Heterodox at USC Newsletter #6: Valedictoriangate
A variety of opinions on the cancelation of this year's valedictorian speech.
It’s been a tumultuous several weeks at USC. For those out of the loop, the L.A. Times has a summary here.
In keeping with the Heterodox Academy motto “Great Minds Don’t Always Think Alike,” we’re sharing a variety of opinions about the administration’s decision to cancel the traditional valedictorian speech at commencement. These opinions come from Heterodox at USC members, or were suggested to us by members.
We’ll be sending out another newsletter soon addressing the ongoing protests on campus. If you have thoughts to share, please contact us at heterodox.usc@gmail.com.
Fight On!
From the USC Community:
USC’s valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, issued a statement:
I am a student of history who chose to minor in resistance to genocide, anchored by the Shoah Foundation, and have learned that ordinary people are capable of unspeakable acts of violence when they are taught hate fueled by fear. And due to widespread fear, I was hoping to use my commencement speech to inspire my classmates with a message of hope.
The first issue of the newly launched Voices Against Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism at USC newsletter contains a wide variety of perspectives. Read the entire newsletter here»
A few excerpts:
Cancelling Asna Tabassum’s valedictorian speech was more than justified. From what we know now and what we correctly deduced from her social media, her speech would likely have been anti-Israeli and implicitly pro-Hamas, equating Israel’s self-defense with a genocide. One can also ask why she was chosen as valedictorian and why the search committee ignored her social media profile. One may even wonder whether some of her high grades reflect the uncritical acceptance of views she learned in USC’s resistance to genocide program. It seems doubtful that her professors in this program or her other educators ever considered the two sides of the Israeli–Arab conflict. —Arieh Warshel, Nobel Laureate, Dana and David Dornsife Chair in Chemistry, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Their decision to cancel Asna’s address while keeping her the valedictorian satisfied no one and robbed the university of the ability of making a strong moral statement. If they believed the initial selection was correct, they should have let her speak. And if they believed that the initial selection did not reflect the University’s values, they should have taken away the valedictorian honor and given it to one of the many other qualified students. The gross incompetence they displayed is deeply disappointing—it was a missed opportunity to lead with values, and immediately obvious to most onlookers that it would be an embarrassment for the school, which it was. And to top it off, I now find myself actually nervous about attending graduation, so if safety was the issue it is unclear how making this front page news solves that problem! This was a mess of the university's own making—I wish they would start leading with courage, rather than always seeming to worry about what others think of them and ending up satisfying no one! —Cheryl Wakslak, Associate Professor of Business Administration, Marshall School of Business
The Daily Trojan published a letter by Morris Levy, associate professor of political sciences and international relations:
Its posture now appears to be a stalwart unwillingness to defend free speech across the ideological spectrum. In both the Tabassum and Strauss affairs, the University has capitulated to a heckler’s veto.
It has shrunk from its responsibility to ensure broad latitude for the expression of controversial ideas, emboldened would-be censors and chilled campus debate. The administration should reverse course. It should reinstate the valedictory address and deal aggressively with any threats to security.
Members of the University community who find the anti-Israel content on Tabassum’s social media appallingly ignorant or worse — as I do — should be able to rebut it with confidence that USC will stand behind our right to free expression, as well.
Rabbi Dov Wagner at the Jewish Chabad Center at USC published an open letter to USC’s Administration:
In news stories around the country, USC’s Jewish students are now being portrayed as threatening the safety of the valedictorian, and as silencing Muslim voices – when nothing could be farther from the truth. In the LA Times, Andrew, you are quoted as saying: “This is a security decision. This is not about the identity of the speaker, it’s not about the things the valedictorian has said in the past.”
I find this position incredibly disappointing. Rather than upholding our student Code of Conduct and embracing a teaching opportunity about the impact of hate speech – even if unintended, the university is choosing to cover it up and hide behind security concerns; a position that amplifies the damage to our community and destroys so much of the trust we have all worked so hard to create.
The Daily Trojan published a letter addressed to USC’s administration by Wolf Gruner, Shapell-Guerin Chair in Jewish Studies and Professor of History and Founding Director, USC Dornsife Center for Advanced Genocide Research:
Not only did you take away a well-deserved accolade connected to Tabassum’s selection as the valedictorian, but your decision will mar her life and potential future career. Because you allowed a hate campaign to succeed, a campaign which falsely accused her of antisemitism, you legitimized and promoted these false and misleading claims. She will now be seen by some as an antisemite and anti-Israel activist, which could not be further from the truth.
Your decision not only marred the special moment for which she worked extremely hard over four years, but you also tainted the special moment of graduation for many students. The message you sent to these students is to be quiet in their future lives, to not be outspoken and criticize injustices.
This is the opposite of promoting democratic values, which is the worst you could have done in these fragile times, where we face a rapid development toward authoritarianism.
Outside Perspectives:
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Free Expression issued this statement:
Of course, no student has the right to be valedictorian. At USC, it’s an academic honor USC can give out as the institution sees fit. But once USC has selected a student for this honor, canceling her speech based on criticism of her viewpoint definitely implicates the campus speech climate in important ways.
USC is a private university that makes First Amendment-like free speech promises. It’s also bound by California’s Leonard Law, which requires private, secular colleges and universities to give their students the same expressive rights enjoyed by students at the state’s public colleges.
Implicit in the idea of a campus committed to robust expressive rights is that administrators won’t censor their students just because they have controversial views.
Oliver Wiseman of The Free Press wrote:
USC is not famous for its commitment to free expression—it once suspended a professor for simply saying a Chinese word that sounded like a racial slur. And the school had a decision to make. Administrators could have said they had made a mistake in picking Tabassum because her views were at odds with USC’s values and stripped her of the role. Or they could have stuck by Tabassum and ridden out an uncomfortable commencement day in the name of free speech. Instead, they opted for a weaselly fudge, keeping Tabassum as valedictorian but preventing her from speaking.
Rob Eshman of The Forward wrote this opinion piece:
The result is university administrators, who failed miserably in their due diligence, and failed again by refusing to stand by their decision, sloughed responsibility onto Tabassum’s Jewish critics.
Imagine, instead, that USC just told the truth. If it was outside pressure from alumni that led to the cancellation, say so. If there really were credible threats of violence, then provide more detail. If the threats were serious enough that USC feared for attendees’ safety, they should be serious enough to lead to arrests.
What existential harm would come from letting Tabassum speak? Israel, which just survived 300 drones and missiles launched by Iran, would have survived Tabassum. American Jews, who have thrived in a society that allows for the expression of unpopular opinions and open criticism, would have survived Tabassum. No doubt Jewish groups would have engaged in a healthy post-graduation public debate around any parts of the speech they found objectionable, as groups did following last year’s incendiary valedictory address at CUNY Law School.
If you have suggestions for things you’d like us to cover, feedback on our newsletter, or want to get more involved with Heterodox at USC please contact us at heterodox.usc@gmail.com. Fight On!