USC’s Decision to Cancel Valedictorian’s Speech Raises Concerns about Freedom of Speech and Campus Safety
In a recent announcement, the University of Southern California (USC) revealed the cancellation of the valedictorian’s speech, citing concerns over safety in the midst of intense emotions surrounding the Middle East. This decision by USC’s provost, Andrew Guzman, has sparked controversy and raised questions about the balance between freedom of speech and campus security.
As an observer of international freedom of expression, I find this decision troubling. Throughout my years monitoring governments’ actions, I have witnessed the suppression of public speech under the guise of national security or public order. USC’s move appears to follow a similar pattern, where tradition is exchanged for safety without a compelling demonstration of necessity.
The valedictorian in question, Asna Tabassum, is a highly accomplished student who embodies the qualities any university would be proud to celebrate. With stellar grades and a dedication to both science and societal issues, Tabassum represents the epitome of academic excellence. However, she also holds pro-Palestine views, which have attracted opposition from pro-Israel groups. Consequently, USC yielded to pressure from these groups, denying Tabassum the opportunity to address her fellow graduates.
By giving in to these opposing views, USC effectively granted the “heckler’s veto” to those who objected to Tabassum’s perspective. This sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that any form of dissent can result in the curtailment of free speech on campuses. The risks to freedom of expression on universities are evident, as administrators might begin favoring certain views while rejecting others, leading down a path of campus authoritarianism.
Moreover, the university failed to provide evidence that Tabassum’s speech would incite disruption or pose a threat to public safety. USC did not demonstrate that cancelling her speech was a necessary and proportionate measure to ensure a safe environment. Alternatives, such as implementing security arrangements to protect all participants, were seemingly overlooked. As a result, Tabassum and her classmates were denied the opportunity to engage with important ideas and perspectives.
This incident at USC points to a larger issue that universities face – increasing pressure to select students without political backstories or opinions that may spark dissent. Calls to limit speech on campuses, unrelated to academic missions, are becoming more common. It is crucial for campus leadership to stand up for their students, faculties, and communities in the face of threats, emphasizing the centrality of freedom of expression in democratic societies.
Looking forward, this incident raises concerns about the future of free speech on campuses. Will universities continue to restrict students’ right to express their opinions freely? Will controversial viewpoints be silenced to maintain a peaceful environment? These questions are particularly relevant in today’s socio-political climate, where tensions and disagreements are prevalent.
To navigate these challenges, universities