The implications of Max Planck Society’s sacking of Ghassan Hage

Ghassan Hage, professor of anthropology and social theory at Melbourne University, is an internationally renowned scholar whose critical work on racism, multiculturalism, diaspora and the politics of nationalism has influenced generations of academics in Australia and worldwide.

Considered one of Australia’s most significant intellectuals, this week Hage announced he and his German lawyer are taking the Max Planck Society (MPS) to court after the organisation ended its “working relationship” with him earlier this month, citing “posts on social media expressing views that are incompatible” with their “core values”. 

Hage had been offered a fellowship by MPS in Germany, at the prestigious Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology. Less than a year after his arrival, the latest war in Gaza started. Hage became increasingly outspoken on social media about his views on Israel as a Jewish state, and in his criticism of the Netanyahu government and the governments of certain Western nations. In the view of some observers, Hage’s view is “not unlike other anti-racist visions of a multicultural Israel/Palestine”.

Hage’s criticism caught the attention of Welt am Sonntag, a German newspaper, which published an article accusing Hage of promoting “hatred of Israel”. Supporters of Hage claim that domestic political pressure then forced the MPS into “end[ing] its working relationship” with the professor. MPS’ statement ends by saying that “racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, discrimination, hatred, and agitation have no place in the Max Planck Society”. 

Hage’s statement spells out the circumstances in more detail. According to Hage, the MPS wanted him to sign a non-disclosure agreement and then leave quietly. Hage rejected the proposal. Instead, he asked to be “unilaterally sacked”.

Hage believed that he had become a “liability” to the MPS. He strongly rejected the organisation’s implication that he is racist and anti-Semitic:

What to me is a fair, intellectual critique of Israel, for them is ‘anti-Semitism according to the law in Germany’.

Details about what Hage said on social media can be gleaned from the English translation of an article — published in Zenith, written by a Germany-based anthropologist.

The MPS vs Hage incident has precipitated a wide array of responses in scholarly communities across the globe. Numerous expressions of solidarity with Hage have been published. On February 16, the American Anthropological Association, with a membership numbering around 8,000, released a letter of support, calling upon the management of the MPS to reconsider its decision. On the same day, the president of the Australian Anthropological Society wrote to the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, urging it to “exemplify the value of free speech and robust and informed academic debate”.

What must have been the most powerful support came from a large group (with more than 50 signatories) of Jewish scholars, both within Israel and worldwide. Their letter says that, while many of them disagreed with the method of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, of which Hage is a proponent, they nevertheless believed that criticisms of Israel are not the same thing as anti-Semitism:

As Jews, some of us descendants of victims of the Nazi Holocaust, and some who research the Holocaust and racist violence more generally, we take this opportunity to voice our concern over the conflation between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, which is putting Jewish life in the diaspora, and Germany in particular, at risk.

But expressions of solidarity have not been limited to the discipline of anthropology. More than 360 signatories from a wide range of academic disciplines (the number is still growing, and it includes my signature), mostly from Australian universities, have issued a letter of support, describing Hage as “a leading voice in global debates about racism and ethno-nationalism”. 

In recent years, constraints on academic freedom on Australian university campuses have manifested themselves in myriad ways. 

One of these constraints comes from possible interference by foreign governments and their supporters in teaching and research on Australian campuses. Another constraint comes from national defence. For instance, should a current draft bill be passed, Australian researchers could face jail if they collaborate with or share their scientific expertise with certain others, both in Australia and beyond. The proposed bill aims to protect secret or sensitive technological information relating to the AUKUS pact from being stolen by nations such as China and Russia. Some are worried that Australia’s commitment to AUKUS is effectively leading Australian universities to become part of a “military–industrial university complex”. Many in Australian universities who rely heavily on international collaboration are already feeling the chill. 

Since the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, the task of managing tensions arising from the Israel-Palestine conflict has been complex and challenging for Australian university managers. For instance, one month after the attack, academics and students at Sydney University found themselves divided over a range of issues thrown up by the war in Gaza. 

A core disagreement between the two sides seems to centre on the contestation of whether universities should be subject to the definition of anti-Semitism as prescribed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

Since late 2022, the Parliamentary Friends of IHRA, headed by Labor MP Josh Burns, Liberal MP Julian Lesser and independent MP Allegra Spender, has been urging Australian universities to adopt IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism — a call that has been embraced by some universities, including the University of Melbourne, while being rejected by others, such as Griffith University.

This move has caused widespread concern among Palestinian students. While it has its supporters, many researchers on Australian campuses believe the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism has “no place on Australian campuses”, and is a threat to academic freedom. 

But to Professor Tony Birch from Melbourne University, another vocal supporter of Hage, the MPS vs Hage incident is more “sinister” than the issue of academic freedom. He told Crikey that: 

the attacks on Ghassan are part of a wider effort to silence outspoken witnesses to the violent attacks on the people of Gaza, targeting journalists, academics and poets alike.

For many of the 360-strong academics who have pledged their support for Hage by signing the letter, a key concern is the likelihood that Australian universities will adopt the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism. The letter of support states:

As Australian or Australia-based scholars, teachers and students, we call on our own academic institutions to protect intellectual freedoms at a time when free speech is increasingly under threat elsewhere.

Associate Professor Monica Minnegal, an anthropologist from Melbourne University, is the first-named academic on the list of signatories. She told Crikey that while she knows that her university is standing by Hage, she nevertheless sees his recent experience as “symptomatic of much broader processes of constraining academic freedom.” She believes that what our universities need now is an “ethically consistent, highly principled, and nuanced approach to understanding racism of all kinds and the harm that it does” — attributes that she believes are embodied by her colleague — “not definitions that close down debate but an openness to carefully considering the views of others”. 

Emeritus Professor Andrew Jakubowicz, a prominent sociologist specialising in multiculturalism and the politics of racism in Australia with an in-depth knowledge of Ghassan Hage’s work, told Crikey that the MPS has done itself a disservice in responding to pressure in such a way: 

The word wars in Australia as elsewhere are part of the global struggle seeking to sway public and political opinion and drive intervention in the conflicts in Palestine/Israel. As a multicultural society the ground rules in Australia should be to permit a diversity of opinion to be voiced with respect. Intimidation and hate speech undermine the principles of multiculturalism, by whomever and wherever they are pursued or uttered. 

Just as the situation in Gaza itself appears to be far from settled, so, too, is the continuing debate surrounding the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism, and its possible adoption by Australian universities. No doubt this will not be the last we hear about this contentious issue — let alone about the events that provoked it, and those academics who express a strong opinion one way or another on those events. 

Disclosure: Wanning Sun is one of the signatories to the letter of support discussed above.