Administrators at the University of Southern California have announced that they will not allow the school's 2024 valedictorian to deliver a graduation speech as planned, citing "security" concerns. The student in question is a Muslim woman who has promoted radical and disturbing public statements related to Israel. The university, under pressure from Israel supporters, announced that "over the past several days, discussion related to the selection of our valedictorian has taken on an alarming tenor. 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.” I disagree with this cancellation and will discuss why below.
Asna Tabassum, the woman whose speech has been axed, blasted the decision in a statement, accusing USC of "succumbing to a campaign of hate meant to silence my voice." The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) condemned the development as "cowardly" and demanded a reversal. For context, CAIR's Executive Director praised the October 7th terrorist massacre of Israeli civilians. Also for context, these are sentiments Ms. Tabassum shared on social media that drew critics' ire:
The unprecedented move came after Jewish pro-Israel groups on campus and beyond, including the campus Chabad, the USC student club Trojans for Israel and national pro-Israel activist groups, including the tens of thousands of members of the Mothers Against College Antisemitism Facebook group, put pressure on the school to disinvite Tabassum. Some cited links to posts Tabassum shared — but did not compose — on her Instagram profile that called Zionism a “racist settler-colonial ideology,” advocated for a single, binational Israeli-Palestinian state and said that “antisemitism is weaponized against Palestinians and allies … by Zionists as a way to shut down criticism of Israel.”
She has also cited a perceived irony that she minored in 'resistance to genocide,' only to be canceled for her stance against 'genocide.' There is no Israeli "genocide" in Gaza; the reality is precisely the opposite. Her repetition of this vile smear speaks poorly of her, and perhaps USC's program on the subject. If the school's valedictorian cannot differentiate between actual genocide, and extraordinary civilian casualty-mitigating efforts in a war against genocidal terrorist groups, that's a bad sign. Also a bad sign is the woman's dodging of this question:
The USC valedictorian whose speech was cancelled by USC after a link she promoted on her Instagram called for the "complete abolishment" of Israel repeatedly dodges the question of whether she endorses that idea, saying "I think a yes or a no would be an injustice to the issue." https://t.co/AR2Iun8HEp
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) April 17, 2024
PHILLIP: “You just brought up a link that was posted through your social media page. I do want to ask you about that, since you did bring it up. One of the items in this post calls for the complete abolishment of Israel. Is that a position that you endorse?”
TABASSUM: “If you're asking me if I stand for human rights, if you're asking me if I stand for equality and unequivocal and unconditional right to life for all people, including Palestinians, then I'm not apologetic. I believe in what I believe. And it is because of the people around me that I've met at USC, the classes that I've taken, the professors that I have learned from that have led me to look at the world in this way. And, you know, it's unfortunate that, you know, human rights is controversial.”
PHILLIP: “The reason I'm asking is because that's what the link said. It called for the complete abolishment of Israel. Abolishment of Israel was in the actual language. Is that something that you endorse?”
TABASSUM: “So, the abolishment of the state of Israel, I'd like to clarify, is the abolishment of an apartheid system. It inherently is a system that subjugates Palestinians as dehumanized and it subjugates Palestinian life as not worth the same as other human life...“
PHILLIP: “So, is that a yes then?”
TABASSUM: “I think a yes or a no would be an injustice to the issue..."
The CNN host asks a simple question: Does this student endorse the "complete abolishment" of Israel, in accordance with a statement she amplified on her social media. Her initial reply is to ignore the question and ask and answer a series of different questions that she wasn't asked. After a follow-up, she strongly suggests that yes, she does favor the abolishment of Israel because the Jewish state is an "apartheid system," which is false (by contrast, the only Jews in Gaza prior to the IDF's retaliatory invasion after October 7th were hostages stolen by Hamas). Pressed one more time for a straight answer, she ducks, claiming a 'yes' or 'no' would be "an injustice" to the issue. To the contrary, it is the very essence of the issue. Israel would very much like to live side-by-side with Palestinians, in peace, alongside a Palestinian state. Palestinians have rejected every peace deal to this effect ever offered (even before the modern Jewish state was formally established), often responding with extreme violence against Jews. If someone believes Israel should not exist as a Jewish state, they are a de facto supporter of mass ethnic cleansing, at best. The Jewish state of Israel is a fact. It exists. It has a right to exist, and to defend itself.
If someone does not believe that, they (again, at best) make common cause with the eliminationist and genocidal terrorists who seek to annihilate and abolish Israel. It's a profoundly immoral position, often deceitfully dressed up in terms like "human rights" and "resistance to genocide" by Hamas defenders and apologists. Tabassum, through her evasions, made it rather obvious that she holds these odious views. Hamas is typically more direct in stating their goal of annihilating Jews, though their heinous slogans are now commonplace among many "progressives." It's appalling. Who knows what this woman would have said in her valedictory address, but it seems like a sound bet that she'd likely spew some of this garbage from the rostrum. If she did so, pro-Israel, pro-civilization, pro-truth attendees would be within their rights to peacefully walk out in protest, or silently turn their backs on her, or attach opposing slogans or placards to their graduation caps. Disruptions, violence, or threats are a different story. Given the behavior of pro-Hamas mobs versus pro-Israel demonstrators over the last six months, the problem overwhelmingly lies with the former group, not the latter.
Even if there were some specific threat or genuine safety concern at play here, USC should do what is necessary to protect speech. Heckler's vetoes are an outrage. We've seen multiple feckless institutions cite "safety" and "security" concerns as excuses to cancel disfavored events and speakers over the years, or to impose prohibitive costs on organizers of disfavored groups. Many conservatives can attest to this. Such decisions, often featuring textbook examples of double standards, are anti-speech outrages. This student may hold noxious, ill-informed, or bigotry-fueled views. She's also earned her slot as valedictorian and was invited to speak by the school. De-platforming her under pressure is the wrong move (I prefer to reject and refute her bad ideas, as I've done in this post). It may feel satisfying on some level to collect a scalp on the other side of the ledger, using cancel culture adherents' awful rules against someone deemed to be part of their tribe, but it ultimately violates the spirit of free expression.
It's undoubtedly true that if it were a Jewish, pro-Israel valedictorian whose outspoken views on the subject got her speech canceled by her university, claiming "security" concerns, many of us would be screaming. We would be right. The real test of one's commitment to an idea like free speech arrives when it's time to defend speech that is anathema to one's own beliefs. So I agree with many of my fellow conservatives and speech defenders on this one. Keep the commitment. The principle is worth it. That said, I am somewhat sympathetic to this view:
Whether I support colleges doing this or not is a separate issue, but man is it satisfying to watch these people get dinged by the anti-speech "safety" regimes that they literally forced academia to adopt. https://t.co/3ZMLgRygvI
— Noam Blum (@neontaster) April 17, 2024
The question is, does burning people with the fire they started actual cause them to reconsider their bad position -- or do they just deploy their blowtorches against their tribal opponents with even greater zeal? I've noticed some speech-hostile leftists demanding to see anti-cancel culture conservatives defend Tabassum. I won't defend her or her views, but I oppose the cancelation of her speech. As noted above, many others have, too. Will those same demanders speak up on any number of similar or worse disgraces, like this one?
NEW: North Carolina high school student Christian McGhee was suspended from school for saying "illegal alien" in the classroom.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 16, 2024
Calling an illegal alien and illegal alien is not offensive, it's just a fact.
McGhee was suspended for three days after doing an assignment in… pic.twitter.com/TUPX0sRmtg
A North Carolina high school student has been suspended for using the phrase 'illegal alien' in class. Christian McGhee, 16, was suspended for three days from Central Davidson High School, after using the term during a classroom discussion about word meanings. Christian questioned the term 'alien' in an assignment, asking if it referred to 'space aliens or illegal aliens without green cards,' as reported by the Carolina Journal. His comment reportedly offended another student who physically threatened McGhee, leading to the involvement of school authorities. 'I didn't make a statement directed towards anyone — I asked a question,' Christian told the Carolina Journal. 'I wasn't speaking of Hispanics because everyone from other countries needs green cards, and the term 'illegal alien' is an actual term that I hear on the news and can find in the dictionary,' he added.
USC is at least a private university, which makes all sorts of bizarre and incoherent decisions in this space, evidently. This North Carolina episode, however, constitutes a public school punishing a minor for supposed "racism," in the form of using the literal legal term employed by the United States government -- doing so after he was physically threatened for using that correct term, to which a specific form of racism was wrongly imputed by tyrannical school officials. His parents should consider litigation in this matter, the potential winnings from which could help pay for their son's college education.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member