University of Sydney’s appointment of pro-Israel academic Michael Abrahams-Sprod as antisemitism adviser has exposed management to an embarrassing conflict in its approach to freedom of expression. Wendy Bacon reports for Michael West Media. SPECIAL REPORT: By Wendy Bacon While University of Sydney antisemitism adviser Dr Michael Abrahams-Sprod works in vice-chancellor Mark Scott’s office as its “resident expert” delivering training courses to stamp out what he sees as antisemitism, his close colleagues in the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism are embroiled in legal action against the university in the Federal Court.
They have accused the university of being liable for alleged racial vilification by its employees, Professor John Keane and linguist and vice-president of the USyd National Tertiary Education Union, Dr Nick Riemer, both of whom are pro-Palestinian. The case will have significant implications for freedom of speech and whether the law equates rejection of Israel’s genocide and anti-Zionism to antisemitism. READ MORE: Sydney Uni appoints antisemitism ‘lecturer’, forgets to tell anybody Other academic freedom and Zionism reports Conflicts of interest and the 5A Although Abrahams-Sprod is not a party to the case, he was a driving force behind complaints that led to the case, and letters that he signed are being used as evidence against the university.
Alongside its academics, the university is defending the action. So far its case depends on an interpretation of antisemitism that is in direct conflict with the views of 5A and Abrahams-Sprod, who is already teaching his courses for frontline administrative staff, some of whom deal with complaints against students and staff. Three of five applicants in the court case are members of 5A.
One is emeritus professor Suzanne Rutland, a longtime close colleague of Abrahams-Sprod. Rutland is on the board of Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism (5A) of which Abrahams-Sprod was campus coordinator between November 2023 and February 26 2025, and remains a member. She is also on the board of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
Another complainant belongs to the pro-Israel Australian Jewish Association of Students, which Abrahams-Sprod assisted in making complaints. According to 5A, anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Its extreme views are revealed in parliamentary submissions, including one for the inquiry into measures to prohibit slogans that incite hatred, which was co-authored by Rutland.
Conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism 5A’s submission recommends prohibiting a wide range of slogans that are regularly used at pro-Palestinian protests. For example, it lists “Settlers, settlers go back home! Palestine is our home!” as a call for genocide of Israelis, and accusations that Israel is causing ‘starvation’ in Gaza as a genocidal libel.
It supports a dangerous notion of “cumulative harm” that would see police trained to understand that protests or slogans that individually might appear lawful if repeated can become unlawful intimidation. It recommends a new agency to operate a “centralised, anonymous complaints system to capture antisemitic incidents, chants, symbols, and patterns of conduct, including behaviour that may not individually meet prosecution thresholds.” Its clear goal is to silence opposition to Israel’s genocide, apartheid and other war crimes. In contrast to 5A’s views, USyd’s lawyers, led by Robert Dick SC have argued in the Federal Court that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.
In fact, they have even relied on a letter to Overland journal signed by more than 50 Jewish academics and current students, repudiating “the attempt by those making the complaint to conflate Zionism, a political ideology with Jewish and non-Jewish adherents, with Jewish identity.” Campaign to silence critics of Israel The complaints against Riemer and Keane were 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”, they wrote. At the time when USyd’s submissions were filed last year, unbeknownst to staff, the university was already covering part of Abrahams-Sprod’s salary to work with Special Envoy Jillian Segal on a project developing antisemitism training.
Abraham-Sprod took up his new two-year position in the vice-chancellor’s office in January, although it was not approved by the Senate’s People, Culture and Safety Committee until late March. Michael West Media asked the university: “Did the Senate Committee discuss the issue of whether there could be a conflict of interest in appointing Abrahams-Sprod to work with the vice-chancellor on anti-semitism training? “Does the university agree that there is a perceived conflict of interest? And if so, why did the university proceed with the appointment?” In response to questions from MWM, a university spokesperson (we re