A class action lawsuit brought by a small group of Jewish staff and students has been filed in the Federal Court of Australia against the University of Sydney and two of its academics, alleging racial discrimination.
The case rests on the University’s handling of the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” which took place in May and June of 2024.
The University is being held vicariously liable for a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA), for allegedly failing to protect its Jewish staff and students from antisemitism.
USyd academics John Keane and Nick Riemer are being sued in relation to comments posted on social media in their personal capacity after the 2023 October 7 attacks.
This comes a month after the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) terminated a complaint against Keane and Riemer lodged by the same group.
The complainants alleged that Keane and Riemer had engaged in acts of racial vilification, in contravention of a contentious RDA provision, section 18C.
They alleged that the academics’ criticisms of Israel and Zionism, “considered individually or cumulatively, were reasonably likely… to offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate Jewish persons or Israeli persons in Australia and elsewhere.”
An open letter in support of the academics has been signed by over 50 Jewish university staff, students and alumni from across the country.
It was published after the AHRC dropped the complaint, and in anticipation of the class action filed last Friday.
“These complainants do not speak for us as Jewish people” the letter states.
“We repudiate the attempt…to conflate Zionism, a political ideology,,, with Jewish identity…the fight against antisemitism is weakened by confusing the criticism of Israel with racism against Jews.
“The attempt to silence Dr Riemer [and] Professor Keane… forms part of concerted and coordinated efforts to silence critics of Israel across Australia’s university campuses and public squares, trammelling fundamental democratic rights of assembly, protest, expression, and dissent.
“It is just such moves to suppress free speech and to silence dissenting intellectuals that Jews have so often experienced in our history.”
Honi spoke to Jewish student and encampment organiser Yasmine Johnson about the open letter before its publication.
She said “the Palestinian cause is one that everyone should take up. But it is certainly powerful to see so many anti-zionist Jewish activists who want to stand up for Palestine and do so publicly, even though the reprisals can be pretty intense.”
In a joint statement posted on X in January this year, Keane and Riemer said the allegations against them are “baseless,” and the AHRC case tantamount to “lawfare.”
“The complainants’ actions replicate the familiar ‘lawfare’ tactics employed by pro-Israel lobbyists internationally to suppress opposition to Israel,” they said.
Keane and Riemer stated they learned the complainants had been fundraising for an eventual class action “since at least June 2024”, long before the complaint had been lodged with the AHRC.
They also said the group had initiated a “defamatory mainstream and social media campaign” against them, in breach of the confidentiality of the AHRC process.
Claims of racial discrimination are brought to the AHRC before being taken to court, so that conciliation can be pursued and litigation avoided.
Keane and Riemer said that initially, they were “prepared to engage… in good faith,” but later believed the complainants and their lawyers were treating the AHRC process as “nothing more than a procedural hurdle before they can fast-track the matter to the court.”
They regarded this as a “cynical abuse” of the human rights watchdog, stating that “the AHRC should not be used as a vehicle in a political campaign of public attacks on the opponents of genocide.”
The academics wrote to the AHRC in January requesting that it throw out the complaint, on the grounds that it was a “distraction from the Commission’s important work of fighting real discrimination.”
Earlier this month, a SafeWork NSW Inspectors’ Report obtained by The Australian suggested that the University of Sydney was a “high-risk psychosocial hazardous workplace.”
The investigator who wrote the report in February after a preliminary workplace inspection recommended that SafeWork pursue a full investigation, stating that there was “no doubt” as to whether the body would find “contraventions of law.”
SafeWork NSW’s panel decided not to proceed with an investigation.
