An Australian royal commission into antisemitism heard direct calls Friday to audit university courses covering Israel and Palestine, raising a question American taxpayers should be asking about their own campuses: who funds the curricula shaping the next generation, and what are they buying?
Shadow education minister Julian Leeser told the commission he was "very concerned" about antisemitism on campus and unsatisfied with how vice-chancellors responded after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack. "I've been particularly unhappy with the responses that I've received from vice-chancellors in relation to their failure to … audit courses dealing with the Israel-Palestine conflict to ensure that both sides are presented in the best way possible so that students are best prepared to make their own mind up," Leeser said.
Leeser recommended the government legislate that all universities adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, replacing institutions' own definitions. He also called for "an audit of what's being taught about Jews and Israel in their classrooms" and removal of "antisemitic materials." Course materials on the conflict, he said, should come from "credible sources" that are "balanced."
The IHRA recommendation is where the story gets complicated. The definition is contentious precisely because critics say it can be weaponized to shut down criticism of Israel. Vicki Thomson, chief executive of the Group of Eight — which represents Australia's leading research universities — said last year that member institutions advised the IHRA definition was "not workable" in an Australian context because it may limit academic freedom. The Guardian's coverage framed this as a tension between combating hate and protecting free inquiry, but buried the more fundamental question: what is actually being taught, and who pays for it?
Leeser identified "three main vectors" of antisemitism: "the far right among neo-Nazis, among radical Islamists, and among the academic and cultural left." Tahli Blicblau, inaugural CEO of the Dor Foundation — launched last year to combat antisemitism — agreed on the first two but added "fringe elements of the far-left and conspiracy movements." Notably, Blicblau distinguished between ideological drivers and actual protesters, saying "the vast majority" of pro-Palestine demonstrators were not motivated by violence toward Jewish people.
The commission also heard that vice-chancellors of Australia's largest universities have sharply changed protest policies since 2023, which prompted warnings about restricted academic freedom — a detail The Guardian noted but did not explore.
What neither the commission nor the coverage has adequately addressed is the money trail. Foreign governments — particularly in the Gulf — have poured millions into Western university Middle East studies programs for decades. If academic institutions have become vehicles for ideological influence rather than education, the first question isn't what definition of antisemitism to adopt. It's who funded the course materials in the first place, and what they expected in return.
The audit demand is reasonable. The free speech concerns are also reasonable. Reconciling them requires sunlight on the funding — not just the syllabi.
