Past: USyd’s Legacy of Political Activism
Students have always been, and will always be, at the heart of change. Activism begins in a classroom, in a lecture hall, and on the lawns in front of the quadrangle. It is not a new phenomenon, not a symptom of ‘wokeism,’ but a fact that people, given the resources, understanding, and knowledge, will want to do better for the world that they live in. They will, as they always have, speak out against systems that do nothing for them, and demand action.
It is a universal truth, one that has been passed down generationally, in our history books and our spoken stories. Students have always been defiant, fierce, and unwavering in the faces of institutions and figures who deny them their rights, who tell them that they ask for too much. Education, knowledge, and the institution that harbour them have never been, and can never be, apolitical. To pretend otherwise is to be dishonest, cowardly, and willfully ignorant.
There is a reason that students, universities, and books are the first to be silenced, burned, or shot down when society turns towards fascism. Students and teachers were massacred at Dhaka University, Bangladesh in 1971, during the Liberation War, and Nazi students-groups carried out public burnings of “un-German” books. Knowledge is a powerful thing, and in the wrong hands it is dangerous. But in the right hands, it invites change. It allows progress.
At the heart of Australian student politics has always been the University of Sydney (USyd). Aside from its superficial attractions, the jacaranda trees and Hogwarts-aligned architecture, USyd has held a generational legacy of sparking real left-wing change in our society, beyond the bounds of our campus. Even the paper you are reading today is a testament of the activism of USyd students which has persisted, and continues to persist, from generations before us, from kids, much like ourselves, who wanted to see change towards a better world. Here we are, generations later, fighting for our right to have our voices be heard, once again; as is our right, as is our legacy.
1965. A collective of young, USyd activists, led by Charles Perkins, took to the road on a 15-day journey through regional New South Wales, protesting against the living conditions and racism that was faced by the Aboriginal people in NSW country towns. The Freedom Rides were nothing short of defining and revolutionary for our Australian society, a true expression of bravery in the face of injustice. The ride was successful, and gained mass media attention; people began to talk, debate, and challenge their own beliefs.
Professor Ann Curthoys, a prominent USyd student activist at the time of the Freedoms Rides, describes the student life of the ‘60s and the ‘70s as “very focused around associations.” Her diaries detail the Freedom Rides, and she speaks like us: dejected by the state of our society, hopeful that we can change it to be better.
1968. Crowds of USyd students sit on the front lawns of the iconic Quadrangle, protesting the war in Vietnam. Students “barricaded themselves into offices and disrupted lectures”, occupying university spaces and violating social cohesion to solidify their protest. The Vietnam protests echo the 2024 pro-Palestine protests and the Gaza Solidarity Encampment as they occupied the very same Quadrangle lawns and marched into the Vice Chancellor’s office. Campuses in the 70s were renowned as “breeding grounds” for social protest movements, particularly the anti-War movement. The CAP has now killed a long history of campus activism as USyd represses historic mechanisms for change by declaring protest and encampments “unacceptable activities”.
With anti-intellectualism and censorship rampant, we need to consider our past, the lessons we have learnt, and remember to not allow the same violence take root, once again, and fester. Heed the warning signs, and remember your legacy.
Present: The Repression of the CAP
Following in the footsteps of USyd’s legacy of activist history and culture, the USyd Gaza Encampment was established in May 2024. The left-wing student body came together to hold a mass protest against the ties USyd has to weapons companies. Many of these investments are directly linked to providing materials and weaponry to Israel, making the university complicit in the genocide in Palestine.
In light of the shut down of the Gaza Encampment, USyd’s management implemented the Campus Access Policy (CAP). The policy was introduced to students and staff in a benevolent email, pushing that the aim was to balance “freedom of speech” and “academic freedom” with the safety of the community. The email introduced what this would supposedly mean for protestors.
In the email it was stated, “We support the right to protest and, as for demonstrations on public land throughout New South Wales, we now require 72 hours notice to ensure we’ve got the right resources in place so that demonstrations can proceed in a way that’s safe for both protesters and other members of our community.”
With this, it is notable that the CAP was an implementation of repression and censorship, disguised as a “safety” policy. The truth is, the University doesn’t care about student safety. The University cares about its reputation amongst right-wing media outlets and corporations.
During the Encampment, the news of a large protest was covered by major news outlets such as ABC, Channel 7, and Sky News. With many encampments forming internationally, there was a widespread right-wing narrative that these were violent and compromising public safety. The implementation of the CAP was a direct response to mass media pressures across the globe.
There have been a few notable instances where the CAP has been seen in practice. It began with the repression of students, namely student activists. After the introduction of the new repressive policies, the USyd Autonomous Collective Against Racism (ACAR) held a bake sale on Eastern Avenue to raise money for a mutual aid cause. This type of stall has rarely been an issue, however, the collective were asked to move their set-up away from Eastern Avenue as they hadn’t “booked” the spot (the pavement tile). The reason was due to the non-compliance of the CAP. The question that stumbled the security guard (in his underfunded training) was whether a religious stall nearby, with contentious and antagonistic questions on chalkboards, had received permission. He replied “probably” and refused to check with the hosts of the stall.
This increased into an umbrella of surveillance, with many students experiencing being followed by campus security on walkie talkies, and others seeing their posters being ripped off the boards down Eastern Avenue (both political and non-political). It has continually intensified since the introduction of the policy.
On the 1st November 2024, a Channel 7 crew arrived on campus to interview a few students regarding the issue of sexual violence on campus. Once they arrived, USyd security advised them that they were unable to be there unless they had received permission, as per the CAP procedure. An approximately ten minute phone call between security and management ensued, whilst the crew and the interviewees waited for the green light to begin filming. To silence students on campus from putting up a mere poster is repressive in and of itself, but the escalation of using University policy as a policing mechanism for external parties is a worrying action for increased power inequalities.
The University of Sydney is technically both a public institution and a private institution. This type of paradox is where the lines between policy and law become blurred. The university is a public institution for people to attend, meaning that it has its own policies that should align with the law, protections, and human rights. However, as a private institution, there is a blanket covering up the self-policing that truly goes on. The Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 (NSW) provides the university with the means to detain members of the public, journalists, and anyone else who “breaches” the policy. This becomes an issue where, not only are students being silenced, but university security also becomes a power that is legally allowed to police who is on campus.
Following safety concerns and complaints from Jewish staff and students in July 2024, USyd Senate appointed barrister Bruce Hodgkinson to direct an external review of the university’s policies. In November 2024, University management sent out an email and released a statement regarding the new “civility rule” recommended by the Hodgkinson External Review Report. The university then went on to agree to the Hodgkinson Report “in principle”, namely specifically recommendations 3, 4 and 15.
3. The University prohibit any student from addressing those present in a lecture, seminar or tutorial prior to the commencement of the lecture, seminar or tutorial on any subject matter. A breach of the prohibition may be considered misconduct.
4. The University should hold Organisations responsible if posters identifying them or an event which they are involved in are put up on campus in breach of the Advertising on Campus Policy. That the University develop a range of sanctions including the withholding of funding to an Organisation which can be imposed on an Organisation found to be in breach of University policy. Where an Organisation is repeatedly acting in breach of University policy, consideration should be given to precluding its office and position holders (or some of them) from being eligible to hold an office in that or any other Organisation receiving University funding.
15. That attaching banners to the footbridges be prohibited.
Multiple human rights groups, such as the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) and Amnesty International, have condemned the report, and expressed concern on the repressing nature of the CAP and the Hodgkinson Report’s recommendations. We must pull back the curtain on the “safety” propaganda and see these new policies as what they truly are: a tool to repress students, silence them and crush all forms of dissent. It equips the University with a “get out of jail free” card to put forth any bias they have against marginalised groups of people.
These policies are used as a way to redirect anger towards the people fighting the issues, rather than people condemning the University for having unethical ties to weapons companies and genocidal apologists. What we’ve seen over the past few years is the fabrication of a narrative that student fees are being wasted on protests and actions to hold our university to account. This has sparked anger towards activists, rather than the major ethical issues at hand. Student activists have had a history of fighting for the amenities that we have now. Student Services and Amenities Fees (SSAF) have funded activists for decades, and have directly manifested as the material things we have on campus in the present day. Activism and material amenities are not mutually exclusive. This narrative completely undermines the decades of work that activists have put in to achieve these amenities – such as the Food Hub and free period products. These things were not a parallel issue to what student activists have been fighting for, but are rather inherently stitched together.
We have seen reporters write for Honi many times about the history of activism, with many asking “what happened to radicalism?”. For a long time, we have speculated that it’s to do with student fees, working hours, housing issues and more. And in many instances, this may well be the case. After the implementation of the CAP, we must radicalise ourselves once more. We must fight back to prevent what is coming for us at a rapid pace.
Future: Dark Path to Dystopian Societies
As the CAP solidifies prohibition of any meaningful activism and protest, what is descending upon us is the slow creep of democratic backsliding. To label basic behaviour pertaining to freedom of expression (speaking before lectures, posting flyers around campus) as “misconduct” and to invoke the rhetoric of criminalisation for peaceful encampments lends credence to false narratives where activism must be curtailed in the interests of “safety”.
The Hodgkinson Report stipulates that “…sit-ins and protests in buildings and classrooms are out of step with contemporary…safety standards and our obligations to maintain psychosocial safety on campus”. This concern surrounding “safety” is entirely fabricated in terms of legitimate concerns for students —if it were legitimate, the “psychosocial safety” of the Solidarity Encampment students, many of whom were students deeply personally affected by the genocide in Palestine, would be seriously responded to.
Instead, in a post-CAP world, “safety” can unilaterally and explicitly be constructed simply as support of the status quo or protection of the University as a corporate brand. Anything which seriously obstructs the University’s ties with Israel or support of the Palestinian genocide ultimately obstructs their capacity to ensure “psychosocial safety”, which they functionally equate to the smooth operation of USyd as a neoliberal profit-making machine.
It is also the CAP’s specific framing of protest as a safety issue that will lend credence to any police violence against pro-Palestinian student protestors. Before the CAP, Mark Scott had allegedly refused to call police to break up the Gaza Solidarity Encampment. This was partially due to concerns about media coverage, given management was unable to pinpoint a specific university rule which prohibited this form of protest and thus found it difficult to police. However, with the introduction of the CAP, there now exists an explicit mechanism for “unacceptable activities” (including “demonstrations without notice” and “camping”) to enforce gradually escalating forms of repression and potential violence. Given that Western Sydney University, even without a CAP of their own, felt emboldened to set five police officers upon less than a handful of pro-Palestine protesters, the capacity for USyd to respond similarly is called into question —particularly given the increased security presence on campus.
The CAP does not just function as a horrifically repressive gag order on free speech and activism, it is also the final nail in the coffin for the platonic ideal of the ‘university’ as a place of critical thinking, discussion, and debate. Dr Nick Reimer, USyd senior lecturer in English and Linguistics, in an email to Belinda Hutchinson (USyd Chancellor in July 2024), viciously lambasted the CAP as “vitiating one of the university’s most important social functions: its status as a place where…a climate of intellectual freedom allows the emergence of new ideas”.
Additionally, the Hodgkinson Report’s New Civility Rule suggests “each person utilising a word or phrase is responsible…to identify to the audience the context in which it is used”. This unnatural and excessively strict language policing fundamentally weakens robust discussion on any contentious social or political issues; this is ideologically inconsistent with the University’s alleged commitments in their Charter of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom. This dual approach, of simultaneous virtue-signalling whilst exercising severe repression, is sinister and carefully calculated— Mark Scott still wants to tell mainstream media and prospective cash cows students he cares about student’s concerns, despite his blatant disregard for us.
What we can expect moving forward is that this type of two-faced rhetoric continues to allow for unchecked repression. The University will, by strategically wielding the CAP, become more adept at exercising political repression under the guise of “safety” and “community concerns”; mainstream outlets will align with management’s Zionist perspective and blatant media manipulation.
Without voices on the ground, the extent of CAP damage on campus will be ever-increasing. The precedent —for violence, repression, and censorship— that our university’s Campus Access Policy sets is shameful and will have long lasting consequences for all members of the USyd community. Mark Scott’s legacy will be one of increasing political polarisation through the despotic imposition of his Zionist-aligned sensibilities.
As students, we must fight and remain vigilant, exercising our intrinsic right to freedom of speech, protest, and assembly even when threatened. To do anything less is to risk acquiescing to the demands of our ever-growing oligarchy. Speak to your cohort before your lecture. Attend a protest. Organise a protest. Put a flyer up. Do not let the CAP silence you.
