462
'My school abandoned me': California university cancels pro-Palestinian student's commencement speech
(www.middleeasteye.net)
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
462 points (92.3% liked)
News
30880 readers
2532 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
While I fully support not only this student’s right to speak as the valedictorian but also her position, I want to ask: if the university genuinely cannot provide a secure environment for the commencement event, if they very well know it could erupt into pandemonium where people could get hurt (or worse), what choice do they have when they have a duty to act responsibly and to keep everyone safe?
This is a shitty situation, but I find it difficult to blame the school here, at least, entirely.
The school did nothing to stop the online hate campaign against her. They just censored her from speaking. I don't see how this is supposed to provide anyone with safety. It's just an excuse they use to censor her.
how is the school supposed to control the internet?
and the student can still speak, just not at a school-hosted event that puts possibly thousands of people at risk. you're acting like the school put a gag around her mouth. they didn't.
How is censoring this student from giving a speech "providing a secure environment"? Using safety as an excuse for censorship is very common. Especially in the case for israel.
If this student was truly a target she would need to get a bodyguard 24/7. Not her speech cancelled.
ahem, i repeat:
How exactly are thousands of people put at risk? Is israel going to drone strike the event?
The school very much censored her speech which she has won the right to give.
This is a comment from the student herself refuting these vague "safety concerns":
now i'm pretty sure you're just trolling.
Sorry what?
It's a projection. The poster's ever shifting excuse as to why this okay, when it inevitably falls apart, is always met with some kind of empty accusation about it's faults (false dichotomy, false equivalency, and now, you're trolling).
It's not that difficult to blame the school.
Why can't they provide a secure environment? Why can't they defend one student giving one speech on one day? She doesn't seem to be conceding ground to terrorists, why should the school?
Do they think some of the students might be terrorists? Some of their families attending graduation? It will be a ticketed event within their facilities. Are they saying that their campus is filled with terrorists?
only if you ignore everything i just said
you seem to have answered you own questions
And your solution is to let the terrorists win?
You present a false dichotomy, and on that basis, I reject the statement
You were the one clearly implying that they had no choice but to cancel it. The other poster is clearly implying that cancelling the speech is letting the terrorists win.
If it's a false dichotomy, it's yours.
Wrong. Since she can still give the speech a number of other ways, cancelling the public speech ≠ “letting the terroists win” unless you believe the terrorist’s goals are to make you mad— which everyone here seems to believe.
Silencing her was the goal, and she still has many other means to deliver her speech.
Sorry, wasn't clear. Your false dichotomy is that they either ban the speech, or put thousands of people at risk. They've shown the ability to secure for higher profile and higher risk things.
But this argue is bizarre. By bowing to terrorists and censoring her from giving the speech there, they are absolutely letting the terrorists dictate their policy (i.e. win). The fact that she can give the speech elsewhere doesn't change this. It's like saying that if they ban speech in Idaho, it's not really a loss of free speech because they can go to New York and talk. It's absolutely still censorship.
Nobody’s speech is banned— so you can stop pushing that lie. She simply can’t deliver it at one particular live event. She can still deliver it any number of other ways that won’t endanger the lives of others.
And now you’ve introduced the false equivalence of comparing her to some high profile speaker. She isn’t.
Your entire argument is based on logical fallacies and lies.
The valedictorian traditionally gives a speech. They banned that speech from happening. Quite literally the speech was banned. I'm not sure how you can argue against this.
Understood and agreed. The point of bringing that up is not to say she is equivalent, but to point out that they can handle higher risk speeches, so the false dichotomy of either banning the speech or running some high risk to the safety of everyone is...well, a false dichotomy that doesn't hold much water.
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.
Do it remotely. Put it on YouTube.
I mean they really should be doing something like this anyways.
the student can still do that, can't she?
Anyone can put up a YouTube video, it's not going to be watched by 65,000 people or recorded and made available through the school. The platform your speaking from matters. That's the privilege of being valedictorian.
sure, if just anyone did it. but this student has gotten a lot of press attention and has a lot of fans. there's plenty she can do to spread her message-- plenty that you're willing to ignore just to continue your narrative that she's somehow been gagged and silenced when she hasn't.
and she's the USC valedictorian. don't underestimate her.
but if you're so willing to sacrifice the lives of strangers for attention and views, then don't then claim at the same time that you care about innocent lives being lost-- it's scoring a "win" that you care about, not doing the right thing or being reasonable.
LOL, my "narrative". Just an amazing failure of self-reflection.
You're bending over backward to ignore the obvious: that this is a pretense for a political/financial decision in an environment when universities who haven't been sufficiently pro-Israel have had threats from donors and been hauled in front of Congress and organizations and individuals in academia making pro-Palestinian statements have been disbanded or muzzled. Your stance on this is at best woefully naïve and at worst intentionally dedicated to FUD via concerns about mass casualties from undefined terrorists and nonsensical suggestions that making a YouTube video is a substitution for a major public speaking event. That you wrote that as a serious alternative kind of reveals how you're not just trying to see all sides.
Since you’re obviously not willing to have a conversation in good faith, and can only speak in preposterous hyperbole ignoring all reason so you can sacrifice the safety of a bunch of strangers to hear a speech that could safely be delivered virtually, I’m just going to ignore you now.
If you actually cared about anyone’s life, as you so very obviously falsely claim, you wouldn’t be risking them in this way for such a foolish endeavor.
I gave you good faith. Until "put up a YouTube video". After that you don't deserve further faith. That's not an endless well that you can draw on while making obviously bad faith suggestions.
Yes.
then she certainly should
It can. They've hosted much more controversial and high profile figures before without danger and the speaker and the public have not been given any indication there's even a credible threat. It's not remotely an impossible task, it's just an excuse.
but a student isn't the President or some visiting foreign dignitary, etc. who was invited because they are controvertial. The school isn't going to go to all of that trouble when the risk isn't worth it-- especially when alternatives are availible.
The school had Obama in the crowd. He wasn't invited to speak, he was just an attendee. And they hosted Milo Yiannopoulos because a campus student club invited him. That wasn't a university solicited event that was "worth it" and the alternative of "just don't have him" would have been way less intrusive than changing how commencement ceremonies run.
There just isn't an unmanageable risk. And their annual budget is $7.4 BILLION dollars, so if there was a legit risk paying for security would be a rounding error. It's a patently absurd excuse.
These comparisons are obvious false equivalences for reasons already stated.
I think you're making a reasonable point about keeping people safe. I can see the merit, but I don't like the school's choice because a) it feels like letting the bullies win and b) there's a national context of failing to protect or support pro-Palestinian voices or even suppressing them. This girl was specifically targeted for harassment and there's no mention that USC tried to intervene on her behalf. Now, whether it's actually a security or political concern, she won't be allowed to speak as valedictorian because she's Palestinian and pro-Palestine.
Also, I won't pretend that I'm an expert on speaker security, but there definitely are other controversial figures that are allowed to speak at public events including at universities. USC is a major educational organization and should have the resources to provide safeguards. It doesn't sound like they're even going to try, and (just my opinion from context) I suspect the reasons to be political with their excuse being a convenient lie.
It’s not letting the bullies win.
It’s letting the terrorists win
to your first point:
yes, it does, and that sucks. but i just don't see how it's reasonable to risk the lives of possibly thousands of attendees for the sake of a graduation speech.
secondly:
that very well may be, and i don't really know enough to comment about it. others have mentioned this, and, if so, that really is shitty. the school really ought to have done more to protect her and take action against those who have threatened her, as well as considered making this an online/virtual speech, as has also been suggested by others.
lastly:
given that this is a graduation speech by a student, not a major speaking engagement by, say, a world leader or other major social/political figure that might attract national/global attention and, perhaps, a gigantic -paying - crowd, i wouldn't expect any university to shell out the big bucks for a major security presence beyond standard campus safety officers. but i see your point.
one last thing...
i think it's more likely that they just don't want the trouble of dealing with any of it and the potential liabilities, but it could easily be a mix of both.
It's not my opinion, but it's fair, your points are logical, and I have no reason to believe you are motivated by anything unethical :) We've just come to different conclusions about this one specific event, which is A-OK in my books. I don't even agree all the time with the people I agree with the most. For what it's worth I've given you upvotes both times for making sense.
i appreciate that.
You're essentially agreeing with everyone here: they don't want to deal with it, for whatever reason. It's not that they can't (which is the reason they've given) it's that they don't want to.
And that's seemingly everyone's problem here. Which begs the question: why? This is their graduation ceremony. It's tradition that the valedictorian give a speech. If they can secure it, as they've proven multiple times in the past of being capable of doing, then there is some other reason why they aren't doing it.
I think any reasonable person not blinded by their own bias in this case can see why: the pro-israeli bloc in this country is many orders of magnitude more powerful than the pro-palenstinian bloc. It's a calculated economic/political position...take the heat from a small group of passionate people for a short while, or anger a large powerful group.
"Safety" is just a good excuse that allows them to mask the real reason. As we all agree, including you, that they are perfectly capable of actually securing it.