As of Monday, 2nd June, the University of Sydney community — staff, affiliates, students, contractors, and visitors alike — are now bound by five key policies. These policies concern speech and expression on campus, and statements online where related to the University.
In an all-student email with the subject line “Making a safe and welcoming community for all” USyd Vice-Chancellor Professor Mark Scott announced the implementation of the five new policies the University sought feedback on earlier in the year. These policies encompass the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and bulk emails, hanging flags, putting up posters or banners, and making personal public statements online that are about or linked to the University. These are euphemistically described by Scott as “policies that guide how we connect, communicate, and express ourselves across the University.”
The five policies are as follows:
The Acceptable Use of ICT Resources Policy 2025, the Email and Electronic Messaging Policy 2025 (formerly University Staff and Students Broadcast Email Policy), the Flag Policy 2025 (formerly Flag Guidelines), the Promotional and Display Materials Policy 2025 (formerly Advertising on Campus Policy), and the Public Comment and Social Media Policy 2025 (formerly Public Comment Policy).
Scott references feedback from the community, which includes a number of coordinated submissions across the Students’ Representative Council (SRC), Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association (SUPRA), and the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), that has prompted revisions of the policies from their initial draft form.
However, it is clear from the University’s email and web page concerning the policies that the majority of changes in response to feedback have been focused on uplifting the complaints process from non-union groups. This flies in the face of the feedback from the SRC, SUPRA, and NTEU which highlighted the policies’ lack of consultation and evidence, the imposition on the industrial rights of staff, and the infringement on free speech and expression. These are political freedoms and well-established norms in higher education that are being ignored by the University administration.
The introduction of the Campus Access Policy after the 2024 Gaza Solidarity Encampment has set a dangerous precedent for the continuous suppression of staff and students exercising their right to free speech and activism on campus. These five draft and final policies used recommendations from the Hodgkinson External Review Report, which was commissioned by the University Senate in July 2024 following the Encampment and backlash regarding civility and safety on campus.
All of these policies state that “[promoting] conduct that breaches the policy on social media or in some other way” also constitutes a breach of the policy, for which the possible consequences include misconduct proceedings from the University. That means that speaking publicly, even online, about not complying with these policies is not allowed. This effectively limits dissent and what individuals or groups can advocate for in regards to the policies.
The most concerning parts of the new policies
Under the Email and Electronic Messaging Policy, individuals are not allowed to send bulk emails and messages to others in the University community which are “personal communications not related to the sender’s capacity as a University staff member or student” or to “communicate about special interest topics to recipients who have not expressed interest in receiving this material (for example: political, social or recreational material).”
This is likely to include anything political or that the University can deem as ‘personal’ or ‘special interests’ outside of academic studies — even if that may be related to things happening on campus or related to the University, such as current campaigns about divestment from Israel and weapons companies.
The Flag Policy has remarkably seen no changes from its draft form and is still continuing to outlaw flags that could be considered a “safety risk,” “inappropriate, “inconsistent with our values,” or “otherwise considered by the University to be unsuitable.” All of these categories are value judgments — leaving students and staff uncertain and cautious, and leaving University security and management with even more power to enforce these rules as they like. Similarly, flags cannot be hung inside, flown on University flagpoles unless authorised, and cannot cause damage to University property, which effectively leaves no places to fly a flag (if it were to be an allowed flag in the first place, that is).
The Promotional and Display Materials Policy has created a maze of red tape around putting up flyers, posters, temporary portable signs, and banners — with an extra threat of charging the cost of removal to whomever is responsible for the material. For individual students or staff, or even for student unions like the SRC or SUPRA (who already do not receive enough SSAF funding), this is a huge deterrent.
All of these materials must be “authorised” with a responsible person’s name (and an organisation where necessary) on them, can only be placed on the few places designated by the University, and can only use Blu-tack, pins, tape, staples, or “other non-permanent and easily removed methods.” In addition to the stringent rules around authorisation and display, the materials must also not create a safety hazard, including a “psychosocial hazard” — the new term that has been used to justify other draconian policies stopping activism particularly in relation to Palestine. Banners can be displayed if a space is booked or if it is during a protest that has been lodged in accordance with the Campus Access Policy, leaving no way to escape from these bureaucratic and repressive procedures.
The Public Comment and Social Media Policy marks a new development in the University’s suppression of criticism and free expression. Even on one’s personal social media, any comment must not “use the University’s name, branding or title” or mention the University at all without including a “disclaimer that the views are personal.”
The historic practice of lecture announcements for student elections or protests in solidarity with staff has been effectively shut down by limiting announcements to only be made at the end of a class when students have already been dismissed, regardless of whether a teacher gives them permission to make an announcement at an earlier time. Even making collective statements has bureaucratic and censorial nets thrown over it, with the policy’s requirement to “give others in that part of the University a chance to comment” before making a statement and the requirement of making a mandatory declaration with whom the statement was made on behalf of and the basis on which it is endorsed (e.g. unanimous or by majority).
Response to student representatives’ feedback and implications for activism
There were a few breadcrumbs thrown in, such as the “[recognition of] the role of staff unions and student representative organisations in making public statements,” which creates the slightest bit of leeway in the Public Comment and Social Media Policy, Acceptable Use of ICT Resources Policy, and Email and Electronic Messaging Policy. This does respond to part of the submissions of student and staff unions expressing concern over the draft policies’ ability to clamp down on their actions, but it also makes clear that the University chose to ignore the rest of the feedback from such groups.
A joint submission by 16 SRC Office Bearers detailed the widespread and likely outcomes of the policies on normal activist and representative practices, as well as on the broader ability and willingness of the community to speak out against the University either on campus or online. It called out the University’s “egregious overreach of authority” as an “affront to academic and political freedoms” that goes against the purported values of a public higher education institution — but to seemingly no avail.
Despite the unions providing the University with example of activism which would no longer be allowed, such the Women’s Collective hanging a banner to commemorate victims of sexual violence, or the example of historic and ongoing campaigns calling for the University to divest from fossil fuels and weapons companies which would now be compromised and risky, the University did not take this feedback into account when revising the policies.
The SRC Office Bearer submission also highlighted the context in which these policies have arisen – the wake and fallout of the Gaza Solidarity Encampment which caused a crisis within the University as it struggled to reckon with its ethics, public image, and financial interests.
In response to questions about what feedback they incorporated from the individuals and groups such as the SRC, SUPRA, and the NTEU, a University spokesperson gave the following comment:
“As part of the review and implementation of our new revised policies, all submissions were carefully considered during the consultation process. While we did not accept all suggestions, we made a number of changes as a result of the feedback received and consider the policies to be improved as a result. We’ve aimed to be transparent with our community about our reasons for the review and why we’ve made changes.
“The final versions of each policy, summaries of the changes made following consultation and quick guides to help our staff and students understand how the policies are being applied in practice are all published online: https://www.sydney.edu.au/about-us/governance-and-structure/university-policies.html ”
New comments shared by and attributable to Timothy Roberts, President NSW Council of Civil Liberties, condemn the new policies for repressing political speech and activism on campus.
“The adoption of this policy is a continuation of an alarming trend of political repression and the loss of academic freedom at the University of Sydney. The University’s leadership continues to take regressive stances on speech that should be of grave concern to not only current and former students and staff, but our community. […]
“Students have always been at the forefront of many protest movements we celebrate today. Including support for land rights, opposing conscription and apartheid. These ideas were controversial at the time and may have upset some in former university administrations, but history has proven them pivotal to the improvement of our world.”
Honi will continue to monitor the situation with the unrolling of these policies. You can keep up to date with your respective representative groups and unions. For undergraduate students, you can follow along with the SRC and get involved with the Education Action Group (EAG). For postgraduate students and staff, see SUPRA and the NTEU.
