A Jewish academic at the University of Melbourne has told a royal commission that he feared he was facing a possible terrorist attack when a group of masked protesters entered the building where he worked and gathered near his office.
Professor Steven Prawer appeared before the Royal Commission into Anti-Semitism in Melbourne on Tuesday, describing a series of incidents involving pro-Palestinian protesters on the university campus during 2024.
The commission’s latest hearings are examining the experiences of Jewish students, academics and staff at Australian universities. Participants providing personal testimony during this stage of the inquiry are not being cross-examined.
Professor Prawer said seeing protesters with their faces largely concealed by keffiyehs and masks left him deeply alarmed, particularly because the confrontation occurred not long after the October 7, 2023 attacks in Israel.
He told the inquiry that he could only see the protesters’ eyes and did not know whether they intended to demonstrate, intimidate him or carry out an act of violence.
At the time, a pro-Palestinian encampment had been established at the University of Melbourne. Professor Prawer had publicly spoken about the discomfort and anxiety the protest camp was causing among some Jewish students and employees.
The physics professor, who is also co-director of the Australian Academic Alliance Against Anti-Semitism, had helped establish an academic partnership between the University of Melbourne and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
He said flyers were later distributed on campus accusing him of being connected to alleged genocide in Gaza because of that research collaboration.
Professor Prawer recalled arriving at work and discovering a Palestinian flag displayed on the physics building. He then encountered approximately 20 people in an area close to his office, most of whom had covered their faces.
According to his evidence, members of the group told him they had been waiting for him and invited him to speak with them. He responded that they should leave and arrange a formal appointment if they wanted to have a discussion.
As he attempted to contact university security, the protesters allegedly began chanting his name and accusing him of genocide.
Professor Prawer said the situation felt fundamentally different from a public protest held outdoors under security supervision. Being surrounded inside a building by a group of masked individuals made him feel isolated, outnumbered and vulnerable.
He argued that students had no right to determine which international universities or researchers academics were permitted to work with.
At that time, university procedures reportedly allowed only the vice-chancellor to contact police in certain circumstances. However, the vice-chancellor was unavailable because they were attending a meeting.
A security officer who had previously been assigned to Professor Prawer following an earlier protest arrived and escorted him away. Police were eventually contacted, and the group left the building.
Following the incident, the university increased security around Professor Prawer. Access to his office and building was tightened through swipe-card controls, and he was provided with a business transport account so he could avoid travelling on public transport.
A relative also arranged for a private investigator to examine the incident and attempt to identify the masked protesters. The commission heard that several members of the group were identified as university students.
However, Professor Prawer said he had been given very little information about the university’s internal investigation, disciplinary proceedings or the appeals lodged by those students.
He said he was not provided with the university’s incident report and was unable to obtain the names of the people involved from either the institution or police.
Professor Prawer criticised what he described as a lack of transparency in the university’s handling of the matter. He argued that greater openness was needed to determine whether investigations had been thorough and whether disciplinary decisions were appropriate.
He expressed concern that some suspensions were nearing completion, potentially allowing students connected to the incident to return to campus. Because he did not know their identities, he said he would be unable to recognise them if they approached him again.
He also questioned why the university had imposed suspensions rather than expulsions and why the reasoning behind the disciplinary outcomes had not been made public.
According to Professor Prawer, universities must send a clear message that they support peaceful disagreement and political debate but will not tolerate intimidation, harassment or breaches of professional conduct.
While some identified students faced consequences, he said other masked participants remained unidentified and appeared to have avoided punishment altogether.
Police ultimately decided not to lay charges over the incident. Professor Prawer also said attempts through the Magistrates’ Court to identify the intruders and obtain an intervention order were unsuccessful.
The experience has had an ongoing impact on his personal life. He told the commission that extensive security measures had been installed at his home and that his grandchildren had asked why anyone might want to harm him.
During his evidence, Professor Prawer also discussed his scientific career, including work in quantum computing and research aimed at developing technology that could help blind people recognise the faces of relatives and loved ones.
The inquiry also heard from Jeremy Suss, president of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, who raised concerns about Jewish students and graduates being targeted, monitored and exposed online.
Mr Suss, a third-year Monash University student, said former Jewish student leaders had been doxxed, with details of their employment and personal lives published online.
He said accepting a leadership role in a Jewish student organisation was increasingly portrayed by some activists as immoral or suspicious, creating fear for those representing Jewish students.
Mr Suss also described being personally confronted and pressured to answer for the actions of the Israeli government.
In one incident, he said individuals told Jewish students that they regularly watched where they gathered for weekly lunches on campus. He said the comment made him increasingly conscious that their movements and activities were being observed.
He described another occasion when he and a friend wearing a kippah visited a pro-Palestinian encampment. A speaker discussing Zionism allegedly gestured towards them and said that people like them were disgusting.
Mr Suss told the commission he found it disturbing that such a statement could be made openly in a university environment.
He said Monash University had generally responded more effectively than many other institutions when investigating allegations of anti-Semitism. However, he argued that universities often became trapped in lengthy debates over whether particular conduct met the technical definition of anti-Semitism.
Universities should instead act promptly when behaviour clearly involves intimidation, harassment, bullying or doxxing, regardless of how it is ultimately classified, he said.
The royal commission is continuing to hear evidence about anti-Semitism, campus safety, institutional responses and the experiences of Jewish students and academics across Australia.
