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.

  • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        And where are the footholds on this slippery slope? Or do we keep trading away rights for temporary security while claiming to hate fascism?

          • Eximius@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        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!).

          • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            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).

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

          • Bull205@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Let me guess: you were cheering when Congress recently attacked random university presidents for luls.

      • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

      • Dinsmore@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.