This is a true test of people like me who are pro-Israel in the current conflict but are also in favor of free speech. But it’s not a hard decision, for if you’re a hard line free-speech advocate, you must accept the fact that it’s most important to allow freedom of speech when what the person says offends you or many others.
And that is the situation in the case of Asna Tabassum, the valedictorian of the University of Southern California (USC), who, apparently because she might talk about (Israeli) genocide or advocate for a Palestine “from the river to the sea”, isn’t going to be allowed to speak at graduation. (Of course, the USC administration uses other excuses for censorship, like “safety”.)
I was alerted to the situation by this tweet sent to me by Luana:
Incredible story. USC offers a minor in “resistance to genocide”, this girl minored in it, was named valedictorian, and then they cancelled her speech because she might talk about genocide https://t.co/Ivk9LFwjAC
— Tom Gara (@tomgara) April 16, 2024
Is this the case? Does USC really have a minor in genocide? Did the valedictorian minor in genocide? And did USC also prevent its valedictorian from speaking because of the possibility she might discuss genocide? The answer to all four questions appears to be “yes”. But I think it’s wrong to prevent her from speaking—not if USC has a tradition of having valedictorians speak, which there is.
First, yes, USC does have a minor in genocide, or rather “resistance to genocide”. Here are part of the details of that minor (click to read), but if you look at the the courses, there’s nothing about Israel/Palestine: most of them are about the Shoah (Holocaust of Jews during WWII), Native American genocide, the Armenian genocide, and genocide and the law. It seems like a creditable minor. Of course one suspects that Tabassum might have minored in this because of a belief that Palestine is undergoing genocide, but we don’t know that, and at any rate it’s irrelevant to this kerfuffle.
This article from the school’s site USC Today (click headline below to read) confirms that Tabassum was indeed the valedictorian:
USC’s 2024 valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, was also recognized. Tabassum, who is graduating with a major in biomedical engineering a minor in resistance to genocide, has studied how technology, immigration and literacy affect the type of medical care people receive. She has also been an advocate for the community through her service with the Muslim Student Union and the Mobile Clinic at USC.
And here are two articles, the first from the Los Angeles Times and the second from USC Annenberg Media, both confirming that Tabassum has indeed been banned buy USC’s administration from speaking. Click both to read, though the quotes below come from the L.A. Times.
From the L.A. Times:
And from the USC Annenberg site:
Quotes from the LA Times:
Saying “tradition must give way to safety,” the University of Southern California on Monday made the unprecedented move of barring an undergraduate valedictorian who has come under fire for her pro-Palestinian views from giving a speech at its May graduation ceremony.
The move, according to USC officials, is the first time the university has banned a valedictorian from the traditional chance to speak onstage at the annual commencement ceremony, which typically draws more than 65,000 people to the Los Angeles campus.
In a campuswide letter, USC Provost Andrew T. Guzman cited unnamed threats that have poured in shortly after the university publicized the valedictorian’s name and biography this month. Guzman said attacks against the student for her pro-Palestinian views have reached an “alarming tenor” and “escalated to the point of creating substantial risks relating to security and disruption at commencement.”
. . .“After careful consideration, we have decided that our student valedictorian will not deliver a speech at commencement. … There is no free-speech entitlement to speak at a commencement. The issue here is how best to maintain campus security and safety, period,” Guzman wrote.
The student, whom the letter does not name, is biomedical engineering major Asna Tabassum. USC officials chose Tabassum from nearly 100 student applicants who had GPAs of 3.98 or higher.
But after USC President Carol Folt announced her selection, a swarm of on- and off-campus groups attacked Tabassum. They targeted her minor, resistance to genocide, as well as her pro-Palestinian views and “likes” expressed through her Instagram account.
Here’s an Instagram post quoting Tabassum and calling for her deplatforming. Her own Instagram site is now private, but note that the words are probably not hers, but from a link in her own Instagram biography.
And even if the words quoted above were hers, do they promote imminent violence (presumably towards Jews)? Nope. It’s not a First-Amendment exception to call Zionism a “racist settler-colonial ideology, nor to call for the complete abolition of Israel. If it were, half of Twitter would be taken down.
As expected, Tabassum didn’t like this decision, and issued a mature but passionate statement:
In a statement, Tabassum opposed the decision, saying USC has “abandoned” her.
“Although this should have been a time of celebration for my family, friends, professors, and classmates, anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian voices have subjected me to a campaign of racist hatred because of my uncompromising belief in human rights for all,” said Tabassum, who is Muslim.
“This campaign to prevent me from addressing my peers at commencement has evidently accomplished its goal: today, USC administrators informed me that the university will no longer allow me to speak at commencement due to supposed security concerns,” she wrote.
“I am both shocked by this decision and profoundly disappointed that the university is succumbing to a campaign of hate meant to silence my voice. I am not surprised by those who attempt to propagate hatred. I am surprised that my own university—my home for four years—has abandoned me.”
And of course the university issued a weaselly decision:
In an interview, Guzman said the university has been “in close contact with the student” and would “provide her support.” He added that “we weren’t seeking her opinion” on the ban.
“This is a security decision,” he said. “This is not about the identity of the speaker, it’s not about the things the valedictorian has said in the past. We have to put as our top priority ensuring that the campus and community is safe.”
A screenshot from Provost Andrew Guzman, who singlehandedly decided to ban Tabassum (he doesn’t even have the guts to name her in the letter):
Some of those who objected were, of course, Jewish groups:
We Are Tov, a group that uses the Hebrew word for “good” and describes itself as “dedicated to combating antisemitism,” posted Tabassum’s image on its Instagram account and said she “openly promotes antisemitic writings.” The group also criticized Tabassum for liking Instagram posts from “Trojans for Palestine.” Tabassum’s Instagram bio links to a landing page that says “learn about what’s happening in Palestine, and how to help.”
The campus group Trojans for Israel also posted on its Instagram account, calling for Folt’s “reconsideration” of Tabassum for what it described as her “antisemitic and anti-Zionist rhetoric.” The group said Tabassum’s Instagram bio linked to a page that called Zionism a “racist settler-colonial ideology.”
Well, I have little doubt, based on the above, that Tabassum is pro-Palestinian, may feel that Israel is committing genocide, and has made social-media posts that may smack of antisemitism and perhaps a desire to eliminate Israel. But none of that is relevant here. The only consideration is whether Tabassum’s words are calculated and intended to promote imminent and lawless violence—something that would violate her First-Amendment freedom to speak. And, as a private university, USC doesn’t need to adhere to the First Amendment. They could ban Tabassum without citing freedom of speech. But, like any decent university, public or private, USC should follow the First Amendment. The only exception is that universities should allow “time, place, and manner” expressions of speech that don’t disturb the mission of the university. That means no disrupting speeches or blocking access to university facilities like classes.
Further, USC promotes First-Amendment-like freedom of speech on their website. Here’s one bit from USC’s Policy on Free Speech:
As the Faculty Handbook declares, the University recognizes that students are exposed to thought-provoking ideas as part of their educational experience, and some of these ideas may challenge their beliefs and may lead a student to claim that an educational experience is offensive. Therefore any such issues that arise in the educational context will be considered in keeping with the University’s commitment to academic freedom.
Except, of course, when the issue arises in a graduation speech!
Yes, there may have been threats, but it’s up to USC to have enough security on hand to both protect Ms. Tabassum and also allow her to speak without heckling. The mere citation of threats and palaver about “security decisions” is simply a way that USC can ban a controversial speaker without having to provide the conditions where and when she can speak freely.
Tabassum is a valedictorian, valedictorians traditionally speak at USC, and her speech is almost certainly not designed to incite imminent lawless violence. Even if she accuses Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, that is not sufficient grounds to ban her. (If USC is worried about First-Amendment exceptions, they can vet her speech in advance, but they better have constitutional lawyers look at it, too!).
In my view, USC is cowardly and censorious in preventing Tabassum from speaking at graduation. The school is, as she notes, robbing her of her big moment: her reward for working hard over four years to become the best student in her class. I urge USC to change their minds and let her speak, but of course it’s too late. The gutless wonders, fond of selective censorship, appear to be running USC. And the great irony here is that although the school offers a minor in genocide, it prevents someone from speaking because they might bring up the subject.
_______________
Full disclosure: I was the valedictorian in my college class, too, and was also prevented from the traditional (short) speech because the administration knew I was an antiwar activist. Thus they announced my award from the stage while I was in the audience. I got to stand up when I was recognized, but I was wearing a black armband and made the “Black Power” fist salute. (That cost me a summer job.) I, too, felt a bit cheated, and for reasons similar to those of Tabassum. But I think that the censorship of Tabassum is a much bigger deal than mine given that she was supposed to make a full speech and not just an elongated “thank you”. And, of course, free speech is especially important to emphasize these days. Too many schools are using “safetyism” as a reason to cancel speakers, which merely empowers those who are encouraged to give the “heckler’s veto” and make threats. If a speaker isn’t going to violate the First Amendment, it’s up to the university to protect her and remove those who try to shout her down.
h/t: Luana Maroja
“the complete abolishment of the state of israel, this is the only way towards justice”
Sounds like she’s advocating for the genocide of the people of Israel. I would not let the ‘a minor in the study of genocide’ graduate speak because she is a promoter of genocide.
I’d just note two things:
a. She might not say this in her talk, so you’re advocating deplatforming her for what she said in the past, not what she’ll say in her talk.
b. There are some people who want Israel abolished in a “one state solution”, which wouldn’t necessarily lead to genocide, but would almost certainly lead to violence.
But are we to punish, ignore, or deplatform people for their whole lives because of what they said in the past? As I said, if they think she’ll advocate IMMEDIATE and PREDICTABLE lawless violence, then they can vet her speech in advance.
+1
Given what we saw on 10/7, and subsequent rhetoric from Hamas, Iran, and other anti-Israel Nazis, I think any violence would very easily turn to an attempted genocide of Jews.
Hamas and Iran openly state this is their goal. Not just in Israel, either.
Exactly! USC is a private school and, in any event, there is no free speech right to speak at graduation (even for a public school). The graduation ceremony is supposed to be a joyful time for ALL graduates, and she wanted to use it to bully and oppress her Jewish classmates. A graduation speech promoting genocide of Israeli Jews does not belong at graduation or anyplace else.
How do you know what she was going to say? Everyone presumes she’s going to diss Israel or the Jews, but nobody knows because she was forbidden to talk.
USC should have reversed the decision of the selection committee entirely. As per provost memo, there were ~100 students with the similar GPA. Ms. Asna Tabassum excelled in all her courses towards her major as well as in her minor in genocide studies. She deserves all the accolades that recognize her for her stellar academic achievements. She is within her rights to share her views broadly on social media and beyond.
But the commencement podium is not a place for celebrating abhorrent views. Her calls for the “complete abolishment” of the state of Israel are not simply anti-Semitic — they are genocidal.
Consider a thought experiment — what if young Josef Mengele was chosen as a valedictorian, on the basis of his GPA? Or Nathan Bedford Forrest? Should we celebrate such individuals as valedictorians or demand that the decision is reversed, on the grounds that they crossed the line?
See joolz’s comment below, with which I agree. You can’t keep punishing people their whole lives because of what they said (or even linked to) in the past. And her “calls” appear to be from a link to something, not her own words.
What, exactly, is the line that should not be crossed. Is calling for the abolition of DEI, which some consider “hate speech,” not to be broached in a graduation speech.
Jerry, it is not about what she would have said at the podium. It is about her being on the podium, given what she had already said.
What is your answer to my thought experiment?
Anna, in case Jerry doesn’t want to over-comment, breaking his own Roolz:
Your thought experiment doesn’t wash. The two individuals weren’t in the top few tenths of a percent in their graduating class, and at the time they might have been considered to address their class, had they been so distinguished, they would not have had actually done (yet) the deeds that would later make them “problematic.”
I think you are conflating a valedictory address with a commencement address or honorary degree ceremony where the university beats the bushes looking for a suitable worthy to honour based on a track record of deeds. Mengele or Forrest would not be on anyone’s short list today for an outside invitation. But Ms. Tabassum earned her selection to speak. To disinvite her is just churlish, just as it was churlish to disinvite Leah Goldstein in Peterborough.
So now we are cancelling people because of what they *might* say? With no evidence of their intentions? Would they have done that if she was a Jewish student? If not, it’s discrimination. Surely we need MORE people to study holocausts, to speak about the topic and the causes of them so we can learn.
Maybe she has something to teach us all, maybe not. Either way she has the right to speak and we have a right to judge her AFTER her speech.
+1
A mute valedictory speech, no sound is heard.
Seems that mention of or not, genocide will kill free speech as well.
I agree: Bad decision.
Please tell us more about how you lost your summer job because of your action.
I applied to work at a local marine laboratory to do research for the summer after graduation. I didn’t get the job, and word got back to me that it was because I made a political gesture at graduation. I can’t be 100% sure of this, but that’s what I was told, and I was highly qualified for the job.
Thanks. It’s interesting to note how your strong feelings towards free speech have remained constant over the years.
I completely agree with your position here, Jerry. Thanks for standing up, as always, for this fundamental right of expression.
The university’s decision is tone-deaf and ham-fisted. Even if she called illegally (I think) for the audience members to turn to the Jew beside them and strangle him there and then, that would be a police matter after the fact. Prior restraint is exactly what Canada is proposing to give the police the power to do, based on what they think someone might be planning to say. Don’t let a state-funded university go there.
It’s always “safety”, isn’t it.
And, from a purely partisan point of view, this doesn’t help Israel.
I agree with PCC(E) completely, and I’m rather surprised to find comments here suggesting that it is okay and even appropriate and necessary to stop this woman’s speech because of what she has said and might say (even though it’s hard to imagine her calling on the class and spectators to immediately take up arms and go commit illegal violence).
That she has expressed views that some, or many, or even every other person on Earth, find repellant is entirely orthogonal to the point. Indeed, one’s willingness to defend her right to speak, even if one finds her ideas repellant or “promoting of genocide”, is a measure of one’s commitment to freedom of speech and thus freedom of thought.
“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
The administration could have avoided the issue by choosing another valedictorian speaker in the first place, but chose one whose views were known at the time.
They chose her, and so also knew of the risks if there are actually any.
Now it’s up to the administration to protect her and others attending the event.
She likely has a First Amendment case if they don’t, though I’m no lawyer.
More likely they got pushback from their donors and are using the safety excuse. Anymore, when I read “safety,” my mind switches it to “views that we or the people paying our bills don’t like”.
I don’t know how it works in USC , but in many universities (such as mine) the valedictorian is simply the person with the highest grade point average, so it is not fair to say that the university “chooses” a valedictorian. At such universities this is an earned honor, with no weasel-room for the university to have a say in the choice.
USC indeed chooses their valedictorian based in part on GPA, but also on other criteria such as a submitted essay and “contributions to community life.”
1. grade point average (at least a 3.980 or higher)
2. number of course units completed at USC
3. breadth of the academic program, taking into account the widely varying degree requirements of individual majors
4. challenge of the academic program considered as a whole
5. contribution to university and community life
quality of essay submission
6. willingness to accept the award and, in the case of the Valedictorian, ability to deliver a short high-quality commencement address
https://ahf.usc.edu/commencement-honors/valedictorian-and-salutatorian/#:~:text=The%20committee%20members%20are%20tasked,varying%20degree%20requirements%20of%20individual
Agree – let the speech flow forth unimpeded. Let the right to hear be not impeded except by one’s own choice… and so on.
The sky will not fall.
…
I suppose it’s worth pointing out that, to hermetic alchemists, saying words actually transforms the world. Paulo Freire says (I don’t have quotes handy ) to speak the word to proclaim the world – it is part of the process of concientization – denouncing what is and bringing forth a new world they built in their Mind (Hegel) which they think is the Universal Mind.
The critically conscious aren’t merely expressing ideas as best they can for evaluation – they see words as literally transforming everything. That’s why the usual groups try to shut down speech. It’s a gnostic-hermetic cult.
Thanks for that insight, TP.
I’d be interested to hear what she has to say. I wonder if her minor in Resistance to Genocide has taught her a) what genocide actually is and b) any empathy for the victims of a previous genocide?
There’s only one way to find out!
If she is valedictorian, and the tradition is for the valedictorian to speak, then she should be allowed to speak. The university can provide appropriate security—perhaps in coordination with other security agencies if necessary.
If her speech contains falsehoods, critics can respond in the usual ways: through letters, op-eds in the student newspaper, by posting placards decrying the speech, by posting critiques on web sites, etc. There are ample opportunities to engage in debate.
We can’t claim that we believe in freedom of speech and at the same time censor free speech. If the speaker was denied her opportunity to speak for what she might say, then she was censored. If she was denied because the administration thought her speech might be disruptive, then she was denied out of laziness—laziness at making the effort to provide necessary security. Neither reason is a good look for USC.
I support having her speaking, much for the thinking Jerry states in his “full disclosure” paragraph.
Wrt to Jerry’s valedictory deplatforming that day, I was in the audience, and think that I recall another speaker cancellation that afternoon in addition to Jerry: if I recall correctly, the senior class had voted to have Mayor Charles Evers of Fayette, MS, brother of the late civil rights leader, Medgar Evers as graduation speaker, but the college administration would not allow him on the program. The reason/excuse given was that graduation was not the place for a politician (it should be noted that the college administration replaced Mayor Evers as speaker with the local congressman!). Mayor Evers spoke at a “counter graduation” ceremony earlier in the day organized by students..ahh the whiff of peaceful activism in the morning. Also I think that a number of the seniors eschewed the black gown, donating their gown rental fee to the MLKjr Scholarship Fund…at least that is my fuzzy memory of that day. This was 1971 in Williamsburg, VA.
All exactly how it was, Jim. There were maybe thirty students, all told, who forewent caps and gowns, and there were different sorts of consequences for many. I have always regretted Jerry’s being denied his well-earned right to deliver the valedictory address, and all the more acutely when i learned, decades later, from the source, that Charles Evers had never been “voted for by the senior class” to be the graduation speaker. The results had been “adjusted” by the individual charged with counting the votes, who wanted Evers to be the speaker and made sure that the votes were counted to reflect that result. Thus it was that we learned one morning that a campus class still predominantly conservative had selected a not-very-well-known civil rights figure over many more famous and fashionable people to speak that day.
Thanks for the updated intel, Mike. Good to see your voice!
I don’t understand why you frame this as a first amendment right. The private university is not denying her right to free expression. I see her public comments on many forums. They are not handing her a microphone when 65,000 people are celebrating the completion of academic degrees.
I think we can debate the merits of USC’s decision. I am sympathetic with the idea that graduation ceremonies should be events that are inclusive and celebratory. I think there is a long history of schools trying to control who speaks and what is said at graduation. I am also concerned that it sounds as if threats of violence is the named reason. I don’t want to live in a society in which unruly mobs or the threat of such mobs determines which voices are given public platforms (as happens at UC Berkeley among other places).
I agree with this point of view as well. There are numerous and appropriate forums for the discussion of politics, religion, etc., and a commencement speech is not one of them.
The primary reason is that it is a somewhat captive audience, and forcing them to listen to a political diatribe with which they might not agree and to which they will have no opportunity for rebuttal is just not right.
Aren’t valedictorians supposed to speak for all their classmates? I don’t think using it as a platform for speaking about political or religious or any other beliefs is really fair to the captive audience. A valedictorian should be allowed to be a valedictorian irrespective of what their personal beliefs are but they should stick to the topic at hand.
I don’t think valedictorians are assumed to speak on behalf of their classmates, just to them. The captive audience is aware of this. As long as the university makes clear that these are not the views of the university, then religion, politics, and even pseudoscience are probably allowable as either personal story or advice. Let’s just hope that somewhere in the speech there’s something about What A Journey This Has Been and a reference to the meaning of “commencement.”
If nothing else, the Heckler’s Veto shouldn’t be supported.
Ugh then I wouldn’t even want to go. You’re basically giving the stage to someone to narcissistically impose their thoughts on everyone else. It’s a good bye (what valedictor means) to the institution so if it’s just someone talking about themselves no thanks. Maybe it’s time to just not have those speeches anymore.
I’d prefer to hear someone doing something different. After all, this is sort of like a graduation speaker, and they can pretty much say whatever they want. I still remember Solzhenitsyn’s speech at my Harvard graduation in which he excoriated the West for its moral blindness. I LOVE unexpected commencement speeches that break the tedium of the event. At any rate, everybody thinks she was going to rail about Palestine but we don’t know, as she’s not giving the speech. And remember, it was that assumption that got her deplatformed on bogus grounds of “safety”.
But none of us KNOW what she plans to say!
The administration must have had a pretty good idea, or they wouldn’t have removed her.
I agree with you, Diana. Ceremonies serve fairly specific social purposes, and such a speech would be disruptive.
A challenge with graduation is that students are there for THEIR graduation with their parents etc. Whatever speeches are given, should be given with the students in mind. I agree with suggestions here that the speech should be vetted and it should be more unifying the class than gratuitously divisive.
“And, as a private university, USC doesn’t need to adhere to the First Amendment.”
This is only partially true. Under the provision of California’s so-called “Leonard Law” (Education Code section 94367), a private university can’t punish a student for speech that would be protected by the First Amendment:
“No private postsecondary educational institution shall make or enforce a rule subjecting a student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside the campus or facility of a private postsecondary institution, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 2 of Article I of the California Constitution.”
There are similar provisions that apply to high schools (Section 48950) and community colleges (Section 76120).
The law was passed in the 1990s in response to the campus “speech codes” that were being enacted at the time.
However, these laws don’t impose any requirements on educational institutions to host or sponsor speech; they merely prevent the institution for punishing students based on the contents of their speech, if that speech would be permissible under the First Amendment.
True; thanks for the correction.
That would only apply if one construed not letting her do the speech as a form of punishment. But no one has the right to do a commencement speech, it is a bestowed honor.
“The student, whom the letter does not name, is biomedical engineering major Asna Tabassum. USC officials chose Tabassum from nearly 100 student applicants who had GPAs of 3.98 or higher.”
This sounds like a self-inflicted wound by USC. I’m curious what considerations led the school to choose her in the first place.
It could be because, as a hijab-wearing student of color, they wanted to highlight diversity. If so, it blew up in their face.
She is showing far too much hair for her Hijab, more like a headscarf, good job it is the USA and not Iran however she should still be allowed to speak not that I condone antisemitism in any way or accusations of Israel committing “genocide”
I know that you and many others will disagree with me, but I am very glad that they called her speech off. I am tired and sick of the relentless promotion of hijab-clad Islamist women. To me, as a Western woman, this is not only insulting but also intimidating. I also suppose that the Muslim and former Muslim women who struggle heroically for their right to not wear the hijab (remember the murdered Iranian girls) see this as a betrayal and a slap in the face.
Well, on everything after your first sentence I fully agree with you, Maya.
She has posted a statement. It includes references to some of the things she did as a student of bioengineering, and also an appreciation for her minor in history and the role of the Shoah Foundation in her education. Abstracting entirely from the controversy about her speech, you can see that she comes across as a student who is unusual in combining the work she did in bioengineering with her historical interests and her commitment to using what she learned as a bioengineer to help people’s lives.
And self-defeatingly stupid.
Very likely some Islamists will threaten violence should the ceremony go ahead without the speech. Then will USC cancel the whole ceremony? Or put all 65,000 attendees through metal detectors? It surely would be a soft target…
NYT changes headline on their article to blame the Jews.
Initial headline:
U.S.C. Cancels Valedictorian’s Speech After Claims of Antisemitism
A whole 27 minutes later:
U.S.C. Cancels Valedictorian’s Speech After Jewish Groups Object
Good lord! They had to blame the Jews somehow!
Thank you for this post and for keeping the dialog above board. First off, it’s unfortunate that we can’t see any of her old posts so we can make our own judgements. I’m also shocked that we have a presidential candidate who essentially says whatever he wants, but this intelligent woman is banned from celebrating her university success.
Maybe a resolution would have been for the university to preview her speech, have her sign a legally binding agreement wherein that is the speech she would make and call it a great step towards freedom of speech and equality.