Hodgkinson External Review, an independent report commissioned in the aftermath of the protest. Published in November 2024, the review found that the encampment generated numerous complaints and created an environment that left many students and staff feeling unsafe, particularly Jewish members of the university community.

The report explicitly noted that individuals affiliated with external organisations, including Hizb ut-Tahrir, were able to enter the protest site without restriction. Hizb ut-Tahrir is an international pan-Islamist organisation that advocates for a global caliphate and has been widely condemned for its antisemitic rhetoric and rejection of democratic values, leading to its proscription as a terrorist organisation in countries such as the United Kingdom and Germany. The Hodgkinson report concluded starkly that ‘The University had little detailed knowledge of what activities were going on at any particular time’, directly undercutting any claim of effective management.

The University’s Vice-Principal Kirsten Andrews informed the committee that the university had accepted all 15 recommendations from the Hodgkinson report and was in the process of fully implementing them. This recognition, that a comprehensive review and subsequent reforms were necessary, implicitly acknowledges that the ‘good job’ was perhaps not as complete as initially claimed.
Andrews conceded that the university ‘didn’t get everything right’, which she stated was the very reason the independent review had been initiated. In response to the broader criticism, a university spokesperson had earlier noted that an external review of the institution’s policies was underway, aiming to improve institutional responses to incidents of racial discrimination and harassment on campus.

Recent campus policy changes, including a new civility rule, require speakers to explain politically charged terms. A key example is the phrase ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’, which many interpret as a call to eliminate Israel, while some activists claim it is an appeal for equal rights in a single state.

Additionally, enhanced security protocols and limitations on where protests may occur have been introduced. Labor MLC Stephen Lawrence challenged whether these policies undermine free speech, calling them substantial incursions that warrant greater scrutiny. Jagose defended the changes, asserting their necessity to ensure students can attend class and move about campus without fear of harassment or disruption, while still allowing for protest and activism.

The University of Sydney was one of three major institutions to appear at today’s hearing, alongside the University of New South Wales and the University of Technology Sydney. All three reported similar efforts to strengthen campus security, update anti-discrimination policies, and improve support systems for students of all backgrounds.

NSW Shooters MLC and inquiry chair Robert Borsak expressed scepticism that existing policies at the time of the 7 October attacks were adequate. He argued they had clearly failed to meet the moment and now required a serious overhaul, a sentiment that challenges the very premise of the University of Sydney’s ‘good job’ claim.  He stated: “These policies were clearly not adequate on October 7. Universities say they were well prepared, but the evidence doesn’t reflect that. We need a deeper look.”

As protests over the war in Gaza continue across Australia and legal actions against institutions begin to surface, the fallout from the events of the past year appears far from over. The class action lawsuit, if it proceeds to trial, could set significant precedents.

The NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism continues its hearings and is expected to deliver a report in the coming months, adding further pressure on universities to balance freedom of expression with the safety and well-being of their diverse communities.