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.

  • gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    They’ve hosted much more controversial and high profile figures before

    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.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        These comparisons are obvious false equivalences for reasons already stated.