The Australian media appear to be running a coordinated campaign to pressure Campion College into firing two Christian academics—Dr Stephen Chavura and Dr Stephen McInerney—simply for expressing conservative views about Australia’s national identity and demographic character.

First, it was the Sydney Morning Herald—twice. Today, it’s The Guardian, effectively accusing these academics of views they explicitly deny, imputing connections they reject, and treating democratic rights—freedom of association, freedom of political expression, and academic freedom—as suspicious and potentially dangerous behaviours.

The entire framing of the criticism rests on the assumption that any discussion of demographics, cultural continuity, or Australia’s historically Anglo-Celtic character is inherently “racist” or an expression of “white supremacy.”

Of course, “racism” in this context is simply “political positions the left dislikes”. The same tactic is used across the Anglosphere: redefine racism so broadly that demographic policy, immigration criticism, or cultural preservation all fall under the category of “racism.”

Yet, even the article itself quotes their view explicitly: “I believe European peoples should have their own homelands, like every other race, where they are unquestioned super majorities, and that it is legitimate for them to organise politically to preserve or achieve that reality.”

This is not a claim of racial hierarchy, as the article insinuates, but an argument for applying to European-descended peoples the same principle of ethnocultural self-determination commonly accepted for other groups.

In fact, this is the opposite of white supremacy: it is an argument for parity, the same right every Indigenous, Middle Eastern, Asian and African nation asserts without controversy. But when Westerners dare to express a similar principle, it’s suddenly “Nazism” and must be immediately punished as such.

Either the principle is legitimate for all peoples or illegitimate for all peoples. The article never explains why it’s fine for the Japanese, Jews, Tibetans, or Palestinians to articulate demographic preferences, but forbidden for Australians to even mention the country’s founding ethnocultural identity.

What’s more, the blatant double standard here is hard to miss. Academics who openly advocate the abolition of Australia’s borders, the replacement of national symbols, demonising of White people, the dissolution of Western civilisation, or the claim that Australia is an illegitimate colonial occupier are never subject to federal investigations or media pile-ons. In fact, they’re often rewarded and applauded.

But two conservative academics express concerns about mass immigration, concerns shared by millions of ordinary Australians, and they’re treated like a national security threat.

This is not about “protecting students.” No students were harmed. Their views were expressed in a personal capacity, and there is no evidence whatsoever of discriminatory treatment. The college’s own president has acknowledged as much. Rather, it seems the purpose is to discipline dissent and enforce an ideological monoculture in higher education by intimidation and regulatory threat.

This is not about reporting facts. It’s about ensuring anyone stepping an inch outside progressive orthodoxy is smeared as a racist, a white supremacist, or a Nazi, regardless of what they actually believe or say.

In truth, Dr Chavura and Dr McInerney represent an emerging, unapologetically pro-Australian, conservative constituency. That is, a group that refuses to play by the left’s language rules and won’t be shamed into silence. That is the real danger, and that is why the media is scrambling to neutralise them early.

Neither of these men should apologise. They should be defended, even by those who disagree, because if they can be ostracised and demonised for thought crimes, every academic, student, or citizen who dissents from the prevailing orthodoxy is next.