UQ Press – Authors and artists are demanding a boycott of University of Queensland Press after printing was pulled for a First Nations children’s book, sparking contract terminations and public letters.
Calls for a boycott of University of Queensland Press are growing after an upcoming First Nations children’s book was pulled from print, with authors condemning the decision as reckless and disrespectful.
The dispute centers on *Bila: a river cycle* by Jazz Money. a Wiradjuri poet of Irish heritage. illustrated by Matt Chun.. University of Queensland Press (UQP) confirmed it had severed its printing plans for the book. which was due to release on June 30. following a series of actions and communications that then escalated into public fallout.
The immediate flashpoint traces back to January. when UQP paused printing after Chun posted on his online newsletter about the Bondi Beach terror attack. using the phrase “we don’t mourn fascists.” In a statement shared with Misryoum. the university said Chun’s comments “do not align with the university’s policies and values or with its adopted definition of antisemitism.”
From there. the story shifted from a dispute over statements to a broader fight over cultural authority and editorial power—especially because *Bila* belongs to the work of a First Nations writer and illustrator team.. Dr Evelyn Araluen. a Melbourne-based poet. author and 2026 Victorian Premier’s Literary Prize winner. announced she was terminating her contract with UQP.. She described the decision to pulp the work as “shameful and abhorrent. ” and said it had been made without due process. communication. respect. or consideration.
Araluen said she had built long-standing relationships with UQP workers and had encouraged other First Nations storytellers to work with the publisher.. She also alleged that her involvement contributed to substantial revenue for the press during her association.. Her message to Misryoum readers and the literary community was blunt: when cultural labor can be erased “on a political whim. ” artists will treat that outcome as proof they need new ways to speak.
Hours after Araluen’s announcement, Money said she was also leaving the publisher.. Her critique went beyond the book’s cancellation. framing it as a wider pattern of connections between universities and outlets she described as politically aligned elsewhere.. She said the treatment of her and Chun reflected gaslighting. silencing. obfuscation. and outright lies. and she argued the university’s actions showed “shocking” disregard for the authors at the center of the controversy.
In the middle of the dispute. Chun said he had been cut out of communications about the book at the beginning of March and accused UQ of trying to create distance between him and Money.. He said the book was cancelled on March 30—another detail that matters because it reframes the timeline from “a concern raised” to “a process that bypassed the people whose work was being withdrawn.”
The backlash has also moved into the collective public sphere.. By about 1pm Thursday, Misryoum reported more than 30 authors had penned an open letter to UQP voicing solidarity with Money.. A separate writer—Palestinian-Australian academic Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah—also said she was cutting ties with the publisher. pointing to previous consequences when institutions removed her from a writers’ event.
Why this story is exploding: control over cultural work, not just publishing policy
What makes this case resonate far beyond the book itself is that it touches a sensitive pressure point in modern cultural institutions: the gap between institutional definitions of harm and the lived reality of creators who deliver cultural content.. When a publisher pulls printing, the decision doesn’t remain abstract.. It affects schedules. careers. community trust. and the emotional labor that goes into producing children’s literature—where the audience is often a future generation that never gets a say in the adult conflict around them.
For First Nations storytellers, that trust is even more fragile.. The fear is not only censorship; it is erasure—especially when the work is linked to community identity.. The anger in this dispute reflects a question many readers will ask themselves: if a creator feels process and communication are missing. how can an institution claim its actions are aligned with respect?
What UQ says it’s doing—and what creators are challenging
UQP’s position. as described through the university’s statements. is that it acted according to its policies and its definition of antisemitism.. The university has also said it had not barred Money and welcomed the possibility of working with her again in the future.. It added that it had not yet destroyed the several thousand printed copies, while considering “recycling options.”
Creators challenging the decision argue that institutional policies don’t erase the responsibilities of dialogue. transparency. and due process—especially when the people whose work is affected are First Nations artists.. In practical terms. the backlash suggests that “values alignment” is being judged less by internal policy language and more by whether creators experienced consistent. respectful communication.
This is why calls for a boycott are gaining momentum.. They are not only about one title.. They are a signal that artists and authors may increasingly demand “cultural due process” from institutions—where editorial decisions are treated as relationship decisions. not just contractual or risk-management ones.
The wider impact: precedent for universities and cultural publishers
If the dispute ends with ongoing severed relationships. it could reshape how university-linked publishers approach controversial statements. partnerships. and decision-making timelines.. The literary world watches outcomes closely because publishers are gatekeepers—yet they also rely on the very communities they represent in their catalogues.. The next move, whether UQP pursues dialogue, reinstates projects, or adjusts procedures, will be read as a test case.
For readers. the immediate consequence is simpler: a children’s book that was meant to arrive in June is instead becoming a symbol in a much larger argument about who holds authority over Indigenous storytelling.. For the publishing industry, the longer consequence is that trust can be broken faster than paper can be reprinted.. When that happens, boycotts aren’t just protest—they become leverage.