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.
No, I’m saying the comment that claimed they are “stripped of their rights” is false. You’ve cited a difference in the law that I recognize, and disagree with. There are no limitations in their participation in government or government services. If there were, I’d agree their rights were “stripped.”
There’s imbalance for sure. Being accurate allows people to recognize the problems and address them. Being sensational creates ignorance.
I think you are misunderstanding, “stripped of their rights” does not necessarily mean they lose all rights, or certain rights in particular, it simply that they lose some rights. They lost some rights, therefore they have been stripped of their rights.
So we should say all Americans have been stripped of their rights, because women cannot access life-saving medical care in the event of a complication of a late-term pregnancy?
C’mon. You’re arguing semantics to justify sensationalism. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms that you could aim at the Israeli government. Selecting choice words to exaggerate only obscures the point, fuels outrage, and perpetuates ignorance.
In a time when we can’t trust most news sources, it’s become more important to be accurate than ever.
We can say that all American cis women have been stripped of their rights, yes. However more accurately this would be on a state by state basis.
We are arguing semantics, but you’re the one justifying a sensationalist response to an accurate statement.
Accuracy looks like “American cis women have been stripped of their right to abortion” or “non-Jewish Israelis have been stripped of their right to recognize previous nationality.”
“Stripped of their rights” implies all rights. If you can’t see the difference, then you’re unknowingly part of the misinformation.
No, it doesn’t. You can lost rights without losing all your rights. All it implies is that more than 1 right was removed, and that it was done so unwillingly.
Please back this statement up with some sound reasoning.
It seems more likely that you are stubbornly refusing to admit you were wrong about something very minor.
I don’t know what else I can say. You clearly don’t understand the implications of the term “stripped of their rights.”