The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) published articles on September 30 and October 2, 2025, raising concerns about two Campion College academics, Dr Stephen McInerney and Dr Stephen Chavura, and describing their public commentary as linked to "far-Right rhetoric" and "white nationalism." These reports have prompted a strong reaction, including petitions from groups such as the British Australian Community and Revive Australia, which argue that the professors are being unfairly targeted.

Campion College itself is a small Catholic liberal arts institution in Sydney's west, founded in 2006 to promote Western civilisation through a classical curriculum grounded in Christian values. It enrols about 50 students per year, and has received government support (for example, $5 million each from NSW and federal sources in 2021 for infrastructure). It also has links to prominent conservatives such as former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and its library is named after mining philanthropist Gina Rinehart.

The Professors' Public Commentary

The SMH highlighted public speeches and statements made by McInerney and Chavura. According to those reports:

Dr Stephen McInerney has spoken of new political parties representing "our people," referred to the White Australia Policy, and expressed concerns about demographic change, violence, and national loyalty in the event of conflict.

Dr Stephen Chavura has founded an all-male club called Australia's Sons with the stated purpose of supporting "pro-Australia rallies" and has criticised multiculturalism as harmful to national cohesion.

Neither professor is accused of classroom misconduct or of breaking any law. Campion College president Dr Paul Morrissey has stated that he was not aware of most of these comments prior to the SMH coverage, and the college has launched an internal review while reaffirming that all people, regardless of background, are welcome on campus.

Academic Freedom and Public Debate

Here is where the issue broadens. Should academics face professional sanction for controversial speech delivered outside the classroom? My view is that this is first and foremost a test of academic freedom. The question is not whether one agrees with McInerney or Chavura, but whether it is legitimate for universities to host staff who express provocative cultural and political views in public.

Supporters of the two academics, such as former MP George Christensen, argue that they are "truth-tellers" punished for raising questions about culture, heritage, and demographic change. Critics counter that such views run contrary to Catholic social teaching and risk alienating students from minority backgrounds. Both sides, however, implicitly acknowledge that what is at stake is not simply Campion College's reputation, but the boundaries of acceptable speech in higher education.

The "Double Standard" in Cultural Discourse

One reason the debate has been so polarising is that cultural identities are not treated symmetrically. Progressive frameworks like critical race theory often subject "whiteness" to intense critique as a power structure. Yet expressions of pride in other identities, such as "Black excellence" or Indigenous sovereignty, are typically celebrated. When McInerney or Chavura speak of Anglo-Celtic heritage or express concerns about assimilation, they are labelled "white nationalist," whereas parallel expressions of cultural solidarity in other groups rarely attract the same condemnation.

This is not to excuse or endorse any particular rhetoric. It is simply to observe that inconsistent standards fuel resentment and suspicion that some cultural identities may be deconstructed, while others are considered sacrosanct. For genuine equity in debate, the same lens should be applied consistently across identities.

Immigration and Consent

Another fault line is Australia's rapid demographic change. Since the formal end of the White Australia Policy in the 1970s, multiculturalism has been a bipartisan project, never put directly to referendum. Net migration reached over 500,000 in 2023–24, creating pressure on housing and infrastructure. Polling by the Lowy Institute shows a significant share of Australians favour lower immigration levels.

It is reasonable, then, for citizens to debate the pace and character of immigration policy. Dismissing concerns as xenophobic risks ignoring the democratic question: to what extent should population change be subject to public consent? Proposals such as holding regular consultations or votes on migration levels may help restore legitimacy to the process.

Why It Matters

Campion College's decision will be closely watched. If it removes staff simply for controversial public commentary, it risks narrowing the range of permissible speech not only for conservatives, but for anyone questioning prevailing orthodoxies. Academic freedom only has meaning if it protects speech that many find uncomfortable.

In my view, the case illustrates the need for open, consistent standards in cultural debate, and for institutions to protect discussion rather than suppress it. That is the only way for a pluralist democracy like Australia to navigate disagreements over heritage, identity, and the future shape of the nation.