An internal safety review found the encampment posed a 'high' psychosocial risk
At a royal commission examining how Australian universities have responded to the Israel-Gaza conflict, the Australian National University found itself accounting for a series of decisions that reveal the quiet violence institutions can inflict even in the absence of malice. A grieving student asked to produce death certificates for relatives killed in Gaza, a protest encampment rated as high psychosocial risk, and ambiguous video footage scrutinised for signs of hatred — each detail surfaces a deeper question about what universities owe those in their care when the world outside the campus gates is on fire.
- A student mourning relatives killed in Gaza was told by their supervisor that death certificates would be required before any academic accommodation could be granted — a demand the university's own acting provost called inappropriate.
- The royal commission is pressing universities on whether their responses to pro-Palestine activism and Jewish student welfare have been adequate, consistent, or compromised by institutional self-interest.
- ANU's internal safety review quietly classified its months-long student encampment as a 'high' psychosocial risk — a finding that sits uneasily alongside the university's public insistence that it never lost control of its campus.
- The encampment ultimately ended not through formal resolution but over a dispute about electricity and lighting, shortly after ANU announced it would divest from controversial weapons manufacturers — a concession that appeared to meet the protesters' central demand.
- Investigations into alleged Nazi imagery at a student meeting concluded no misconduct had occurred, with the university determining that gestures captured on incomplete video footage were either habitual or too ambiguous to prosecute.
An Australian National University student whose relatives were killed in Gaza was told they would need to provide death certificates in order to receive an exam extension — a demand the university's acting provost, Joan Leach, acknowledged was inappropriate when it was raised at a royal commission hearing this week. Leach said she had not been aware of the case until it was put to her during questioning by a barrister representing the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network.
The hearing is part of a broader inquiry into how Australian universities have navigated the tensions between supporting Jewish students and academics on one side, and accommodating pro-Palestine activism on the other — a fault line that has run through campus life since the Israel-Gaza war intensified in late 2023.
Leach also faced questions about the pro-Palestine encampment established on ANU's grounds in April 2024, which protesters framed as a response to the university's financial ties to weapons manufacturers. She pushed back against suggestions the university had lost control, though an internal safety review completed in October 2024 rated the encampment as posing a 'high' psychosocial risk. Security staff maintained continuous observation and encouraged students who felt pressured to stay to leave. The camp eventually dissolved over a dispute about electricity — a mundane conclusion to months of institutional strain. Shortly before it ended, ANU announced it would divest from controversial weapons and civilian small arms manufacturers, appearing to concede one of the protesters' core demands.
The commission also examined allegations of Nazi imagery at a student association meeting in May 2024, attended by around 500 people. Video circulated showing what some interpreted as a Nazi salute and a gesture mimicking a Hitler moustache. After extensive investigation, the university found no misconduct: the moustache gesture was determined to be a habitual movement unrelated to politics, and the salute footage was too incomplete to draw conclusions from. No other students present identified it as a Nazi salute.
Taken together, the details emerging from the hearings — a death certificate demanded of a grieving student, a protest rated high-risk behind closed doors, video footage parsed for hidden meaning — suggest an institution straining under the weight of competing moral obligations, and a commission asking whether the way universities manage such conflicts may be as consequential as the conflicts themselves.
An Australian National University student grieving the deaths of relatives killed in Gaza was told by a supervisor that obtaining death certificates would be necessary to receive an exam extension, a royal commission into antisemitism heard this week. The detail emerged during questioning of the university's acting provost, Joan Leach, by a barrister representing the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network. The supervisor's demand for proof was inappropriate, Leach acknowledged, though she said she had not been aware of the specific case until it was raised at the hearing.
The exchange took place during the fourth set of hearings examining how universities have responded to both Jewish students and academics on one hand, and pro-Palestine activism on the other—a tension that has defined campus life since the Israel-Gaza war intensified in late 2023. The question of what universities owe students in crisis, and how they balance competing claims on their attention and resources, sits at the heart of the inquiry.
Leach also addressed the pro-Palestine encampment that students established on ANU's grounds in April 2024. The camp, which drew international attention and sparked fierce debate about free speech and institutional neutrality, was framed by its organizers as a protest against the university's financial ties to weapons manufacturers. When pressed on whether the university had effectively lost control of its campus during the encampment's months-long presence, Leach resisted the characterization. Yet an internal safety review completed in October 2024 told a different story: the encampment posed a "high" psychosocial risk to the university community. Security staff maintained constant observation, she explained, and actively encouraged students who felt pressured to remain to leave. The camp eventually dissolved following a dispute over electricity and lighting—a mundane endpoint to a conflict that had consumed considerable institutional energy.
The university had attempted to disband the encampment multiple times before that resolution. Shortly before its final dispersal, ANU announced it would divest from controversial weapons manufacturers and civilian small arms makers, a decision that appeared to address one of the protesters' core demands.
Leach was also questioned about investigations into alleged Nazi imagery at a student association meeting in May 2024, which drew roughly 500 attendees. Video footage circulated widely showing what some interpreted as a Nazi salute and another gesture that appeared to mimic a Hitler moustache. One student was removed from the online meeting for their conduct. The university's investigation concluded that the alleged moustache gesture was a habitual movement the student used to cover a facial feature they felt self-conscious about—not a political statement. As for the salute, the video was incomplete, making it difficult to determine what had actually occurred. Other students present were asked how they had interpreted the gesture; none identified it as a Nazi salute. After extensive interviews, investigators found no misconduct.
These details—the death certificates demanded of a grieving student, the high-risk rating of a protest encampment, the ambiguous video footage parsed for hidden meanings—sketch the contours of a university caught between competing moral claims and institutional pressures. The royal commission's examination of these moments suggests that how universities navigate such conflicts may matter as much as the conflicts themselves.
Notable Quotes
The supervisor's response was inappropriate, though the acting provost said she was unaware of the case until the hearing— Prof Joan Leach, ANU acting provost
There were concerns about the risks to students and to people in the university community at that point— Prof Joan Leach, on the encampment's impact
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would a supervisor ask for death certificates? That seems like an unusually harsh requirement.
It's framed as a verification mechanism—proof that the loss actually occurred. But it places an extraordinary burden on a student already in distress, and it assumes the university's role is to police grief rather than accommodate it.
Did the university have a policy that required this kind of documentation?
That's not clear from what was said. The acting provost called it inappropriate, which suggests it wasn't standard procedure. It may have been a supervisor acting without clear guidance, or applying a rule meant for something else to a situation it wasn't designed for.
What about the encampment itself—was it actually a safety problem, or was that review just covering for the university's discomfort with the protest?
The review found genuine psychosocial risks. That doesn't mean the protest was wrong or shouldn't have happened. It means living in a contested space, under observation, with peer pressure and institutional pressure both present, creates real stress. Both things can be true.
And the Nazi salute incident—did the investigation actually clear the students, or did it just fail to prove misconduct?
There's a difference. The investigation found the moustache gesture was habitual, not political. For the salute, the video was incomplete and other witnesses didn't interpret it that way. That's closer to clearing them, though you can see why people watching the footage might have read it differently.
So the university is in an impossible position—trying to protect Jewish students while also protecting the right to protest?
That's the tension the royal commission is trying to understand. There's no obvious answer, which is probably why these hearings matter.