In response to the the Sydney University's proposed changes to a number of policies following the Hodgkinson External Report, a submission has been jointly prepared and signed by 16 SRC Office Bearers of the 97th Students' Representative Council, University of Sydney.

This submission opposes the introduction of the following proposed policies in the strongest possible terms:

• Acceptable Use of ICT Resources Policy;
• Email and Electronic Messaging Policy; 
• Flag Policy;
• Promotional and Display Materials Policy; and
• Social Media and Public Comment Policy.

These policies are an egregious overreach of authority by the university, an affront to academic and political freedoms, and a concerning example of repression that fits into a broader landscape of targeted attacks on protest, speech and political dissent. We urge the university to cease all efforts to implement them in any capacity, and instead to fulfil its moral and epistemic duties as a place of education to protect freedom of speech and political expression.

Promotional and Display Materials Policy

The Promotional and Display Materials Policy bans the display of unapproved banners both as held by community members and as attached to certain common places, such as “ trees, posts, footpaths, fences, railings or walls”. Banners, signs and other materials will be removed, and the students responsible disciplined under various university policies, if they pose a risk to the health and safety of others. The level of  ‘risk’, of course, is to be determined by the university./p>

Additionally, this policy prohibits the attachment of posters to any place except for officially designated noticeboards. The policy requires that even materials that conform to this requirement are authorised by a member of the university community, who is responsible for that material complying with the policy. The policy empowers university security to remove any posters that do not comply with the policy, and empowers the university to charge individuals or groups with the cost of the removal of the material and any damage to university property that has been incurred.

We have no confidence that the university will assess health and safety risks in a way that is compatible with fundamental academic and political freedoms. ‘Psycho-social hazards’ are included in this policy and others as a category of political messages that supposedly are an unacceptable risk to student safety and can subsequently be used as grounds to justify the widespread repression and punishment of students. Included in this perniciously constructed category is any political expression that exposes members of the university community to “traumatic materials or events”.

This is hugely problematic; obviously, depictions of Israel’s genocide in Gaza are traumatic. The lived experiences of victim-survivors of the sexual violence that runs rampant at the university and its residential colleges are traumatic. Details of the climate crisis and the university’s investment in fossil fuel companies responsible for it are traumatic. Knowledge of this university’s apparent complicity in a global backslide into authoritarianism is traumatic. This is not an appropriate or compelling reason to prevent people from publicly depicting and displaying such ‘traumatic’ events. The free and accurate dissemination of knowledge, unencumbered from fears of backlash or persecution, is essential both to the function of the university as an educational and research institution, but also for the progress of our society and integrity of our systems of knowing and being.

The immediate effect of this policy is two-fold.

The first is that all in-person student opposition to the university is stifled. While approval mechanisms for certain display materials exist in theory, in practice it is deeply unclear why the university would ever approve materials that depict it unfavourably. This is for several reasons. There is no independent metric by which materials can be assessed for approval, meaning that there is unlikely to be any public confidence in the impartiality of its application. The university has a track record of repressing protests against its policies, widely publicised by the Hodgkinson External Review Report and subsequent recommendations and its dishonest and obfuscatory response to the Gaza Solidarity Encampment. The university also has a strong financial interest in repressing public campaigns pressuring it to divest its resources from weapons manufacturers and fossil fuel companies. The fact that the university is enacting these policies in the first place with such a broad definition of ‘psycho-social hazards’ imputes an intention to further penalise students for speaking out against it. Many students will be fearful from engaging in campaigns in the first place, and those who do will face an increased, unjustifiable and grossly disproportionate risk of punishment. Further, all mechanisms available to advocacy bodies like the Students’ Representative Council to amass popular support for campaigns fall within the remit of this policy. Postering and the hanging of banners from buildings are a cost-effective means for student organisations, political or non-political, to reach a large number of students. Unlike the university, we do not have access to instant communication with the entire student body, nor social media accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers. By blatantly targeting the student union, the university disempowers its students and exacerbates the power imbalance between students and the corporate management.

The second impact of this policy is that any political campaign conducted by students and student organisations can conceivably fall within the bounds of this policy, thus providing the university with an unfettered mechanism to silence any political discourse. Every mechanism through which advocacy bodies such as the Students’ Representative Council can publicly take political stances and amass popular support amongst the student body for campaigns now comes with the threat of academic misconduct proceedings and other disciplinary actions. The banner that was attached to the quadrangle lawns as part of a vigil for survivors of sexual violence would be prohibited under this policy. A banner attached to a wall displaying the death toll of the genocide in Gaza would be prohibited under this policy. Posters that were put advertising the 2022 strikes by University staff would be prohibited.

This clearly contravenes the academic and political freedoms of not only students, but also tertiary education staff, whose union activities are also effectively banned under this policy. This is a repugnant example of repression contrary to every conceivable object of higher education, including those contained in the enabling legislation of the university, the University of Sydney Act 1989 at sections 6(b) (the encouragement of the dissemination, advancement, development and application of knowledge informed by free inquiry) and 6(d) (the participation in public discourse). It is also contrary to the well-established freedom of political communication that is protected by the Australian Constitution and upheld by the High Court and NSW superior courts. The University of Sydney is a public institution, established as a statutory corporation by an act of State Parliament, and must act within the limits of public power. 

Social Media and Public Comment Policy

The Social Media Policy applies to “content that implies a connection between a University community member and the University, without a statement that the content is the poster’s own and not the University’s, or posting content about the University or University community members”. This effectively muzzles anyone who is identifiable as a Usyd student by their social media. Members of the university community are prevented from:

• making public comments; 
• public announcements; 
• publishing content that makes the University appear to be affiliated with a social group or political affiliation when that is not the case; or 
• risking any person’s safety. 

Further, the policy bans announcements at the beginning of lectures, tutorials and seminars.

This policy has the same stifling effects on activism as outlined above in relation to the Promotional and Display Materials Policy. It deprives students and staff of the ability to spread the word about important campaigns in the most accessible and well-populated forums, namely social media platforms, lecture halls and tutorial rooms. This in itself similarly violates well established norms of political activity on campus and contravenes legal protections for political freedoms that form the basis of democratic accountability and limits on governmental and institutional overreach.

The Hodgkinson review explicitly recommends the ban on lecture announcements on the grounds that students who are obliged to attend a class should not be obliged to listen to an announcement if “doing so makes them feel uncomfortable.” Firstly, it should be said that most students, if they do not support or are uninterested in an announcement, simply do not pay attention. It is unclear however, why this metric of uncomfortability should only be applied before a lecture and not during it. Why should a student have to listen to another student make a point in class if that point has the potential to make them feel uncomfortable? Moreso, why should a student have to listen to a lecturer when there exists the potential that the content of the lecture would make that student “feel uncomfortable”. Either the university is fine with students feeling uncomfortable in classes due to the actions or words of teaching staff or other students, or they are punitively applying this metric to announcements made by activists.

Furthermore, there are many reasons why someone might “feel uncomfortable” because of something another person has said. This is similarly problematic to the concept of “psychosocial safety”. For example, a student who has said or done something racist would undoubtedly feel uncomfortable by another student challenging that behaviour. Should the comfort of racists be placed before the obligation on students and staff to speak up against those ideas and attitudes? “Comfort” cannot be taken as the metric for what is acceptable speech or conduct, nor is it in any liberal democratic society.

However, these policies venture into unprecedented territory by bringing the individual social media presence of students, staff and other members of the university community within the scope of politicised, repressive disciplinary measures. It is abundantly concerning that the university is arming itself with a mechanism to punish students or staff for their personal social media use or personal political expression. It is deeply unclear what utility this policy has beyond silencing dissent and controlling the political and cultural narratives that permeate the student body. There is no evidential basis that has been made apparent to justify such policy, and we do not believe that any such basis could ever exist.

A particularly concerning aspect of this policy is the explicit reference to content that can make the university appear to be affiliated with a social group or political affiliation when that is not the case. Firstly, this drafting is broad and subjective in a way that would allow the university to punish students for making legitimate accusations of racism, misogyny, ableism or other forms of discrimination, all of which are presumably ‘political affiliations’ that the university would reject being characterised as possessing.

Secondly, it means that campaigns that encourage divestment from weapons manufacturers and fossil fuel companies, which presumably impute political affiliations with various rightwing pro-war, anti-climate groups, can be silenced using this policy. 

Thirdly, and perhaps most worryingly, this reference to university affiliation will put any office bearers, officials or other affiliates of student and staff organisations at risk of adverse action if they speak out against the university or any other political issue. As the environment officers of the SRC, this effectively prohibits us from suggesting that the university is beholden to fossil fuel interests if the university decides that this is not a political affiliation it holds. The education officers are prohibited from suggesting the university is a corporatised mouthpiece for neoliberal business interest when they talk about course cuts if the university decides that this is not a political affiliation it holds. The Women’s officers are prohibited from suggesting the university is misogynistic for its failures to protect students from sexual violence if the university decides that this is not a political affiliation it holds. The Ethnocultural officers are prohibited from suggesting the university is complicit in genocide and scholasticide in Gaza if the university decides that this is not a political affiliation it holds. None of what we have described in this paragraph fits within a commonsense definition of what could reasonably be perceived as academic misconduct, yet absurdity of an authoritarian flavour continues to prevail.

Conclusion

The proposed policies are disproportionate responses to unfounded and disingenuous concerns for student safety. As students, we feel unsafe when our university invests money in companies that rain bombs down on Gaza. We feel unsafe when sexual violence runs rampant on campus and the university offers nothing but empty platitudes. We feel unsafe when policies like the Campus Access Policy are used in targeted ways to intimidate us into silence. Student safety is not aided by repression. In fact, we are less safe when all public avenues for self-advocacy and organising are littered with risks of punishment.

The Recommendations handed down as part of the Hodgkinson External Review Report that have catalysed these policies are falsely premised on concerns for student safety and inclusion. They make explicit reference to the Gaza Solidarity Encampment, spreading misinformation by linking the encampment in embarrassingly bad faith to “rising levels of racism, intolerance and polarisation”. The most damning instance of intolerance that has arisen from the protests and campaigns of the student body is that demonstrated by the university through its intolerance for dissent.

We condemn political repression in all its forms. We are deeply troubled that our university seeks to silence its students. We are concerned that these proposed policies have not been widely publicised and that the feedback period is short. The draft policies were released in the semester break, before most students’ attention is on the university, and even the draft consultation closes before the beginning of semester 1. This is a clear attempt at the university to evade the potential real concerns of students and staff with the proposed policies.

We reject the idea that these new policies are motivated by concern for the safety of students and staff. Instead, we contend that they are motivated by external pressure placed on the university by governments and the media. We call on the University to withdraw these draft policies and publicly assure us that they do not intend to restrict the rights and freedoms of students and staff. 

Signed,

Shovan Bhattarai, 2025 SRC Vice-President

Bohao Zhang, 2025 SRC Vice-President

Anu Khulan, 2025 SRC General Secretary

Grace Street, 2025 SRC General Secretary

Deaglan Godwin, 2025 SRC Environment Officer

Lilah Thurbon, 2025 SRC Environment Officer

Jasmine Al-Rawi, 2025 SRC Education Officer

Luke Mešterović, 2025 SRC Education Officer

Martha Barlow, 2025 SRC Women’s Officer

Ellie Robertson, 2025 SRC Women’s Officer

Kayla Hill, 2025 SRC Ethnocultural Officer

Dana Kafina, 2025 SRC Ethnocultural Officer

Vince Tafea, 2025 SRC Disabilities Officer

Annabel Pettit, 2025 SRC Welfare Officer

Mia Williams, 2025 SRC Welfare Officer

Aron Khuc, 2025 SRC Social Justice Officer