Sydney University threatens to suspend student for writing on a whiteboard

A student at the University of Sydney has been threatened with suspension for writing Palestine solidarity statements on a whiteboard using a non-permanent marker. It is the latest of dozens of misconduct charges levelled against activists by the university over the last year.

Luna,* a postgraduate international student, received a notice of misconduct from the academic registrar on 3 February, alleging that she engaged in “inappropriate and unreasonable conduct” by writing the following slogans in January:

USyd invest in weapons manufacturing (Thales, Lockheed Martin), USyd supports genocide in Gaza.

USYD Vice Chancellor Mark Scott supports Gaza Genocide.

From the river to the sea Palestine will be free.

As of 13 January 2025, 46,600+ dead in Gaza. USyd cut ties with genocide.

The university appears to have used CCTV footage and electronic student card tracking to identify Luna.

The Registrar claims that the conduct breaches several university policies, including clauses in the Campus Access Policy introduced at the end of last year in response to the Palestine solidarity campaign.

In addition to purportedly prejudicing “the good order and government of the university” and “good name or academic standing of the university”, writing on a whiteboard also allegedly constitutes “protest activity on university lands”. Such activity must be “orderly and peaceful”, cannot be held inside any building, and requires 72-hours advance notice to the administration.

The alleged conduct is also said to be an act of graffiti, which is defined as “the placement of posters, notices, advertisements and similar items” on any area that has not been “designated for official notices” by the university.

Basically, the administration has ruled that students who want to exercise their democratic rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and to protest must organise something that is nothing like a protest using means of communication that prevent any meaningful mass communication. Even writing on a whiteboard is beyond the pale.

The administration has told Luna that she will likely be expelled, suspended or receive a reprimand if she is found guilty of the alleged misconduct. It also warns that “the penalties applied will be more severe [bold in original] in the event that you deny the conduct, which is ultimately found to be substantiated, than if you admit the conduct at this stage”.

This threat—an attempt to pressure Luna not to defend herself against the allegations—is far from empty, given her visa status. As a transgender woman from a country that criminalises and punishes non-binary expressions of gender, she is currently seeking asylum in Australia. For now, she holds a student visa, which means her right to remain in the country depends on her continued enrolment.

Luna wrote to the university on 24 February asking for more time to respond to the charges. Specifically, she requested an extension until after 21 March (when she will gain a bridging visa) so that she can “assess this matter in a clear-headed fashion without worrying about being deported to danger”. The university refused the request the following day, reaffirming that the “likely penalty if the conduct is admitted at this stage is suspension”.

In its initial misconduct notice, the university insisted that the entire process “must be kept confidential”; otherwise, it “may take disciplinary action”. This clause is ubiquitous in misconduct charges at Sydney University, supposedly to stop victimisation against complainants. It might make sense in cases involving accusations of serious abuse or violence. But it is illegitimate to include the clause in cases where the administration itself levels misconduct charges against activists. One can only assume the intention is to keep the spurious misconduct process opaque and free from external scrutiny.

After the details of the complaint were made public on 5 March, the university quickly entered crisis management, publishing two responses on its website. The first claimed that the suspension threat was a simple “administrative error” and, finally, granted Luna a time extension to respond.

The second stated that the administration had contacted Luna, “confirmed the likely penalty range does not include potential suspension” and “apologised”. The university refused to relent following private communication with Luna but quickly backed down (partially—the charges still stand) after being forced to answer publicly for its behaviour.

This entire case is a farce. Student activism has historically included acts far more rebellious than scrawling solidarity messages on a classroom whiteboard. Sydney University appears determined to wipe out criticism of its dirty deals with weapons manufacturers and suppress support for the Palestinian cause—or at least to extraordinarily limit how such support can be expressed.

* Name has been changed at the student’s request to protect them from retaliation.