Most institutions ban "hate speech" without clearly defining what counts as hate speech, or including statements that should not be. The Dehumanisation Framework solves that problem. It offers a single operative test, built on twelve research-based markers of dehumanisation, already tested in Australian courts, that any equity or conduct officer can apply consistently, without becoming an expert adjudicator of contested history or foreign policy first.
SAFDP formed as TEQSA moved to require Australian universities to adopt a definition of antisemitism, with definitions of Islamophobia and of racism against First Nations people to follow. Rather than leave each university to draft its own definition in isolation, a group of Australian academics came together, drafted a single evidence-based alternative, and put it directly to TEQSA's consultation. The resulting submission was endorsed by more than 400 scholars from every Australian university and a wide range of disciplines — 63 of them as lead signatories. In that sense, SAFDP is quite literally a group of scholars for academic freedom and due process.
Signatories shown here reflect the submission as lodged. The list continues to grow — for the very latest count or to add your name, see here
Many institutions have adopted definitions of racism, antisemitism or Islamophobia built around a short core sentence followed by a list of "illustrative examples". In practice, the examples end up doing the work the definition itself doesn't — and because they're illustrative rather than operative, two reasonable staff members can read the same conduct and reach opposite conclusions.
The problem grows when definitions multiply. Some are more detailed than others, so the standard a complaint is judged against can vary from one community to the next. Some communities have no definition at all, so their complaints may be handled inconsistently or not recognised. Decisions made under one community's definition can also restrict the rights and freedoms of others without those rights ever being weighed.
The law does not work this way. Vilification and discrimination law protects everyone against the same standard, whoever they are. The frameworks institutions use outside the courtroom should mirror that universality as closely as possible. That means a disciplinary process should rest on universal principles that apply to every complaint.
Communities are right to want institutions to recognise the specific forms of racism they experience. That recognition can happen in many ways outside disciplinary and complaints processes, including through declarations and statements, events featuring experts, supporting research, commemoration, consultation and support services. A disciplinary process is a different kind of tool. It cannot workably apply a different definition depending on which community the complainant belongs to. Doing so leaves complainants and respondents alike without a predictable standard, and without principled reasons for the outcome.
For examples of how these definitions have been challenged, see our submission to TEQSA analysing the shortcomings of the IHRA and the Universities Australia definitions of antisemitism.
The Dehumanisation Framework takes a different approach: one operative test, stated once, built on the same architecture the Australian Muslim Advocacy Network (AMAN) developed and has already used successfully in Australian legal proceedings — including an action in which a former Senator was ordered to remove 141 posts found to incite hatred against Muslims.
Most legal tests for hate speech ask a decision-maker to weigh vague, undefined concepts — "genuine offence," "reasonable grounds," "context" — with little more guidance than their own judgment. The Dehumanisation Framework was built to avoid exactly that. It draws on long-standing academic research into how groups are stripped of their humanity before they're stripped of their human rights, on comparative hate-speech jurisprudence (including the "Hallmarks of Hate" test the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott) and empirical hate crime studies (Asquith, N. L. (2013)) — and tested with AMAN's own study of online hate campaigns targeting Australian Muslims. This approach held up in the QCAT action against former Senator Fraser Anning. The result is a checklist a non-specialist can actually apply.
[Form of racism] means discrimination, hostility, or advocacy of hatred directed at a person or group of people on the basis of their actual or perceived [protected attribute], including speech or conduct that an ordinary, reasonable person would understand to portray members of that group as not deserving of equal dignity or rights, or as lacking qualities intrinsic to being human, consistent with the markers of dehumanisation set out below. This does not extend to criticism of, or opposition to, a state, government, military, security or police force, corporation, institution, organisation, movement, or political ideology — or its adherents in their capacity as adherents — however strongly expressed, unless that criticism attributes the conduct of the state, government, institution, movement or ideology to the protected group as a whole.
Material is treated as dehumanising where it portrays a protected group as:
Having the appearance or qualities of animals, insects, filth, vermin, bacteria or inanimate objects
Polluting, despoiling or debilitating the wider community or an ingroup
Lacking the capacity for individual thought, feeling, or reason
Posing a homogeneous threat to the wider community, whether open or concealed
Collectively responsible for the real or alleged crimes of individual members
Inherently criminal, dangerous, evil or violent by nature
Incapable of ordinary love or care for their own children
Predatory toward children, older people, or other vulnerable members of the community
A group whose historical suffering should be trivialised, mocked, or celebrated
Primitive, savage, backward, or incapable of achievement equal to others
Defined by racial hierarchy, notions of racial purity, or blood quantum
A group that should be excluded from public life or the nation
These twelve markers are drawn from AMAN's own working definition of dehumanisation — read the underlying research in AMAN's policy brief: Working Definition of Dehumanisation ↗
The checklist applies equally to speech, images, and insignia, and to how information is curated and presented — not only to explicit statements. It's supplemented by contextual factors drawn from the UN's Rabat Plan of Action: 1) the social and political context, (2) status of the speaker, (3) intent to incite the audience against a target group, (4) content and form of the speech, (5) extent of its dissemination and (6) likelihood of harm, including imminence.
Adopting a definition is the easy part. The harder part is deciding who applies it, how it fits your existing policies, and how decisions are explained and reviewed.
You don't need a new office. The team that already handles complaints about racist hate speech can apply the framework.
If a complaint is only about speech, an image or a symbol, the framework decides it. If the complaint is about discrimination or a hate incident, the framework helps staff interpret any words or images involved.
Make it clear that people can criticise states, governments, militaries, corporations and political ideologies (and their supporters), if they don't blame a whole protected group. Protected groups including groups based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, gender identity, sex, sex characteristics, or sexuality. Protected groups do not include based on political belief in line with international and domestic law on hate speech. This protects human rights advocates, and people affected by the events being discussed, from being put through a complaints process for legitimate speech. Complaints about allowed speech should be closed early, with a short explanation.
Decisions should explain which parts of the framework were applied and why. A review should use the same framework and only look at mistakes that would have changed the outcome or the penalty — not rehear the whole complaint.
Have a procedure for vexatious complaints and treat a coordinated wave of complaints about the same material as one matter. Give staff guidance on treating people fairly when their community is experiencing human rights abuses connected to the complaint. Every institution is different. We can help you with templates and resources for your university. Go to resources page to see our recommended policy and procedure.
Every institution's existing policy architecture is different. We can help you work through how the framework maps onto yours — get in touch below.
The framework can be used for any form of racism — including Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism, and racism against First Nations peoples. Here is how it reads for antisemitism, where it has been fully drafted and tested.
Antisemitism/anti-Semitism means discrimination, hostility, or advocacy of hatred directed at a person or group of people on the basis of their actual or perceived Jewish ethnicity, religion, or ancestry, including speech or conduct that an ordinary, reasonable person would understand to portray Jewish people as not deserving of equal dignity or rights, or as lacking qualities intrinsic to being human, consistent with the markers of dehumanisation set out above. This does not extend to criticism of, or opposition to, a state, government, military, corporation, or political ideology, however strongly expressed, unless that criticism attributes the conduct of the state, government, institution, movement or ideology to Jewish people as a whole.
In plain terms: the definition covers many manifestations of racism directed at Jewish people but links them back to universal principles (for eg Holocaust denial, blood libel). Suggestions regarding tropes will cross the line if they breach a universal principle of dehumanisation (for example portraying Jewish people as uniform threat or debilitating society). It does not cover criticism of Israel, Zionism, or the Israeli government or military, however sharp — unless that criticism is turned against Jewish or Israeli people as a whole, not allowing the scope for independent thought, reason or dissent within that group.
Antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism and racism against First Nations peoples each have their own history. The framework doesn't treat them as the same. It works like the legal definition of assault: one test covers very different situations, and the details of each case are dealt with when it's investigated. It is consistent with international law and Australian hate speech laws, recognising that public institutions outside court rooms need clear guidelines about what they can and should act on immediately, while leaving more complex hate speech complaints to courtrooms.
This list will grow as more institutions work with the framework. If your question isn't here, get in touch — and if you're one of our peers editing this site, add new entries in the FAQ_DATA array near the bottom of the file.
[Placeholder copy — replace once confirmed. e.g.: SAFDP is assembling a small advisory board of legal, policy and community experts to guide how the framework is applied, reviewed, and adapted for further categories of racism over time.]
[Role / affiliation — e.g. legal adviser]
[Role / affiliation — e.g. policy adviser]
[Role / affiliation — e.g. community representative]
[Role / affiliation]
Whether you're weighing it against IHRA or another definition, drafting policy language, or want to talk through how it maps onto your existing complaints process — we're glad to help. The framework is offered as a model institutions can adopt, adapt, or use as a benchmark against any alternative under consideration.
