Jewish students at UK and Australian universities describe antisemitism as “relentless,” with some reporting harassment, hate speech, and institutional failures to address incidents, as universities face mounting pressure to implement clearer policies and transparent reporting systems.
Relentless Abuse and Institutional Responses
Incidents like Oliver’s are not isolated. At Australian National University, student Liat faced similar abuse, with protesters calling her a baby killer and genocide supporter
following Israel’s actions in Gaza. Meanwhile, University of Melbourne professor Steven Prawer’s office was taken over by protesters, some of them masked, due to his research partnership with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Glyn Davis, Melbourne University interim vice chancellor, told the royal commission that management felt “deep despair” about antisemitic incidents occurring on campus.
Universities in both countries are now under pressure to adopt formal anti-racism standards. The federal government announced universities will be required to adopt definitions on antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism towards Aboriginal people from next year, alongside ensuring transparent complaints processes.
This follows a 2026 Human Rights Commission report highlighting that about 80% of surveyed Jewish students and staff said they experienced racism at university, alongside similar reports from Indigenous, Chinese, African and Middle Eastern students and staff.
Policy Shifts and Unanswered Questions
Research also underscores the need for more than one-off training sessions. Repeated workshops, practical scenarios, and student involvement in policy design are seen as more effective. Yet, many students remain hesitant to report discrimination, fearing their concerns will not be believed or nothing will change. Oliver’s experience at Cardiff University reflects this distrust, as he had felt they had been often swept under the rug
by the university.
The Road Ahead: Balancing Free Speech and Safety
Universities face a delicate balancing act: protecting both freedom of expression and the safety of students and staff. Legal and policy experts argue these goals are compatible. Clear rules that distinguish protected speech from harassment, intimidation and threats can help support open debate, while also protecting people from harmful behaviour. However, the absence of a universal standard leaves room for conflicting interpretations. As the federal government’s policy takes effect, the effectiveness of these measures remains uncertain.
For Jewish students like Oliver, the question lingers: will institutional promises translate into tangible change? I’ve been at house parties where, when someone’s found out I’m Jewish they started calling me Netanyahu behind my back,
he said. Like you found out my religion and you’ve decided I’m a bad person.
The path forward hinges on whether universities can move beyond rhetoric to create environments where students feel safe, valued, and heard.
