The Australian National University (ANU) is launching a review into its investment portfolio, acknowledging “changing expectations” in the community around deriving revenue from weapons manufacturers.
It follows an announcement by the University of Sydney to hold a similar review after weeks of lobbying from pro-Palestine student encampments.
The encampments, established in every state and territory, called on vice-chancellors to disclose and divest from weapons manufacturers and companies with ties to the state of Israel, accusing institutions of complicity with the war in Gaza.
The camps have since been largely disbanded, with dozens of students facing disciplinary action for their participation in protest activity.
“Recent advocacy from our community has helped to draw attention to a lack of clarity in the policy on revenue derived from the manufacture and sale of technology with military applications,” ANU’s issues paper reads.
“This is not an issue for ANU but across the university sector. Changing community sentiment requires new considerations for the university’s investment portfolio.”
A spokesperson for ANU said the review had been self-initiated and would be composed of student representatives from the ANU council, staff and “subject matter experts”.
Freedom of information disclosures published this week show ANU refused to adopt a controversial definition of antisemitism after receiving internal advice that it would compromise academic freedom.
The advice, prepared by the university’s academic freedom reference group for the then vice-chancellor, Brian Schmidt, was issued amid continued lobbying from parliamentarians and some Jewish groups for universities to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition.
A minority of universities including the University of Melbourne, Monash University, Macquarie University and the University of Wollongong have backed it.
The definition has faced global backlash among Palestinian and Arab scholars who argue its definition of antisemitism, which includes “targeting the state of Israel”, could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of Israel and stifle freedom of expression.
The reference group similarly warned “adopting any definition of antisemitism which implicates academic criticism of the State of Israel poses a real risk of reducing the scope of academic freedom”.
“The ‘safeguarding and implementation of ANU academic freedom policy’ consistent with our obligations to the wellbeing of ANU staff and students would be most effectively achieved by no such change being made to that policy or any other of our existing suite of policies and procedures,” the internal advice read.
The documents show that prior to receiving it, Schmidt noted in an email to the head of ANU’s law school, professor Anthony Connolly, that “a change from the status quo would require a significant amount of consultation and consideration”.
A spokesperson for ANU said the discussion paper was “one element” on the university’s consideration of the IHRA definition, which also went to a specialist working group of the academic board.
“After extensive due diligence, the university’s view is that it has sufficient protections and measures in place to help prevent and respond to any form of discrimination within its existing policies and procedures,” they said.
