On: New anti-racism standard will force Australian universities to use definitions...

July 13, 2026.

They say the new standard will force universities to adopt definitions of antisemitism and Islamophobia. Force. That word itself demands examination. What does it mean to force a definition? A definition is a tool - like a compass or a set square. If the tool is poorly made, forcing its use does not improve navigation; it guarantees error.

So: what do they mean by antisemitism? What do they mean by Islamophobia? Are these definitions crafted by scholars who have studied the history, the texts, the lived experience of those targeted? Or are they negotiated by committees with political interests? The difference is not trivial. A definition that cannot withstand scrutiny - that cannot be stated precisely, examined for hidden assumptions, and tested against cases - is not a definition. It is a slogan dressed in academic robes.

The assumption audit: that a single definition can serve all contexts - teaching, research, campus discipline, public discourse. That imposing a definition will reduce prejudice rather than merely suppress speech. That the body doing the imposing is itself free from bias. These assumptions are rarely stated. They should be examined before the ink dries on the regulation.

I have seen institutions burn - libraries, schools, whole cities. What survives is the method: the willingness to ask “what do you mean?” and to follow the answer wherever it leads. If the university becomes a place where definitions are received rather than questioned, then the institution may stand while the method perishes. That is a hollow victory.

Let them define. But let the definitions be tested in open debate, not enforced by decree. The proof does not need the authority of the state to be valid. It needs only to be correct.