Was there a Jews not allowed sign at the Sydney University?
It’s generally important to take accusations seriously. It is doubly important to take accusations seriously when they have putatively formed part of the findings of a preliminary SafeWork NSW investigation. It’s in that spirit that I bring this accusation to your attention.
The exact limits of what counts as antisemitism, as with every form of racism, is contestable- every form of offensive conduct is hard to define exactly. However, the printing of the words “Jews not allowed”- those exact words, in that exact order, on a banner carried by Pro-Palestinian protestors on the grounds of the University of Sydney either happened, or didn’t. At first glance, it may seem quite surprising because A) it does not align with the stated goals of the protestors, and B) Many Jewish students and staff were participants and organisers in the protests. C) the protestors I happen know would have not just ejected someone with such a sign, but quite likely beaten them up. However, I like to keep an open mind.
While I probably can’t resolve the question on my own, maybe I can make a contribution. If anyone could provide photographic or filmic proof of this claim- that those words were printed on a banner carried by protestors at Sydney University, without anything that substantially changed the meaning added to the front or end, I think that would be a public good.
Is it likely that evidence would exist if the propostion were true? If there was a banner saying “Jews not allowed” in the grounds of the University of Sydney, carried by Pro-Palestinian protestors, I think there’s a pretty good prospect that someone will be able to prove it. Protests are public by nature and numerous photographs were taken of the protestors, many by their opponents- who would have definite incentive to take the photo in this case, and incentives to circulate here. I also suspect the matter would eventually be proven by security footage, although we don’t currently have access to that.
There’s one slightly subjective element here. We must stipulate there cannot be words added to the front or end that substantially change the meaning (e.g., “Jews not allowed to suffer”, or “Imagine if there were parts of Jerusalem with signs saying ‘Jews not allowed’”). Whether or not the meaning is substantially changed will be a judgment call.
In that spirit, I honourably pledge the following. I will pay 1000 dollars Australian to any person or group (but only the first such person or group) who can demonstrate the truth of this claim.
The terms are as follows:
This arrangement is made in honour only and is not intended to give rise to legal relations. It is not a contract or legally binding. I include this clause not because I’m going to weasel out if someone clearly has the evidence, but because I refuse to go to court over this, even if I am obviously right and will clearly win. I do not have time for suits alleging breach of contract, hence I do not intend this as a contract.
Feel free to call me a prick if you provide evidence I don’t find convincing and do not pay you. I’ll probably respond by doing a post on why I wasn’t convinced. Certainly, if you had evidence, and I dismissed it unfairly, that would be a juicy talking point in the ongoing debate over Palestinian protests, and I am not inclined to besmirch my reputation just to save a 1000 bucks.
If you manage to convince me that events substantially like those mentioned in the image above happened, and you are the first to do so, I’ll pay you a thousand dollars via PayPal.
Evidence to convince me would probably have to be photographic or filmic. Given the nature of current AI, image or video alone may not/probably will not persuade me. Additional verification could take the form of proving it was posted right at the time e.g. through social media, or some other method.
My offer ends on 7/9/2025 AEST (that’s using the correct DD/MM/YYYY format, for poor benighted Yankee souls reading this).
Regardless of whether or not you wish to participate in my bounty, I do urge you to come forward with any information you have on these accusations. The truth is a grave matter.
I spend many hours a week on this blog and make it available for free. I would like to be able to spend even more time on it, but that takes money. Your paid subscription and help getting the word out would be greatly appreciated. A big thanks to my paid subscribers and those who share the blog around.
The most-correct date format is ISO-8601's YYYY-MM-DD, with zero-padding (2025-09-07), because that's what sorts correctly with a string comparison.
Thank you for this.
When I was growing up a stone's throw from Queen's University in Canada circa 1990, some dumb male students thought it would be funny to show up at "No Means No" anti-rape protests with signs saying "No Means Yes", "No Means Harder", and "No Means More Beer". Few if any, understandably, came to their defence over that part. But I bring it up because when people *talked* about the incident, they started *adding sign names* that were considerably worse than the actual ones: "No Means Kick Her In The Teeth" and "No Means On Your Knees, Bitch". This was just stuff that people made up and circulated orally - but it prejudged people to think of the students as far worse than they actually were, as brutal and sinister misogynists rather than just dumb college kids making a stupid and possibly hurtful joke.
Likewise, as far as anybody's been able to tell, there is not one documented case of anti-Vietnam-War protesters spitting on soldiers, despite a persistent oral tradition to the contrary. Myths about protests circulate widely, and it's very helpful for people like you to call them on their bullshit.