University antisemitism watchdog. Rails run for Segal pick Greg Craven?

Not content with a single antisemitism ambassador, the Federal Government appointed a university antisemitism watchdog in a questionable process. Andrew Gardiner reports.

There are many red flags surrounding the university’s anti-Semitism watchdog, Greg Craven, an academic with many connections to the staff in the office that elected him.

A rushed selection process that replaces careful written applications with brash support for a candidate is not something you’d think would happen with high-profile appointments in Australia. But when the issue at stake is antisemitism and there is a need to appease powerful pressure groups, checks and balances go out the window.

FOI documents seen by MWM It reveals the haste with which Craven was appointed as leader of the controversial University Report Card Project (URC), part of the government’s crackdown on antisemitism following the October 7 attacks.

Craven, a retired Catholic academic who once accused universities of “moral complicity” in the spread of antisemitism, is now responsible for monitoring the same places of learning.

How did the officialdom get to this point?

Flawed selection process

MWM He appealed to relevant parties, the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) and the Special Representative to Combat Anti-Semitism (ASECA), about the rush to appoint Craven. We questioned the apparent absence of ‘business plan’ documents supporting his candidacy and, more importantly, the conflict of interest of at least two of ASECA’s six staff members.

Neither office responded to our questions, but here’s what we’ve learned so far under Freedom of Information (FOI):

• After no offers were received from the open market tender for the position, DHA entered the “limited tender” process on October 20 last year. ASECA selected five “distinguished individuals” and “We’re trying to work our way down the list.”, one by one until they found a buyer;
• At the top of that list was Craven, who “is ASECA’s clear favorite for the job, given his position as both a former university administrator and a former university administrator.” respected jurist”.
• When the former Vice-Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University (ACU) expressed interest, he was almost certain he would take the job; He had no evidence; ASECA even met with four other names on its list;
• As part of the limited tender process, DHA had requested a “strong and well-documented business case” to support Craven. Apparently this never happened, ASECA tells DHA instead”time is very important …ensure this happens before the end of the year”;
• On November 14, Craven took the job. Apparently no one else has come under ASECA’s serious consideration.

Has ASECA meddled with its bureaucratic nose in the rules of integrity by greasing the rails for ‘its own people’? The discovery that at least two ASECA staff members enjoyed a collaborative working relationship with Craven at ACU also adds urgency to this question.

of ASECA Damien Freeman (a legal academic) had close professional ties with the former Vice-Chancellor and had been working with Craven on issues such as constitutional recognition of Indigenous people at the time of the Voice referendum (2023). “Greg Craven and I are arguing along similar lines (On sound) in an article we wrote this year,” Freeman told the Quarterly Essay.

Another ASECA employee, Ashley Midaliahe is not an academic, so any affiliation with Craven is not documented in the quarterly journals. But a man in his position (Director of Government, Policy and Strategy at ACU during Craven’s tenure) was expected to work closely with the Vice-Chancellor in areas such as high-level foreign affairs, lobbying, policy advocacy and strategic advice.

Did these ASECA employees declare obvious conflicts of interest by removing themselves from any decision-making process regarding Craven’s appointment? Given that they represent a third of anti-Semitism ambassador Jillian Segal’s six-person roster, such a retreat may be impractical.

Job file is missing

Was DHA’s request for a “strong and well-documented business case” for Craven (an absolutely central element in any limited tender process) simply ignored? Finally, and most importantly, can other institutions get around some of the basic requirements of integrity in government?

It appears that exceptions may be made, as Canberra has been under siege by Zionist and other pro-Israel groups since the October 7 attacks.

What do Australian taxpayers get for the more than $265,000 a year they pay Craven? Through the URC mechanism, it will monitor the performance of universities in three specific areas:

• how well they train their staff to combat anti-Semitism and hate speech;
• how fair and accessible complaints processes are;
• ASECA says how effectively they responded to pro-Palestinian demonstrators occupying buildings and open spaces (camps):can encourage discrimination”.

Picture collage by Andrew Gardiner

If the third of these measurables triggers worrying memories of what happened at last month’s anti-Herzog rallies, you’re not alone. Deploying police to suppress protests that the International Criminal Court has called genocide (which Universities must do to meet URC targets) seems both counterintuitive and cruel to many.

“Pressuring universities to suppress peaceful protests and criticism of the state of Israel has nothing to do with combating hate and everything to do with suppressing stifling criticism of the Israeli genocide. This is a Trump attack,” said Bella Beiraghi, co-convenor of Students for Palestine.

“Agents of intolerance”

Recasting students as agents of intolerance requires the kind of imagination you find in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism; critics claim that it combines hatred of Jews with criticism of Israel or Zionism.

But 39 universities across Australia, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and ASECA itself have adopted anti-Semitism criteria that closely align with those of the IHRA, as has the Bondi Royal Commission.

Amnesty International calling him “Direct attack on fundamental freedoms, suppression of freedom of speech, expression, assembly, academic debate and protest.” Moreover, as UNSW’s Louise Chappell points out, it “ignores a compelling truth: the recent upsurge (of both anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism) is likely linked to Israel’s war on Gaza.” pointing.

This was planned. And Chris Minns owns it.

Questionable tender process

Thanks to a dubious bidding process, much of the enforcement of these new rules (which govern what you can, can’t say, or do on the campuses of a free country) falls to one man who harbors deep suspicions of many academics and the universities where they work. “The vast majority of academic staff and students sympathize with the left (and it will be very difficult to confront the large part of the left (which) is anti-Semitic),” Craven told News Corp.

He added that anti-Semitism on campus should not be eliminated:

One of the biggest failures of Australian universities in their history

“Any time you see a violent protest on a college campus, chanting slogans, (and) nothing is done about it, it shows (students) that it’s not wrong.”

Observers say Craven’s appointment, or someone like him, makes Segal’s appointment (a woman) inevitable. conservative ties And conflicts himself) got the ASECA job. “You can’t be the face of a national strategy against hate when your own family foundation donates $50,000. Forward AustraliaIt is itself a far-right lobby group that fuels other forms of racism and bigotry,” said Gamel Kheir of the Lebanese Muslim Association.

More progressively, Sarah Schwartz of the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA) thinks the power of Zionist pressure groups (and Canberra’s consent to it) is at the heart of the crackdown that has stripped Australians of some of their rights to free speech. “We call on the Prime Minister to reject voices more interested in fulfilling his pro-Israel wish list than addressing anti-Semitism.”

Antisemitism education. Labor’s march towards authoritarianism

An Adelaide-based Media Studies graduate with an MA in Social Policy, I was an editor covering current affairs, local government and sport for a variety of publications before deciding to change careers in 2002.