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.
It not did ban her speech, they simply canceled the public event. She can continue her speech in a number of other formats. Her speech was not banned. To continue saying this is a lie.
To continue asserting that they should give her the same deference that they give the president of United States, who often provides their own security as do other dignitaries, is the false Dichotomy. For that I reject the assertion.
Ban - officially or legally prohibit.
The valedictorian would normally give a speech, they have officially prohibited her from giving this speech. It is a ban and no amount of spin will change this.
And even if you were pedantically correct, which to be clear you are not, it’s effectively the same thing and you are just nit-picking the language. Your argument is that because it isn’t universal, it’s not really a ban. Thats like arguing that if you ban abortions in Idaho that doesn’t really count as a ban because you can still go to NY to get it done. I’m not sure why you are so invested in this lie.
Whether I think they should is not the point. You made the claim that they either ban the speech, or it’s putting everyone at too high a risk. This is a false dichotomy because they’ve been able to provide security for other high profile and more controversial speakers, not limited to just the POTUS. There is a third option: provide the security they are more than capable of providing.
As long as you continue to spread the lie that her speech was banned, you are obviously not interested in having a rational conversation.
The event was canceled, and she can have her speech elsewhere.
Blocked
Is this your MO to block people whenever they dismantle your point? How cowardly and close minded.