On Monday, University of Southern California President Andrew Guzman sent a letter to the campus community announcing the cancellation of the valedictorian speech. Concerned about the “intensity of emotion” surrounding the Middle East and the associated security risks, he said, “traditions must be surrendered for the sake of security.”
There is no question that universities have a duty to maintain campus safety during graduation ceremonies. Campus administrators are responsible for keeping tens of thousands of students, their friends, and families safe in very public spaces during this time. They want everyone to share an unforgettable moment of recognition of accomplishment and be safe while doing so.
However, the president’s letter sounded too nostalgic to me. For six years, I headed the United Nations, which monitors freedom of expression around the world. In that role, I repeatedly saw governments shut down public speech to prioritize vague claims about national security and public order over the rights of citizens.
This context helps understand why USC’s decision is so problematic. Guzmán claimed that “this decision has nothing to do with freedom of speech,” but failed to demonstrate the need for the strict measures. Therefore, this act is clearly an interference with free speech, and the question is whether it was justified.
The student named valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, received this honor as a result of a faculty recommendation approved by Mr. Guzman himself. With near-perfect grades, majoring in biomedical engineering and minoring in genocide studies, Tabassum is a hard-working, successful student, committed to science and social studies, and enthusiastic about campus life that any college would be happy to receive. It shows a persona that celebrates.
And like many young people today, she has ideas about justice and the wider world she’s a part of. Specifically, she supports pro-Palestinian activities that are spreading around the world, especially on college campuses. This is evident on her Instagram page, where she links to pro-Palestinian websites and likes posts from campus organizations that support Palestinian rights.
Many people find these websites and their views offensive. It’s not a problem. Everyone enjoys the right to disagree and disagree. These associations and views have led pro-Israel groups to launch campaigns against her and anonymous individuals to issue threats, according to reports in the Los Angeles Times and elsewhere.
USC leadership agreed to these efforts. As the governor’s letter emphasized, it is beside the point to claim that Mr. Tabassum has no “right” to speak out. USC knocked her off her podium. reaction to Her views and associations, and perhaps her Governor General’s speech, could somehow threaten public safety or impede admissions. Mr. Guzman’s letter makes this clear. Because Guzman makes sure to point out that her selection criteria doesn’t include her candidates’ “social media presence,” and if she knew her opinion, she wouldn’t have named her valedictorian. This suggests that it would not have been approved as such.
The question is not whether universities have a serious interest in safe celebrations, but clearly they do. The question is whether it has been shown that the measures taken to ensure such an environment were necessary and appropriate. Here he failed USC administrators. They did not prove that Mr. Tabassum’s speech needed to be cancelled. They did not indicate or even claim that Tabassum intended to use this moment to incite some kind of chaos. There is no evidence that the university considered what safety measures would be in place to protect Tabassum and all participants at the graduation ceremony. There is no evidence that she considered canceling her speech altogether or suggested an alternative.
In other words, Mr. Tabassum was punished and the perpetrators of the threat achieved a victory. Choosing USC came at an obvious cost: Ms. Tabassum lost her speaking role and her classmates lost the opportunity to hear from one of the most successful members of her academic career.
USC has given those who disagree with Mr. Tabassum’s views a “heckler’s veto.” The lesson seems to be, “If you don’t like the speaker, complain and threaten to disrupt them to get your way.” The risks to free speech on campus are clear. Once schools start down this path, there will be no end to the political ordeal in which university administrators celebrate certain views (those that don’t stir up strong emotions) and reject others. It’s a path to campus authoritarianism, and American students have been fighting it since at least 1964.
Schools like USC will forever face pressure to select students without political backgrounds or beliefs or passions that might provoke or offend. Universities are increasingly faced with calls to restrict speech on and off campus for reasons unrelated to their academic mission. Now, more than ever, campus leaders must stand up for students, faculty, and communities in the face of threats. And we need to not only teach but practice the centrality of freedom of expression in a democratic society, including: Ours.
