The University of Southern California has cancelled a scheduled commencement speech by Asna Tabassum, citing unnamed security concerns after her selection as valedictorian was met with a wave of online attacks directed at her pro-Palestinian views.
“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,” Tabassum said in a statement shared online.
On 6 April, USC announced that Tabassum was selected as valedictorian, a student with the highest academic achievements in her year, for the graduating class of 2024.
After the announcement was published on social media, Tabassum began receiving online attacks from an account named, “We Are Tov”, a group that describes itself as “dedicated to combating antisemitism”.
The university released a statement on Monday, saying that Tabassum would retain her position as valedictorian, but would not be allowed to give her commencement speech. The school said that the move was made to maintain safety on campus.
I really, really hate that it feels like there’s a new ethnicity it’s ok to distrust/suppress/wish harm upon. The article talks about official efforts to ban Pro-Palestinian voices, including (ironically) Jewish Voice for Peace. I am so much happier on Lemmy because there are far fewer posts with opinions like “Palestinians are only getting what they deserve because of Hamas” etc. Even though people have disagreed with me (albeit not often) I have yet to debate anyone making those kinds of arguments.
I’m frustrated waiting for the rest of the world to catch up and realize that there’s no “ok race” to assume is some brand of evil. There’s no ethnicity that it’s bad to advocate freedom, happiness, and healthiness for. E.g. even though I post a lot about Israel, I take time frequently to make it absolutely clear that I know Israel doesn’t represent all Jews and that judging based on ethnicity or birthplace/residence is wrong.
Dude, I fully agree.
My eyes have really been opened.
Anti-muslim sentiment has been going on for a really long time. I thought it was just a few racist uncles who overreacted to 9/11.
But now that the propaganda and suppression is in full swing, it’s become abundantly clear. It’s not just normal people, it’s a coordinated disinformation campaign.
Lemmy is still a relatively safe and reasonable space.
Anti-Muslim, anti-Mexican, anti-gay/trans, anti-atheist, anti-women, anti-etc.
I’m glad people like you’ve noticed. It’s been going on for a long time and it legit makes you feel crazy when you realize it and it still doesn’t help when you realize scholars have been studying and writing about this stuff for hundreds of years.
Mmmm… some of Lemmy. I use a script to block some instances.
Lol I swear hexbear is a psyop designed to radicalise LGBTQ people and turn them against the moderate middle, thereby creating exactly the villain the gender/sexuality wedge issue calls for.
…What?
Oh those aren’t the instances you block?
…Yes. I do block Hexbear. That’s not what I was stumped by.
I mean the community is pretty clearly astroturfed, as otherwise no such group could exist while fundamentally contradicting itself. Being gay and supporting Putin just does not make any rational sense. For all their talk of CIA psy ops left and right, I can’t help but see a pot calling the kettle black.
It’s worse than you imagine. The MAGA cult grew on reddit, with permission and dare I say nurturing from reddit admin.
It was more Facebook than anything and then it spilled over to Reddit and other places.
It’s always been this way. It’s just now that people are really paying attention, and we have the internet to thank for that.
Anti-muslim sentiment grows easily here because many of the groups who would normally speak out against intolerance are the same groups that would not be tolerated in a Muslim society.
Unfortunately you can find similar arguments in some corners of Lemmy regarding violence against Israeli civilians. So I’m not sure how much better it truly is here.
This conflict has caused a disturbing number of people to suddenly think that hate, abuse, or even murder and kidnapping are acceptable when directed at people they associate with the appropriate ethnic, racial, or national group.
When it happens I just try to remind folks that while it’s ethical to oppose many Israeli policies, there are tons of Jewish dissenters who are allies. Basically every time people will agree. One of my most powerful examples is Breaking the Silence, an organization that gathers, confirms, and publishes testimonials from IDF veterans about the reality of life in Occupied Palestinian Territory. 100% Jewish, and Jewish soldiers no less, and still 100% dedicated to making sure the truth is known no matter the cost.
There are many of us (I’m in Israel and involved in anti-war and anti-genocide activism). And most of us lost people on October 7th, some of whom were peace activists (look up Vivian Silver, for example). Since then we have also lost Palestinian friends and partners in activism in the ethnic cleansing campaign currently going on in Gaza.
It is true that we are a minority, but it is so hard facing discrimination from both sides - I have a pro-Palestine sticker on my computer, but it is in Hebrew. So when I’m in Israel, I get harassed about it. When I’m not in Israel, anti-semites who can’t read it assume it’s something pro-israel (or just Jewish).
It feels very lonely sometimes, so thanks very much, @GrymEdm.I have an American Jewish friend who, long story short, has been treated very badly by her Ashkenazi family since deciding to support Palestinian human rights. I’ve seen what it costs Jews to speak up, and so I have a lot of respect for dissenters who act with their conscience in spite of the target it puts on their backs. It’s a difficult spot to be in, and I hope you can find some peace and reward in staying true to your ethics even in hard times.
support Palestinian human rights
Isn’t this just human rights? The language that’s used in this conflict is a bit confusing, for example one does not have to particularly like Palestinians as a group to be against the ethnic cleansing of Palestine or the violations of human rights and international law perpetrated by Israel on a daily basis, yet they are called “pro-Palestinian”. Of course some accusations of antisemitism are intentionally deceptive to silence opposition to Israel’s regime (or labelling opposition as “pro-Hamas”), but even the conflict overall is labelled as Israel vs. Palestine when in reality it’s Israel vs. international law. Maybe this is a hasbara narrative, idk.
The kicker here is that by equating opposition to genocide with antisemitism it means that perpetrating genocide is a trait inherent in Jews, which is hella racist.
Anyway your “Palestinian human rights” phrase made me want to ask what you and others think, not trying to bash you or anything. For example, when the U.S. invaded Vietnam, those opposed to the war were called “anti-war protesters”, not “pro-Vietnam protesters”.
You fuckers have balls of steel.
Even if you’re a female, you still have balls of steel, And my utmost respect.
It cannot be easy at all to try to stand up for something like that it Israel of all places.
Thanks for doing what you do. Most people have never tried taking a moral stand on something so controversial in their own community, so they may not know how difficult it truly is.
I am lucky enough to exist in a very pro-peace bubble, so I don’t face such consequences. But I have incredible respect for those who do so despite their circumstances. And it is people like you who have the greatest opportunity to change the course of things.
I appreciate you.
Good advice. Sometimes it’s hard to keep my frustration from overwhelming me when I see people saying such hateful things but it always helps to understand where people are coming from and respectfully point to the things that may challenge the foundation of that hate.
You’re not alone at all in that. Life in the Information Age is too good at teaching folks how to cope with frustration lol.
I prefer the “not in my name” jews as my example.
85% of Israelis want Netanyahu out. Protests in the tens of thousands in the streets of Israel.
I post this whenever I see someone say “fuck Israel.” I think they mean “fuck Netanyahu.”
This is why I always try to specify Likud.
He’s even lost half of their support according to the last November’s poll. Not to mention they only have 23% of the popular support now. It’s dwindled in the last decade.
They weren’t protesting the treatment of Palestinians:
Israeli Jews, however, seem unperturbed by the scale of the suffering, if the polls are any indication. One of the questions in the Tel Aviv University poll deals with the amount of force the Israeli army is using in Gaza. Less than 2 percent of the respondents said they believed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) was using too much firepower. Perhaps even more horrifyingly, nearly 58 percent said they were using too little firepower.
Are you sure about that? 21% of Israelis are Palestinian.
No, they mean fuck Israel. It can only exist as a Jewish state because all non-Jews have been stripped of their rights. Make it a secular state with equal rights for everyone, or allow the Palestinians their own state with no Israeli occupation. The current situation is straight up apartheid
Do you mean previous nationality? All Israeli citizens are granted the same rights under Israeli Citizenship Law.
Israeli’s Supreme Court ruled that Israeli nationality is not a thing. Israel is a Jewish state since 2018, and Israeli Arabs are second class citizens.
This link was one of the sources from yours: https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy
The law does three big things:
- It states that “the right to exercise national self-determination” in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people.”
- It establishes Hebrew as Israel’s official language, and downgrades Arabic — a language widely spoken by Arab Israelis — to a “special status.”
- It establishes “Jewish settlement as a national value” and mandates that the state “will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.”
If only Jewish people have the right to self-determination, then all Israeli citizens do not have the same rights.
You’re misunderstanding the conversation.
The comment I responded to said “they were stripped of their rights.” That’s simply not true. It is true that they are stripped of their nationality, and in that, I agree with you that the rights are not the same.
Israeli citizens have the same state rights in regards to government voting and state services.
Nah, fuck Israel. Israel was founded on ethnic cleansing and has continued the ethnic cleansing to this day. They won’t stop until Palestinians only exist as a people in exile.
Fuck America, too. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Veitnam, Iraq, Nicaragua, Guatamala, Indonesia, now Palestine. American democracy has run on blood since the slaughter of Native Americans in its infancy.
America was founded on genocide and slavery. The overwhelming majority of Americans are against both practices today.
England, Mongolian China, Rome, and Germany committed the same acts attempting world domination. Their populations are very different now.
A nation’s history does not define its current occupants.
Israel is doing it now. This isn’t history
If what Netanyahu was doing is what the Israeli people wanted, then he would have their support.
After the announcement was published on social media, Tabassum began receiving online attacks from an account named, “We Are Tov”, a group that describes itself as “dedicated to combating antisemitism”.
Tabassum would retain her position as valedictorian, but would not be allowed to give her commencement speech. The school said that the move was made to maintain safety on campus
Letting the terrorists win.
I am surprised that my own university - my home for four years - has abandoned me
Okay, but you know you’re dead to them the moment your last cheque clears though. Until it is alumni bothering season.
Nuance isn’t even real
Israeli terrorists win
Imagine having such a moral army that agents of your government push to stop a woman who graduated with a minor in preventing genocide from speaking publicly.
It’s a college graduation. I totally understand wanting to pull the plug on a speech there vs an increased risk of a shooting or bombing, and then aside from any possible lives lost, facing a mountain of lawsuits for the school knowingly allowing her to speak, even though they knew it was raising a risk to everyone there.
And where are the footholds on this slippery slope? Or do we keep trading away rights for temporary security while claiming to hate fascism?
A school graduation isn’t really the place to deal with that, though.
Ah yes let’s put a firm declaration of our views upon life, genocide and political views later… at a more convenient time… we’ll totally get around to it… just have to wait for the right time… which isn’t now… not tomorrow… but you know, it will crop up. Definitely not the fucking time which is traditionally known as the time given to voice one’s views out of respect for hard work and achievement.
We do not negotiate with terrorists! Unless they represent someone that makes us a lot of money using an aid for weapons scheme to get that money from taxpayers, in which case we support the terrorist’s right to defend themselves (by using threats to silence critics, and uh, light genocide. Well, maybe medium genocide. Actually, the polls are still out on how much genocide the people will accept before they break out the guillotines, so however much genocide that is but not a crumb more!).
I’m not arguing that, but a graduation isn’t a place to create the risk.
I mean universities are exactly the place where freedom of thought and expression should be protected. Protecting a speaker and an audience isn’t something USC has never had to handle. They do it all the time at football games.
Where is the right place? You seem to have a strong view of where the wrong places are, so surely you know the right one.
Her commencement speech isn’t even known to mention Israel at all, so you mostly seem to be concerned with who she is (an Arab woman standing up against genocide on her own time) and not what her speech will contain (currently unknown).
I have no real interest in any of the stuff going on around Isreal and think the US should butt out of so many other countries affairs unless they’re ready to do the carpet bombing themselves.
The “right place” would be anywhere that people weren’t forced, or nearly forced to be at. Especially when it’s a place that isn’t supposed to be any sort of political or religious etc event.
You shouldn’t have to but yourself at an unnecessarily heightened risk of harm just to go to your (or your friend/relatives) graduation.
While not universal, graduation speeches are often political. This idea that it’s not the time or place for politics is just hogwash.
Take a look at this list, at least half are political in nature. Although, to be fair, a lot of them are pretty safe political positions.
Make no mistake about it, they aren’t banning this speech because of safety concerns, that’s just a good excuse. Regardless of how you try and justify it. They are banning the speech because they don’t want to deal with the political fallout of letting someone who is anti-Israel speak. It’s much easier to deal with the much weaker bloc of pro-Palestine people.
This will blow over, angering the politically and economically powerful group has much longer-term consequences.
I agree - that’s why we should not allow Presidents, Governors, or any other public figures to speak at any event because they clearly also come with a heightened risk to everyone there.
That’s a political even where a bunch of members of the public aren’t borderline forced to be there. There’s a difference between choosing to go to a political rally, vs going to you or your families graduation. A graduation shouldn’t be a place that gets an unnecessarily high target placed on it.
Have you ever even been to a graduation? This is an extremely common occurrence. Here’s a video of Obama giving a commencement speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImeOh36HVMw
Nope. That’s coward talk. Your actually arguing to let terrorists win. No, it is on them to ruin their lives, not for us to ruin ours because of their threats. If they wanna stop people talking by threatening a shooting then they better be willing to go through because we shouldn’t stop.
Lol. It’s not cowardly talk. It’s just leaving a non political graduation, simply a graduation.
Because of fear of political violence otherwise. Ya know. Terrorism. Coward.
Pick your battles. I wouldn’t risk the lives of a thousand Americans to be political over some shit going on in the middle east.
A selfish coward
Lol. Sure.
Let me guess: you were cheering when Congress recently attacked random university presidents for luls.
Some of these pro-Israel groups really need to read up on the boy who cried wolf.
Nobody does free speech like the Israel lobby.
Her existence is a problem for the school, so they take away her speech. How convenient.
Her existence is a problem, so lets make her valedictorian?
We see it all the time.
Censorship is a bad thing.
The website Tabassum linked to in her Instagram bio — her actual posts are private — is an explainer on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that calls Zionism “a racist settler-colonial ideology.” It defines Palestine as a country in the Middle East that “is being occupied by the state of Israel, a Jewish ethnostate established by Zionists in 1948.”
I found this searching why someone might think she is anti-Semitic
Everything stated there is 100% factual what is anti-Semitic about it?
Zionism teach us all that Reality is anti-semitic.
Seeing as most of the world has never recognized Palestine as a country, I don’t think you’re using the words “100% factual” correctly.Edit: Wow, looks like I had some very outdated info, Palestine was recognized by the UN in 2012. Somehow I completely missed that. I was dead wrong.
most of the world
Countries that have recognized are in green: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine#/media/File:Palestine_recognition_only.svg
I mean they’re still correct, there is only the United States. No other countries exist, it’s a conspiracy by Big Country to sell you more customs charges!
Counterpoint:
I appreciate your update. Learning and growth are beautiful things. Your post and the correction also helped me.
It should be noted that the countries that have recognised the State of Palestine do so with the borders divided up - they also recognise Israel. As such this implicitly considers Israel’s territory to be its own and not some occupied/settler position.
Granted, Israel is still invading and settling all throughout Palestine’s recognised territory, breaking international law, but what some people consider as land taken by settlers and what these countries think are often two different things.
deleted by creator
Thanks for the money!
“Selected” as the student with the highest GPA? I don’t understand.
Hey, the university has an entire department to carefully figure out what the highest number is on a list and put that person in a strongly congratulatory e-mail. Spare no expense!
I don’t know USC’s protocols per se, but I imagine there’s actually a pretty decent list of people who all have 4.0s in a university that size. Unless you’re going to have hundreds of “valedictorian” speeches, there needs to be some sort of selection process.
There are going to be many people with a perfect GPA that graduate each year. There has to be a process to select amongst them.
I will not use this comment to weigh in on the fairness of the University’s decision, I am just going to make the point that USC is a private university and is not held to the same free speech standards as the University of California school system.
Yes and no. Legally they aren’t, however I’m sure that the school’s charter demands it in some form.
Nobody has claimed otherwise, but censorship is still censorship, even when it’s legal.
The context matters IMO. We have universities in this country that require all students to participate in Christian religious practices, for example.
Wonder how much that schools receives in federal funding.
While I fully support not only this student’s right to speak as the valedictorian but also her position, I want to ask: if the university genuinely cannot provide a secure environment for the commencement event, if they very well know it could erupt into pandemonium where people could get hurt (or worse), what choice do they have when they have a duty to act responsibly and to keep everyone safe?
This is a shitty situation, but I find it difficult to blame the school here, at least, entirely.
The school did nothing to stop the online hate campaign against her. They just censored her from speaking. I don’t see how this is supposed to provide anyone with safety. It’s just an excuse they use to censor her.
how is the school supposed to control the internet?
and the student can still speak, just not at a school-hosted event that puts possibly thousands of people at risk. you’re acting like the school put a gag around her mouth. they didn’t.
How is censoring this student from giving a speech “providing a secure environment”? Using safety as an excuse for censorship is very common. Especially in the case for israel.
If this student was truly a target she would need to get a bodyguard 24/7. Not her speech cancelled.
ahem, i repeat:
and the student can still speak, just not at a school-hosted event that puts possibly thousands of people at risk. you’re acting like the school put a gag around her mouth. they didn’t.
How exactly are thousands of people put at risk? Is israel going to drone strike the event?
you’re acting like the school put a gag around her mouth. they didn’t.
The school very much censored her speech which she has won the right to give.
On 6 April, USC announced that Tabassum was selected as valedictorian, a student with the highest academic achievements in her year, for the graduating class of 2024.
This is a comment from the student herself refuting these vague “safety concerns”:
now i’m pretty sure you’re just trolling.
Sorry what?
It’s not that difficult to blame the school.
Why can’t they provide a secure environment? Why can’t they defend one student giving one speech on one day? She doesn’t seem to be conceding ground to terrorists, why should the school?
Do they think some of the students might be terrorists? Some of their families attending graduation? It will be a ticketed event within their facilities. Are they saying that their campus is filled with terrorists?
It’s not that difficult to blame the school.
only if you ignore everything i just said
Why can’t they provide a secure environment? Why can’t they defend one student giving one speech on one day? She doesn’t seem to be conceding ground to terrorists, why should the school?
Do they think some of the students might be terrorists? Some of their families attending graduation? It will be a ticketed event within their facilities. Are they saying that their campus is filled with terrorists?
you seem to have answered you own questions
And your solution is to let the terrorists win?
You present a false dichotomy, and on that basis, I reject the statement
You were the one clearly implying that they had no choice but to cancel it. The other poster is clearly implying that cancelling the speech is letting the terrorists win.
If it’s a false dichotomy, it’s yours.
Wrong. Since she can still give the speech a number of other ways, cancelling the public speech ≠ “letting the terroists win” unless you believe the terrorist’s goals are to make you mad— which everyone here seems to believe.
Silencing her was the goal, and she still has many other means to deliver her speech.
Sorry, wasn’t clear. Your false dichotomy is that they either ban the speech, or put thousands of people at risk. They’ve shown the ability to secure for higher profile and higher risk things.
But this argue is bizarre. By bowing to terrorists and censoring her from giving the speech there, they are absolutely letting the terrorists dictate their policy (i.e. win). The fact that she can give the speech elsewhere doesn’t change this. It’s like saying that if they ban speech in Idaho, it’s not really a loss of free speech because they can go to New York and talk. It’s absolutely still censorship.
Do it remotely. Put it on YouTube.
I mean they really should be doing something like this anyways.
the student can still do that, can’t she?
Anyone can put up a YouTube video, it’s not going to be watched by 65,000 people or recorded and made available through the school. The platform your speaking from matters. That’s the privilege of being valedictorian.
sure, if just anyone did it. but this student has gotten a lot of press attention and has a lot of fans. there’s plenty she can do to spread her message-- plenty that you’re willing to ignore just to continue your narrative that she’s somehow been gagged and silenced when she hasn’t.
and she’s the USC valedictorian. don’t underestimate her.
but if you’re so willing to sacrifice the lives of strangers for attention and views, then don’t then claim at the same time that you care about innocent lives being lost-- it’s scoring a “win” that you care about, not doing the right thing or being reasonable.
LOL, my “narrative”. Just an amazing failure of self-reflection.
You’re bending over backward to ignore the obvious: that this is a pretense for a political/financial decision in an environment when universities who haven’t been sufficiently pro-Israel have had threats from donors and been hauled in front of Congress and organizations and individuals in academia making pro-Palestinian statements have been disbanded or muzzled. Your stance on this is at best woefully naïve and at worst intentionally dedicated to FUD via concerns about mass casualties from undefined terrorists and nonsensical suggestions that making a YouTube video is a substitution for a major public speaking event. That you wrote that as a serious alternative kind of reveals how you’re not just trying to see all sides.
Since you’re obviously not willing to have a conversation in good faith, and can only speak in preposterous hyperbole ignoring all reason so you can sacrifice the safety of a bunch of strangers to hear a speech that could safely be delivered virtually, I’m just going to ignore you now.
If you actually cared about anyone’s life, as you so very obviously falsely claim, you wouldn’t be risking them in this way for such a foolish endeavor.
I gave you good faith. Until “put up a YouTube video”. After that you don’t deserve further faith. That’s not an endless well that you can draw on while making obviously bad faith suggestions.
Yes.
then she certainly should
I think you’re making a reasonable point about keeping people safe. I can see the merit, but I don’t like the school’s choice because a) it feels like letting the bullies win and b) there’s a national context of failing to protect or support pro-Palestinian voices or even suppressing them. This girl was specifically targeted for harassment and there’s no mention that USC tried to intervene on her behalf. Now, whether it’s actually a security or political concern, she won’t be allowed to speak as valedictorian because she’s Palestinian and pro-Palestine.
Also, I won’t pretend that I’m an expert on speaker security, but there definitely are other controversial figures that are allowed to speak at public events including at universities. USC is a major educational organization and should have the resources to provide safeguards. It doesn’t sound like they’re even going to try, and (just my opinion from context) I suspect the reasons to be political with their excuse being a convenient lie.
It’s not letting the bullies win.
It’s letting the terrorists win
to your first point:
a) it feels like letting the bullies win
yes, it does, and that sucks. but i just don’t see how it’s reasonable to risk the lives of possibly thousands of attendees for the sake of a graduation speech.
secondly:
b) there’s a national context of failing to protect or support pro-Palestinian voices or even suppressing them. This girl was specifically targeted for harassment and there’s no mention that USC tried to intervene on her behalf.
that very well may be, and i don’t really know enough to comment about it. others have mentioned this, and, if so, that really is shitty. the school really ought to have done more to protect her and take action against those who have threatened her, as well as considered making this an online/virtual speech, as has also been suggested by others.
lastly:
there definitely are other controversial figures that are allowed to speak at public events including at universities. USC is a major educational organization and should have the resources to provide safeguards. It doesn’t sound like they’re even going to try
given that this is a graduation speech by a student, not a major speaking engagement by, say, a world leader or other major social/political figure that might attract national/global attention and, perhaps, a gigantic -paying - crowd, i wouldn’t expect any university to shell out the big bucks for a major security presence beyond standard campus safety officers. but i see your point.
one last thing…
(just my opinion from context) I suspect the reasons to be political with their excuse being a convenient lie.
i think it’s more likely that they just don’t want the trouble of dealing with any of it and the potential liabilities, but it could easily be a mix of both.
It’s not my opinion, but it’s fair, your points are logical, and I have no reason to believe you are motivated by anything unethical :) We’ve just come to different conclusions about this one specific event, which is A-OK in my books. I don’t even agree all the time with the people I agree with the most. For what it’s worth I’ve given you upvotes both times for making sense.
i appreciate that.
i think it’s more likely that they just don’t want the trouble of dealing with any of it and the potential liabilities, but it could easily be a mix of both.
You’re essentially agreeing with everyone here: they don’t want to deal with it, for whatever reason. It’s not that they can’t (which is the reason they’ve given) it’s that they don’t want to.
And that’s seemingly everyone’s problem here. Which begs the question: why? This is their graduation ceremony. It’s tradition that the valedictorian give a speech. If they can secure it, as they’ve proven multiple times in the past of being capable of doing, then there is some other reason why they aren’t doing it.
I think any reasonable person not blinded by their own bias in this case can see why: the pro-israeli bloc in this country is many orders of magnitude more powerful than the pro-palenstinian bloc. It’s a calculated economic/political position…take the heat from a small group of passionate people for a short while, or anger a large powerful group.
“Safety” is just a good excuse that allows them to mask the real reason. As we all agree, including you, that they are perfectly capable of actually securing it.
I want to ask: if the university genuinely cannot provide a secure environment for the commencement event
It can. They’ve hosted much more controversial and high profile figures before without danger and the speaker and the public have not been given any indication there’s even a credible threat. It’s not remotely an impossible task, it’s just an excuse.
They’ve hosted much more controversial and high profile figures before
but a student isn’t the President or some visiting foreign dignitary, etc. who was invited because they are controvertial. The school isn’t going to go to all of that trouble when the risk isn’t worth it-- especially when alternatives are availible.
The school had Obama in the crowd. He wasn’t invited to speak, he was just an attendee. And they hosted Milo Yiannopoulos because a campus student club invited him. That wasn’t a university solicited event that was “worth it” and the alternative of “just don’t have him” would have been way less intrusive than changing how commencement ceremonies run.
There just isn’t an unmanageable risk. And their annual budget is $7.4 BILLION dollars, so if there was a legit risk paying for security would be a rounding error. It’s a patently absurd excuse.
These comparisons are obvious false equivalences for reasons already stated.
