Glen Berman

And Jewish safety certainly won’t come by following through on Segal’s recommendations, which should be seen for what they are: a right-wing fantasy story of antisemitism as the product of humanities education and student organising.

Anyway, if you agree, consider signing
getup.to/P9Wj8tPMyTPd...

The Australian govt can and must do more to fight antisemitism, but Jewish safety won’t come by treating antisemitism as an isolated phenomenon, disconnected from other forms of racism.

⅔

Was a privilege to be a small part of this conversation opening #AusSTS this year. Looking forward to two more days of amazing papers and workshops.

AusSTS 2025 Day 1 Keynote "Infrastructures of Noise" Join the opening keynote of the 2025 AusSTS "Signals and Noises" conference, live from the National Communication Museum. We are thrilled to have Dang Nguyen (RMIT), Fabian Offert (UCSB), Ranjodh Dhal...

This time next week is #AusSTS. If you can't make it in-person, join for the keynotes, which we're streaming. Includes this one on Infrastructures of Noise, with @digitaldang.bsky.social, Fabian Offert, @katemannell.bsky.social & @ranjodhdhaliwal.com: www.youtube.com/live/ZGBAJWT...

- Proactive strategies to further their missions through GenAI, which could include using GenAI to supercharge decentralised campaigning and to support evidence gathering and campaign research, and supporting new GenAI-focused advocacy organisations to emerge.

Keen for feedback & chats.

3/3

The TL:DR is that I think advocacy orgs need to develop:
- Reactive strategies to protect themselves from the ways GenAI is changing patterns of Internet use, enabling new attacks on the credibility of civil society, and being put to use by government and corporate decision-makers.

And...
⅔

GenAI and advocacy organisations: developing reactive and proactive responses In this post I share some reflections on how advocacy organisations can respond to GenAI. Writing these reflections has been an exercise in bridging two halves of my career to date.

What does GenAI mean for advocacy and social change organisations?

Here are a few ideas, loosely informed by my PhD research and my experience working in the advocacy sector.

⅓

PhD Opportunity in Wider Societal Value of Research and Consequences of its Assessment: A multi-country and multi-method study (MultiSocVal) : Find an Expert : The University of Melbourne <p> The overarching project is funded by a German Volkswagen Foundation Grant. It brings together international collaborators from four countries – University of Melbourne, Humboldt University, Stellenbosch University, SWPS University, and from a range of disciplines including public policy, sociology, data science, political science, applied linguistics, philosophy and science and technology studies. </p> <p> The PhD candidate will be supported by an overarching research team, including academics, postdocs, research associates and research assistants, spread across the four countries. </p> <p> The overall goals of the group are described below, although there is considerable scope for the PhD candidatee to focus their thesis on an aspect of this work that interests them. </p> <p> Many governments are showing a political commitment to research impact in their respective environments by investing in research evaluation initiatives at different scales. Often the initiatives are characterised by pragmatism, with little attention to underlying value judgements. This creates an urgent need for comparative work with a strong theoretical and empirical basis to study the effects of national evaluation initiatives around impact and societal value. The overall project will address this need through a multi-country and multi-method study of research evaluation initiatives in Germany, Australia, the United Kingdom, Poland and South Africa. Bringing together an international and interdisciplinary team, the project seeks to: </p> <p> (1) produce a comprehensive cross-national and cross-disciplinary overview of research systems with regard to scientific and societal value; </p> <p> (2) investigate what is considered worthwhile research within and between countries; </p> <p> (3) compare the effects of different research evaluation initiatives around impact on research practice in different countries; </p> <p> (4) develop an integrated conceptual framework of scientific and societal value to improve science policy and science practice; and </p> <p> (5) advance stakeholders’ understanding of the effects of research impact assessment for better future evaluation. </p> <p> <strong>About you</strong> </p> <p> We are looking for a candidate with a strong academic background in a relevant discipline such as public policy, sociology, political science, science and technology studies, or a related field. The candidate will be intellectually curious and motivated by critical questions about the role of research in society. Ideally, the candidate will bring an interest in the changing landscape of research governance, including how ideas of value, worth, and impact are shaped and operationalised across national science systems. </p> <p> We welcome applicants with experience in qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research. An enthusiasm for learning new methods – including bibliometric or computational text analysis, survey design, or innovative qualitative analysis – will be an advantage. The candidate will thrive in interdisciplinary and collaborative environments and be keen to contribute to an international research team spanning multiple countries and disciplinary traditions. Strong written and verbal communication skills, along with the ability to work independently and manage a sustained research project, are essential. </p> <p> This project offers considerable scope for the PhD candidate to shape their own research focus within the broader program, and would suit someone interested in contributing to both theoretical and practical understandings of how research is evaluated and governed in contemporary societies. </p> <p> <strong>Eligibility</strong> </p> <p> Domestic and International applicants may apply. You must meet the entry requirements for the <a href="https://handbook.unimelb.edu.au/courses/dr-philart">Doctor of Philosophy – Arts at the University of Melbourne (link attached)</a> including English language requirements and demonstrate excellent capacity and potential for research. </p> <p> As the successful candidate, You will demonstrae: </p> <ul> <li>An academic background in the field of sociology (of culture/science or related area), STS, library and information science, or public policy/research governance </li> <li>A relevant undergraduate and/or postgraduate degree with an average that equivalent to a H1 (80%) at the University of Melbourne, including H1 results in the Honours or Master’s thesis component; and </li> <li>Experience with qualitative analysis or quantitative analysis in the above fields </li> <li>The ability to write research reports or other publications to a publishable standard (even if not published to date) </li> <li>capability to manage projects effectively, meet deadlines and achieve outcomes within a specified timeframes. </li> </ul> <p> <strong>How to submit an expression of interest</strong> </p> <p> Please submit your expression of interest (EOI) via the ‘Submit Expression of Interest’ button by 15 July 2025. </p> <p> Your EOI must include: </p> <ul> <li>A short description of how the project aligns with your interest and experience, an overview of how your might approach the project goals, and an outline of three relevant references from the literature with a description of how they relate to the project </li> <li>A CV that highlights your relevant academic achievements and any relevant professional experience including the names of two academic referees. </li> <li>Higher education academic transcripts that give detailed information of the individual marks received in your university-level qualifications to date </li> <li>An example of your written academic work (e.g. Honours or masters thesis or peer-reviewed journal article) </li> </ul> <p> For more information about our PhD program and application process, please visit <a href="https://arts.unimelb.edu.au/study/graduate-research"><strong>this website</strong></a>. </p>

Kate Williams is a brilliant PhD supervisor & this is a timely and significant project to join. When research funding and academic freedom is under attack, developing a better understanding of what happens when research evaluation is standardised and institutionalised is vital.

shorturl.at/3kHgx

And if you made it this far: Shabbat Shalom.

I’ve no magic solutions. But I’m hoping that writing more about this creates space for productive dialogue and some new voices.

As I’ve discovered this week, an unnamed source pedalling untrue rumours can also be enough to warrant expulsion. But, this isolation works in favour of right-wing pro-Israel movements: it creates an inherent social barrier to Jewish people joining the pro-Palestine movement. Where to from here?

We also feel that our membership in progressive pro-Palestine movements is contingent on us remaining within the boundaries of the pro-Palestine Good Jew. Saying this out loud, of course, falls foul of these very boundaries.

Jews, like me, who are opposed to the genocide in Gaza and occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are doubly isolated. We struggle to see ourselves reflected in mainstream Jewish cultural and religious organisations.

(Sidenote: if you’re not familiar, please do check out the Jewish Council of Australia for an example of an alternative community voice.) But, the appearance of Western Jewish uniformity is the product of the Good Jew caricatures of the pro-Israel and pro-Palestine movements.

I know that it can appear that Western Jewish communities have almost entirely internalised the pro-Israel caricature of the Good Jew – especially due to the prominence conservative media gives to organisations like the Australian Jewish Association.

3) in both caricatures, Judaism and Jewish culture is almost exclusively understood through the prism of Israel-Palestine. Jewish people are defined by whether they are pro-Israel or anti-Israel, Zionist or anti-Zionist. There are no complicated Jews. Yet, my community is full of complicated Jews.

2) both caricatures ask Jews to deny their humanity. In the pro-Israel movement this manifests in a hateful response to Jews expressing empathy for Palestinians. In the pro-Palestine movement, the same response awaits attempts to explain why Jewish communities legitimately feel at risk.

1) in both caricatures the Good Jew is secular. Religious Jews, who are the most visible targets of antisemitism, are never Good Jews. A Good Jew is culturally assimilated. This is why in both movements the Good Jew must adopt the movement's broad political ideology in totality.

While the caricatures of the Good Jew constructed in the pro-Israel and pro-Palestine movements are largely diametrically opposed, they have three points of overlap:

And, lastly, the Good Jew must confront and cut ties with Zionist Jews – whilst also accepting a definition of Zionism that is so broad it includes anyone who believes there may be legitimate historical reasons why Jewish people feel the need for the security of a nation state.

The Good Jew does have a voice, but – as I have learnt this week – unless the Good Jew loudly, clearly, and repeatedly performs their support of Palestine in person and on social media, over and over, this voice is not legitimate.

Pro-Palestine movements represent the Good Jew in less racialised terms. Here, the Good Jew is constructed by selective silence. The Good Jew cannot talk about antisemitism in the movement. The Good Jew can never be critical of any strategy, tactic, or message adopted by the pro-Palestine movement.

The Good Jew, as constructed by pro-Israel movements is a white supremacist.

The Good Jew must donate to politicians who support Israel (the Good Jews is rich), and can never disagree with any aspect of their political platform, whether related to Israel or not. The Good Jew can talk about antisemitism, but only if they use such talk to further Islamophobia.

Pro-Israel movements implicitly define the Good Jew as White, wealthy, Zionist, champions of American imperialism. For pro-Israel movements, the Good Jew must feel a deep sense of gratitude to America, and Western allies generally. The Good Jew must never criticise Israel or its Western allies.

Western pro-Israel movements (ie Jewish Zionist movements and non-Jewish pro-Israel movements) & Western pro-Palestine movements both claim to have the support of Jewish people & disavow antisemitism. But, both movements are tolerant only of Jews who meet their narrow constructions of the Good Jew.

Antisemitism, like all forms of hate and prejudice, is complex, often expressed explicitly, but equally often manifested in implicit acts. In discourse and movements around Israel and Palestine, one way antisemitism operates is through the construction of the Good Jew.

My argument is a political argument: I am arguing that talking about and challenging antisemitism now might be helpful in making it politically easier to undertake some of the organising and mobilisation work that is necessary to end Western support of Israel’s actions.

There is no justification for Israel’s occupation of the West Bank or Gaza, or for Israel’s collective punishment of Palestinians. Palestinians are not responsible for antisemitism, and justice for Palestinians should not be contingent on addressing a hateful scourge whose roots are European.

For this reason, nuanced conversations about antisemitism remain critical, even if doing so feels uncomfortable and ill-timed. This is not a moral argument.