NYT: USC cancels (Muslim) valedictorian’s speech after Jewish groups object

[quesaisje]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/us/usc-valedictorian-speech-gaza-war.html

The announcement of Ms. Tabassum’s selection cited her volunteer work with nonprofit organizations in the Los Angeles area, including a mobile blood pressure clinic that visits homeless shelters and a group she co-founded that distributes medical supplies to areas in need around the world.

Shortly after the announcement, a campus group known as Trojans for Israel issued a statement saying that Ms. Tabassum “openly traffics antisemitic and anti-Zionist rhetoric.” It cited her social media bio that included a link to a page that calls Zionism a “racist settler-colonial ideology.”

USC's provost explained the decision to cancel as follows:

The intensity of feelings, fueled by both social media and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, has grown to include many voices outside of U.S.C. and has escalated to the point of creating substantial risks relating to security and disruption at the commencement.”

The student herself is not shying away from making public statements, so the story continues to develop:

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.

In a meeting with the USC Provost and the Associate Senior Vice President of Safety and Risk Assurance on April 14, I asked about the alleged safety concerns and was told that the University had the resources to take appropriate safety measures for my valedictory speech, but that they would not be doing so since increased security protections is not what the University wants to “present as an image.”

[quesaisje]

So what if this was a Trump supporter who was strongly a believe in Qanon who also was banned from her speech because of the *possibility* she could incite tensions? This is a clear arbitrary ban based on political views and I doubt most of the posters on here would be okay if the role was reversed and would almost certainly use it as an opportunity to bash the college for “cracking down on free speech” to make themselves seem like good little moderate Dems and not those evil radicals.

The university administration reveals just how uncomfortable they are with their decision by emphasizing "security." This is a typical excuse for people in positions of power who want to avoid getting pulled into an argument about the boundaries of acceptable speech.

This makes me reflect on my one first-hand experience with an occasion like this. About fifteen years ago, I knew someone who was awarded a speaking spot at commencement based on a writing contest. He won by submitting the most platitudinous speech he could come up with. He ignored most of what he had written and spent most of his speech talking pointedly about the US's social problems.

The funny thing is, years later, his speech would be unremarkable. Note that this was not someone dabbling in radical politics in service of a safe career path. I'm pretty sure the guy torpedoed his academic career during Occupy, when he briefly made it into a few national stories. Nevertheless, most of his home truths have become clichés. That's what is being contested here.