The test questions from a class at Florida International University enraged Randy Fine, a state lawmaker endorsed by President Trump.

One of the questions, uploaded onto social media by a student, said that Palestine was a country before Israel was created. Another seemed to suggest that Zionists invented terrorism. To Mr. Fine, they were proof that college textbooks and the test materials that accompany them were awash in antisemitism.

Mr. Fine said it made him wonder, “How many other Muslim terror textbooks are being used in our university system?”

The sprawling State University System of Florida, which educates more than 430,000 students, has been trying to find out.

Ray Rodrigues, the system’s chancellor, removed the textbook, “Terrorism and Homeland Security,” from use in the system, pending a review. Then in August, he announced a remarkable effort that has worried some professors and advocates of academic freedom: All 12 universities he oversees were to set up faculty panels to vet course materials, including textbooks, for antisemitism and anti-Israel bias.

To Mr. Rodrigues, the test questions Mr. Fine objected to were not only biased or antisemitic, they were also illegal under a 2024 Florida statute that defines some criticism of Israel as antisemitic.

The subject of the class that sparked the statewide effort might seem unexpected. It was not in one of the disciplines, like sociology, that right-leaning lawmakers have targeted in recent years, arguing that they were bastions of left-leaning ideology.

Rather, the course was on terrorism and homeland security, taught by an instructor who had served in the Marines. And the primary author of the textbook is a longtime security researcher who oversaw local antiterrorism training efforts in a Republican administration.

“This is such a random, inappropriate choice,” said Martha Schoolman, an English professor who has spoken out against the textbook screening effort. “But it also doesn’t matter. Because once you’ve decided it’s your job to vet everything for antisemitism, nothing’s going to pass.”

She added, “This is a policy being made based on screenshot.”

The statewide vetting effort is unfolding at a time when academia is still reeling from the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas and the military response from Israel. Campuses that were roiled last spring by demonstrations protesting Israel’s bombing of Gaza have quieted. But under pressure from lawmakers, many colleges and universities have tightened their rules governing protests, expelled students for conduct violations and scrutinized classes.

The Florida effort stands out. At the K-12 level, conservatives have long pushed school districts to ban books and publishers to examine curriculum for inappropriate material. In higher education, though, such scrutiny had been relatively rare. The vetting of course materials has been squarely in the domain of professors and their departments.

Mr. Fine, who is Jewish and calls himself “the Hebrew Hammer,” is a rising star in the Republican Party. Mr. Trump endorsed him in November for the seat in Congress that Mike Waltz resigned to become Mr. Trump’s national security adviser.

To Mr. Fine, the test questions posted on social media in June were examples of anti-Israel bias. One question read: “In which country did the Zionists purchase land to create their new homeland?” The answer was Palestine. But Palestine was Ottoman territory before the First World War and administered by Britain after that; it was not a country.

Another test question appeared to imply that extremist Zionist organizations invented terrorism. But terrorism existed long before the Middle East conflict.

Mr. Fine began searching for accountability. At first he looked to the course instructor, Mario Reyes, an adjunct professor. Mr. Fine wrote on social media that Mr. Reyes “shouldn’t buy green bananas for his office,” suggesting that his days in the job were limited. But after learning that Mr. Reyes, a Marine veteran who works for the Department of Defense, did not write the test questions, he turned his attention instead to the textbook and its authors.

The primary author of the book, Jonathan R. White, has credentials hardly seem associated with a pro-Palestinian bias. He served in the George W. Bush administration after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and taught about terrorism and homeland security for decades at Grand Valley State University in Michigan. He conducted counterterrorism training for police and military forces, according to his biography.

Dr. White, who recently retired and became a pastor, did not respond to requests for comment.

In an interview, Mr. Fine acknowledged that he had not read the textbook that he described as “pro-Muslim terror.” But he said he was assured by university officials that the book was problematic.

Mr. Rodrigues, who said in an interview that he had reviewed the book, was more tempered. He said the book contained “anti-Israel bias,” though he did not cite specific examples.

A review of the textbook by The New York Times found that it was more nuanced than the three test questions. The textbook does not say or imply that Palestine has been an independent country in modern times, nor that Zionists invented terrorism.

In a book passage that appears to be the basis of one of the test questions under scrutiny, the author provided an Israeli perspective that terrorism in the region was associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization. It also included a Palestinian perspective that Israelis had used terrorist tactics until they developed a conventional military force.

But it appears that the textbook author was not behind the test questions, either.

Cengage Group, the book’s publisher, said in a statement that it had used a third-party vendor to write questions intended to quiz students on the material contained in the book. The company said that the questions “did not live up to our standards” and that it had halted digital and print sales of the book while it conducts a “full academic review” to ensure the content is free of bias.

Brian Connolly, a history professor at the University of South Florida, said the questions were poorly constructed, but flowed from the textbook’s more nuanced writing.

“If we’re going to focus on poorly written multiple-choice questions,” Dr. Connolly said, “then it’s going to take the state university system the rest of their lives to address that.”

The book remains under review by the state university system.

In August, Mr. Rodrigues gave marching orders to the college presidents to look for other examples of textbooks and teaching materials that contained antisemitism or anti-Israel bias.

He said that the materials to be reviewed would be identified by keyword searches of course descriptions and syllabuses. The search words included “Israel,” “Israeli,” “Palestinian,” “Middle East,” “Zionism,” “Judaism” and “Jews.”

Mr. Rodrigues said that antisemitism would be identified using a definition put forward by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Under that definition, calling the creation of Israel a “racist endeavor” or holding Israel to a “double standard” would qualify as antisemitic. The definition has been criticized on college campuses by some who argue that it protects Israel from legitimate criticism.

Academic freedom groups like the American Association of University Professors have blasted the state textbook-vetting effort, calling it “thought policing” that “deepens Florida’s increasingly authoritarian approach to higher education.”

Faculty members have said that it may violate their collective-bargaining agreement, which grants professors the right to “determine pedagogy.”

And the Association of Jewish Studies said the effort disproportionately singles out for scrutiny instructors who teach Jewish Studies and related fields.

Laura Leibman, the president of the group, said the effort represented good intentions gone awry. She said she worried about having people without subject-matter expertise vetting course materials based on murky criteria.

“That struck at the heart of academic freedom,” she said.

Professor Schoolman, who is Jewish, said the entire exercise might seem like a farce. “The whole system has to be turned upside down to find antisemitic needles in a haystack,” she said. But she also worried that it may signal more political battles to come over what professors can say and teach.

In the interview, Mr. Rodrigues said that faculty members would conduct the reviews and send their findings to the university system’s Board of Governors before the board meets this week. If bias is identified, he said, experts would be brought in to examine the materials further.

“We need to identify whether this was an anomaly,” Mr. Rodrigues said about the homeland security test questions, “or whether it’s part of a broader problem.”