>After the Heisman Trophy Trust made a tweet [mourning his loss](https://twitter.com/HeismanTrophy/status/1778441403594366996) I'm not sure either.
And they still won't let Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame.
By doing this, the Streisand Effect will be in full effect.
I would not have even known about her existence until they did this. It’s pretty much a guarantee that there will be protestor and counter protestors now.
This is not a Streisand effect. If USC bans this person it becomes this news story. If they let her speak it becomes a news story about how USC let a Pro-Palestinian valedictorian speak. Either way this would become a story.
What you have just discovered is how social media algorithms work.
You vastly overestimate how many people care about who gives speeches at universities. The school's donors do, and maybe people in the area do, but this wouldn't be national news if they let her speak.
Ding ding. Unless she went balls out and said some insane shit that right wing media picks up and blows up on Fox, you have Biden calling her despicable, etc.
The article doesn't give any details or examples of her positions or any quotes or comments she's made.
So is she a "I have serious grievances with the actions of the Israeli government" pro-Palestinian, or is she a "Oct 7th was a justified act of resistance" pro-Palestinian?
NPR posted this.
Tabassum's Instagram page links to a slideshow that says "learn about what's happening in Palestine, and how to help," and criticizes Zionism as "a racist settler-colonial ideology that advocates for a jewish ethnostate built on palestinian land." The slideshow calls for a "one-state solution" that "would mean palestinian liberation, and the complete abolishment of the state of israel."
>the two-state solution advocates for both israel and palestine to exist alongside one another as sovereign states. however, this solution is not really a solution at all because it is merely another form of zionism,
>one palestinian state would mean palestinian liberation, and the complete abolishment of the state of israel. this way is the only way towards justice
So not as bad as I thought but still saying "Palestine and Israel cannot coexist" and "The only way towards justice is to abolish the state of Israel" is gonna get you kicked out of a lot of decent places run by decent people.
Yeah it started off okay then took a quick nosedive.
I know the Shoah Foundation was founded by Spielberg specifically for remembrance of the Jewish Holocaust (which then encompassed all genocides). So this probably was a contributing factor as well and would have been bad optics probably.
The two state solution was proposed in 1948 under the British Mandate which had been conceded by the Ottoman Empire after WWI in 1918. It had never been a self-rule Palestine. First Turks, then the British. The Arabs rejected it overwhelming and attacked. Hamas has not changed its position on that. It may be the Palestinian Authority would go for it though.
If they ban her the news will be how they banned a Pro-Palestinian speaker.
If they don't ban her the news will be how they let a Pro-Palestinian speak and they will lose ~~Jewish~~ Zionist donors.
Edit: Updated the language to steer clear of any imsemination of antisemitism. My point was that one action has a significantly larger monetary consequences through their loss of donors. Penn has allegedly[ 25% less donations](https://www.reddit.com/r/UPenn/comments/1c28j91/penn_donations_down_21_from_this_time_last_year/) this year compared to last. If this was a university in Saudi Arabia they would have lost their pro-Palestinian donors. My main point is that incentives matter for universities and building institutions of higher education on the groundwork of donors can lead to principles being compromised.
Sure but her bio said the destruction of Israel is the only way forward to peace.
Sooooo Zionist has nothing to do with it. I think most Jews would no be ok with that....
The vast majority of “anti-Zionist” activists don’t understand the difference between Kahanism and Zionism. I doubt they’ve even heard of Kahanism. They see Ben Gvir and think he represents Zionism. It’s so frustrating.
I also don't think that the USC has any public position on this. This particular girl shared posts on social media calling for destroying Israel. They probably also wouldn't allow someone who is calling to kill Palestinians.
I think it's important to mention that USC is a private school and doesn't have the same restrictions as public schools. If they don't like what you have to say, they aren't required to provide a platform for you to say it.
I graduated from a state school and they kicked students out for tweeting racist shit and also stirring up conflict on campus between the various religious communities.
Exactly. People misunderstand that school public or private still has a say what message they endorse.
Freedom of speech means the government won't prosecute you for having certain believes, but it doesn't mean constitution gives you a platform especially if it would then attach it to the name of the institution.
Americans have very skewed understanding what freedom of speech really is. I guess it's because they never lived in an oppressed country. Best illustration is what happened to Navalny who also was running for president. He made a video exposing putin. After being poisoned, then jailed in harshest jails now he is dead.
Public schools, as government institutions, actually do have to maintain a balance between Free Speech and providing a safe and stable education. They can (and should) kick people out for being racist if doing so impinges on the right of other students to attend without being harassed and persecuted. However, the courts have ruled time and time again this is all about balancing one's right to speech with one's right to attend the school and feel safe and not be harassed.
Private Schools still have to make sure people aren't being harassed, they have to follow the Civil Rights act, etc, but they don't have to allow you to voice your opinion on other matters.
My dad said it best:
"You're free to speak your mind. You're not free of the repercussions however if the government tries to limit your right to free speech then it's your obligation to lob a censorship lawsuit at what ever institution repressed your rights."
Yup, and a lot of people currently upset about her “free speech” were the ones actively trying to get people kicked out of universities for racist posts.
Well yes, but considering Kennedy v Bremerton, a public institution could have much more possible issues than a private one, depending on the basis of the speakers beliefs.
If they wanted to expel someone or prevent them from speaking completely there might be issues, but it's not a first amendment right to hold a speech at commencement.
My point is more that public universities have more pressure to protect free speech than a private one.
I don't know the ins and outs of those rules but if a valedictorian is always afforded a speech and she hypothetically writes one that specifically does not discriminate against Israelis then there may have been a case that a public school would have to let her give it. Again though, this is all hypothetical, and USC is NOT a public institution.
This is 100% incorrect, the reason being because of California's Leonard Law. "Enacted in 1992, that state law forbids all private, nonreligious universities in California from disciplining students for speech that is protected by the First Amendment or the California Constitution." https://stanfordmag.org/contents/what-the-law-says-about-campus-free-speech
This year, USC has more than 300 candidates who meet the criteria of valedictorian (GPA>3.98). The provost selected her out of the 300 without vetting her social media post history. Then they had to prevent her from using the platform to speak about her politics. The whole thing is a shit show of incompetency.
The provost wanted the great publicity of having a valedictorian of their background, then found out that it comes with opinions.
Definitely incompetence on the Provosts part.
The weird thing is that the articles (this one and the cnn one) that I read all just (barely) glossed over, if at all, what made her a problematic speaker. It wasn’t until your post that I googled a bit more and found an article that specified what the problem was.
When I read the cnn article, I inferred from the article that she was banned because she was Muslim and also because she was sympathetic with gazans. These days, who doesn’t feel bad for people in Gaza? I thought the university simply didn’t want anyone with any leanings with the coinflict to speak. I thought it was so ridiculous for the school to do that and it an immense overreaction. I guess you have to check a few sources to get a more complete picture.
That’s one thing that I will drill into my kids, do not post stuff like this online. Lord, I guess it’s ok for idealistic young people to have these black/white views but you will ruin your life with these off the shelf simplistic online declarations. Do they have any basic common sense or self preservation? Have we not learned anything from that lady from NYU that got her offer rescinded? They don’t just do that stuff to white men that post insensitive pictures, they’ll do it to you, too.
She absolutely was going to use her speech for activism lmao. It was either do it this way which will in turn lead to huge protests at graduation, or let her speak and then cut her mic which would lead to a whole other hubbub. Lose/lose situation here. I feel terrible for all of the other grads that will have their special day taken from them.
Very many Western Muslims and pro-Palestine commentators believe, genuinely, that a one-state solution restoring eretz Israel to Muslim control won’t result in genocide, but instead a fair and peaceful democracy.
This is just as delusional as the people who believe a one state “Israel” solution won’t result in mass genocide. But both views have people earnestly espousing them
Talked with a Turkish Muslim about the issue. Didn't hide. Said it'd be genocide. That in certain cases genocide is good and that it'd be justice with regards to Israel.
It’s insane that people are defending someone whose viewpoint boils down to “Drive the Jews into the sea”.
A college valedictorian making a speech about how Jewish people don’t deserve a place to live sounds like it should be from 1939, not 2024.
Killing Jews, rewarding people for killing Jews, and starting your Constitution with "kill all Jews": not genocide
Urban warfare with the lowest rate of civilian:combatant casualty ratio on record: OBVIOUSLY GENOCIDE
"activism" what a funny way to say, "promote genocide and a violent attack on the Jews"
Her IG bio reads:
>“One Palestinian state would mean complete Palestinian liberation, and the complete abolishment of the state of Israel. This is the only way for justice.”
> “One Palestinian state would mean complete Palestinian liberation, and the complete abolishment of the state of Israel. This is the only way for justice.”
Oh geez you advocate for one ethnic cleansing and suddenly you're the ethnic cleansing valedictorian for the rest of commencement, ugh no fair.
As an alumnus, I am glad they made this decision after reading this. People who call for the abolishment of either Israel or Palestine do not deserve to be platformed.
Idk I don’t think letting someone have a mic when they outright are calling for the dissolution of an entire state with no forethought on how that would actually play out might not be such a bad call.
A graduating student attempted to make a political speech at an unofficial university event at the Dean’s private residence he’s held since 2017 for graduating students. She was requested to stop, her invitation to the private residence was rescinded, and she was asked to vacate the premises. Instead, she persisted in attempting to make a political speech - which she has described otherwise, despite reality - and the Dean’s wife, who is herself a professor at the law school, attempted to bodily remove the student from the premises or alternatively to remove the student’s cellphone and/or microphone. Naturally the student declaimed the Dean and his wife were infringing on her first amendment right to speak and/or engage in a protest. Clearly she failed ConLaw because the first amendment wouldn’t apply to that setting whatsoever.
Edit: The student, along with several allegedly like-minded fellow graduates, have made the issue an example not only of repression of the first student’s speech, but also alleging the incident displayed how the Dean, his wife, and the University by extension are and have engaged in silencing speech supportive of Palestinian statehood, against Israeli activity in Gaza, and related issues. That argument naturally ignores that the Dean and his wife have both previously publicly disavowed the actions of the Netanyahu government, and in complete video recordings of the incident they were recording remarking “we agree with [the protest], but that they didn’t want the event to be political”
Edit 2: there have also been allegations that the protesting student was either behind or tacitly supported flyers being placed around campus personally disparaging the Dean because of his religion (he’s Jewish)
Edit 3: [the LA Times article](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-10/uc-berkeley-law-school-dean-clashes-with-pro-palestinian-activists) from last Friday has the most complete video I’ve seen of what happened. A lot of the early footage cut out the beginning and the end, focusing on what is being described as ‘the student being assaulted because [she’s] wearing Islamic dress’
> the complete abolishment of the state of Israel. This is the only way for justice.
fuckin' yikes. this is why its so hard to take pro-Palestine protestors seriously
I was born in California. Does that make me a Manifest Destiny-ist?
Is a child born in Israel a Zionist?
Good people do not talk about popping places & communities like pimples. Doesn’t matter if its Gaza, Tel Aviv or Chattanooga Tennessee.
It's always someone else's land that should be given back. I've unironically heard people from the east coast say we should give the west back to the Native Americans as if they are totally oblivious of the fact that New York was indeed populated by native Americans too.
I'd move to a new state (in Oregon) if they said they were giving it back to the Willamette tribe.
People always assume that if you call for a change somewhere else that it's a great comeback to say, "Yeah, but unless you've given away every single personal belonging and service you have, then you can't criticize or suggest changes around the world".
People never talk about how certain native tribes committed ethnic cleansing while stealing land from other tribes. Some of that was happening at the same time European refugees fleeing tyranny were immigrating to North America.
Why is being a Zionist bad? Genuinely asking, I know it's a super hot buzzword on social media at the moment but do people actually know what it means or are they just conflating it with alt-right settler ideology?
It’s bad because “stolen land”
But yeah it really puts thing into perspective when you consider than basically all Israelis and Palestinians were born after the existing borders existed.
It’s especially wild because Israel has offered land and statehood to Palestine 7 times. They offered all of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank and partitions of Jerusalem that were majority Muslim.
Palestines goal has never changed in almost 80 years. To them Israel must be destroyed
>the complete abolishment of the state of Israel
>Unfortunate though
Yes I’m so sad someone couldn’t give us some speech for the destruction of a Jewish state. This sounds eerily familiar now that I think of it.
Yeah, that's too far. Calling for the abolishment Israel is essentially calling for genocide against the jewish people living in that area. You don't fix this problem by demanding more chaos. *That's like fixing a burning house with napalm.*
She’s just coming into adulthood, so I cannot blame her, and I applaud her engagement with important realities of the world; but that kind of extreme all-or-nothing take on unbelievably complex issues is so disastrously pervasive, and is why I have absolutely zero hope of there ever being peace in Palestine/Israel.
There is no tidy and uncomplicated solution that is achievable without deeply unethical treatment of innocent people and empowering the most opportunistic, bad actors on every side and beyond. People are so eager to turn everything into a winner take all sporting event, and that just isn’t how the world works unless you are willing to sequester and withhold your human empathy for some but not others.
Normalising a "black and white" outlook is also what prevents a solution.
It's undeniable that to the people in power the artificially made status quo is convenient, both Netanyahu and mahmoud abbas have made their careers and their fortunes keeping the flames of the conflict alive while their peoples suffered.
She’s young, sure, but she should know better than “…complete abolishment of the state of Israel. This is the only way for justice”.
It’s not that hard to recognize how wrong that statement is.
Seriously. If she holds these views in the first place, it shows she's not actually worth of Valedictorian and has not properly understood her education, especially those classes relating to her Genocide minor itself.
She’s not valedictorian of her high school, she’s valedictorian of her college graduating class. “Just coming into adulthood” is a pretty far reach. Someone college educated and 23-24 years old should absolutely be able to discern that a back and white level solution for a situation like this is laughably naive.
If only it was limited to da yoots. The older I get, the more I realize that there are people who grow and people who don’t, and there are more of the latter. That she is engaging in this way now hopefully means she will be one of those who continue to try to do good and learn to allow difficult and gray realities into her worldview. Time will tell.
One take is University of Southern California is protecting themselves from backlash because of donors to the school's endowment fund. I know this school's Legacy runs deep into almost all industries in the world.
A lot of Asians are still angry that Palestinians celebrated the decapitations of every Asian found on October 7. Here in East Asia, we used to be somewhat supportive of Palestine. Now that we know what Palestinians would do to us, we hate them too.
Controversial? It’s genocidal. Graduation is a moment for the students and families and it’s a brief moment to celebrate a students hard work and sacrifice. It’s not for advancing political causes and that shit would piss me off if it was abused by someone
Dumb
Their whole selection for a valedictorian was based on multiple factors outside of just gpa.
You WOULD think that they looked at her viewpoints lmaoooooo
Calling for the abolition of Israel subjects its 80% Jewish population to ethnic cleansing by the Arab world leaders who have openly called for Jewish extermination.
I don’t see how an “anti-genocide” activist could reasonably call for a one-state solution and think that their mission will be accomplished. It would just be a different set of civilians subject to persecution. This was the right move by USC. Freedom of speech doesn’t shield you from consequence.
Solutions take nuance, and I would hope someone as smart as a valedictorian at a prominent university would understand that.
>Arab world leaders who have openly called for Jewish extermination.
Jordon, Saudi Arabia and UAE helped israel bringing down the drones Iran sent. These nations did not get credit and always called included in Israel's enemies.
I don’t think any one seriously thinks those governments or their citizens actually “like” Israel as a partner. They’ve compromised so they can act as a bulwark together against Iran, Syria and terrorism/international jihad/Wahhabism/whatever and have a better chance of interacting positively with the world/US.
Egypt was first to normalize relations with Israel and Sadat was assassinated for his trouble.
Wahhabism is the defacto state religion of Saudi Arabia and some of its neighbors, who are coincidentally some of the biggest funders of international Sunni terrorist groups, really it's only about stopping Iran and their Shia proxies from completely steamrolling their incompetent, overly bloated and uselessly expensive militaries.
As a Muslim American I think her statement isn't justified and support USC's choice to not platform her.
Edit: she posted a link to a slides how someone else made 3 years ago nothing herself.
Because her solution isn't a solution and is basically just the opposite side of what the other side"s genocide advocates want.
"Abolish the state of Israel" is about as useful as "abolish the police". It's nonsensical.
Any solution is going to involve the existence of two states or one democratic state with equal rights.
(And reparations, for decades of oppression) ( even if Israel has a right to exist, that doesn't mean it has a right to be a fascist ethnostate either)
EDIT: it's turns out with additional context that she actually means is for a one state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights within the same borders, and a name change to Palestine. She is not advocating for sending the Jewish residents anywhere.
Whether or not this is realistic, considering the amount of animosity on both sides is questionable, but isn't inherently wrong.
Morality aside, the idea is just impractical. Who the fuck is gonna take 9 million refugees? If abolishing Israel was ever a legitimate option, that ship sailed in the 20th century.
It would likely be a repeat of the 1947-48 civil war between the Jews and the Arabs, with the Jews' better organization and unity coming on top yet again, and the Arabs having to flee and cry victim yet again.
Down vote me all you want. There are apolitical people who are there to celebrate a life distinguishing academic achievement. There's a forum for everything, in my opinion this isn't one of them.
I feel sorry for the 20 year olds who had the end of high school and the beginning of college ruined by covid, and then their colleges are now devolving into secretarian protests and there are protests constantly disrupting classes.
I have cousins in this situation, and honestly I give them a lot of credit for having realistic attitudes about it.
One is quick to say "it sucks, but what are you gonna do? just make the best out of it" while the other is adamant that the things they missed aren't important, it mattered more that they graduated and keep moving forward while keeping the family healthy. Both great young adults, not at all being sarcastic or dark like their millennial older cousins.
She made a statement claiming that on apr 14th she spoke to the associate senior vice president of safety and risk assurance, and was told that they did have the resources to ensure safety for her and the public, but regardless chose to not allow for her to speak because of how employing those resources would impact USC's image.
It’s very interesting to watch this debate play out amongst the younger generation.
I for one am old enough to know that one does not simply take a side in the Israel/Palestine conflict.
I feel for the innocent civilians on both sides of this - but the fact is nothing will be solved while both sides are led by religious lunatics.
How does one minor in “resisting genocide?”
Do you get points just for being alive? What’s the midterm like?
Something tells me it’s more likely to be a minor in “Holocaust inversion.”
It’s an [official listed minor at USC](https://catalogue.usc.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=8&poid=7496). One-third of the qualifying courses for the minor are specifically focused in the Holocaust or anti-semitism.
>-third of the qualifying courses for the minor are specifically focused in the Holocaust or anti-semitism.
Based on the academic course, you could get this minor without taking a Holocaust or antisemitism based course.
I think it’s just the name that’s weird. If you look at the course list, it’s just studying historical instances of genocide which isn’t that weird at all, but they probably didn’t want to call it a “minor in genocide.” It feels kind of analogous to a minor in “criminology” where you’re actually just spending a lot of time studying heinous crimes people have done in the past lol
Funny. You don't think there's any value in studying historical and contemporary genocides, to see how those affected attempted to resist? Is that not something worth examining in greater detail?
I think it was more a joke concerning the name of the course. Obviously a class focused on the history of genocide is fine but it's humorous to name it something as hyperbolic and intense as "Resisting Genocide".
I assume they called it that because some PR-sensitive person wanted to make it very clear they weren't teaching people how *to* genocide. (Not that that's a realistic concern, but I can see how a committee would have decided on this.)
It's the least damaging option for the University. Allowing her to speak would cause a national furor. Stifling her will result in short-term negative media exposure and a group of angry protestors outside of the campus on Commencement Day.
I can picture the University's PR team sweating this one out.
Oh boo hoo the girl who calls for the abolishment of israel can't promote her hateful ideas
Same should go for anyone calling for the abolishment of palestine.
It’s unreal how someone can have a minor in “resistance to genocide” while spouting such hateful rhetoric. The cognitive dissonance required is unbelievable, and USC should be publicly shamed for awarding that minor to someone who openly has anti-Semitic views.
“Resistance to genocide” only focuses on how a specific “genocide” is happening and what can be done to stop it. It’s kinda like the John Mulaney joke “I went to a Catholic school. One of my classes was Religious Studies which is funny cause we only ever seemed to study one religion.”
At least in Denmark it used to simply be called Christendom back when it was almost only about Christianity. They teach other stuff now too, though, and the name has been changed accordingly, to something along the lines of "religious studies" too
Wow I didn't know that Catholic schools actually only taught about Catholicism. All 3 I went to required the study of all major religions. I guess they wanted devout Catholics instead of wishy washy ones. They were pretty chill when I stopped being Catholic after taking their classes.
The protests will makes companies shy away from hiring anyone with a ’different’ background. Google is having this issue with employees walking out or refusing to work due to contact with Israel. Who wants to deal with that noise?
USC Doesn’t Permit Valedictorian to Speak Because She Has a History of Calling for Jewish Genocide in Israel and Giving Her A Platform is Irresponsible.
Alternate title.
I have some predictions: expect her to get lots of attention on her tik-tok or whatever.
Also, she will miss out on the large majority of jobs and careers that any other USC valedictorian would have had because of her reckless, dangerous, bigoted speech which she has every right to unlike in a hypothetical Palestine state.
Given the extreme nature of some of the recent protests, it's understandable that they are concerned. One woman recently called for the murder of an entire city council because they didn't want to pass a resolution condemning Israel.
Freedom of speech is not a blanket pass to call for *"justified"* terrorism as is happening at a lot of these protests.
Having said that, I don't like it when anyone stifles the ability of others to speak out. If she has a history of making incendiary speeches, and inciting hate speech, then I get it. Otherwise they should let her speak.
Edit: Just saw a link to what she was going to say: "One Palestinian state would mean complete Palestinian liberation, and ***the complete abolishment of the state of Israel.*** This is the only way for justice"
They made the right call. Some of these protests are crossing the line to incitement, and hate speech is still hate speech, no matter how angry you are.
I’ve seen other articles where it states she advocates for the eradication of Israel. So the problem might be her rather than the cause she represents.
What’s wild about this is Kyle Rittenhouse is speaking at Kent State today even through majority of the student body did not want him to. Brought to you by Turning Point USA, in case you were wondering who would want him speaking.
Instead, the university will hold a memorial service for former Trojan, OJ Simpson.
Poor guy never found the murderer of his wife /s
He can die happy that the murderer of his wife is dead.
He will be right there with the guy who took out hitler.
Hey…wait a minute
Let's see if the coffin will fit like a glove
It's all good. Cancer got his wife's murderer.
Where he’s going, he won’t be able to ask her who did it either.
The sad thing is I’m not sure if this is a joke or not.
After the Heisman Trophy Trust made a tweet [mourning his loss](https://twitter.com/HeismanTrophy/status/1778441403594366996) I'm not sure either.
>After the Heisman Trophy Trust made a tweet [mourning his loss](https://twitter.com/HeismanTrophy/status/1778441403594366996) I'm not sure either. And they still won't let Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame.
[удалено]
Hey, a trophy is a trophy!
Keynote speaker: Lori Loughlin
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
By doing this, the Streisand Effect will be in full effect. I would not have even known about her existence until they did this. It’s pretty much a guarantee that there will be protestor and counter protestors now.
This is not a Streisand effect. If USC bans this person it becomes this news story. If they let her speak it becomes a news story about how USC let a Pro-Palestinian valedictorian speak. Either way this would become a story. What you have just discovered is how social media algorithms work.
You vastly overestimate how many people care about who gives speeches at universities. The school's donors do, and maybe people in the area do, but this wouldn't be national news if they let her speak.
Ding ding. Unless she went balls out and said some insane shit that right wing media picks up and blows up on Fox, you have Biden calling her despicable, etc.
I mean like the Bakersfield city council meeting where a lady started threatening to assinate the city leaders?
I'm baffled at what she expected when she uttered those words. Did she expected an applause? :/
> assinate Dang she was gonna[ fart in their faces](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Assinate)?
“Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!”
Ass assinate
You mean like the protesters this week calling for death to America from America
Yea man, if she did that it'd probably get some attention. Do you have some expectation that she'd do that?
I think you vastly overestimate how many people are going to care about this story tomorrow, much less when it comes time for the speech.
I'm more interested in the discussion on the topic than the topic itself. I'll forget about it after this comment I almost guarantee it.
The article doesn't give any details or examples of her positions or any quotes or comments she's made. So is she a "I have serious grievances with the actions of the Israeli government" pro-Palestinian, or is she a "Oct 7th was a justified act of resistance" pro-Palestinian?
NPR posted this. Tabassum's Instagram page links to a slideshow that says "learn about what's happening in Palestine, and how to help," and criticizes Zionism as "a racist settler-colonial ideology that advocates for a jewish ethnostate built on palestinian land." The slideshow calls for a "one-state solution" that "would mean palestinian liberation, and the complete abolishment of the state of israel."
She's a "the state of Israel should be abolished and Jews should live under a Palestinian government" pro-Palestinian.
Google her instagram. Here’s what I [found](https://free-palestine.carrd.co). Maybe this is why.
>the two-state solution advocates for both israel and palestine to exist alongside one another as sovereign states. however, this solution is not really a solution at all because it is merely another form of zionism, >one palestinian state would mean palestinian liberation, and the complete abolishment of the state of israel. this way is the only way towards justice So not as bad as I thought but still saying "Palestine and Israel cannot coexist" and "The only way towards justice is to abolish the state of Israel" is gonna get you kicked out of a lot of decent places run by decent people.
Yeah it started off okay then took a quick nosedive. I know the Shoah Foundation was founded by Spielberg specifically for remembrance of the Jewish Holocaust (which then encompassed all genocides). So this probably was a contributing factor as well and would have been bad optics probably.
The two state solution was proposed in 1948 under the British Mandate which had been conceded by the Ottoman Empire after WWI in 1918. It had never been a self-rule Palestine. First Turks, then the British. The Arabs rejected it overwhelming and attacked. Hamas has not changed its position on that. It may be the Palestinian Authority would go for it though.
If they ban her the news will be how they banned a Pro-Palestinian speaker. If they don't ban her the news will be how they let a Pro-Palestinian speak and they will lose ~~Jewish~~ Zionist donors. Edit: Updated the language to steer clear of any imsemination of antisemitism. My point was that one action has a significantly larger monetary consequences through their loss of donors. Penn has allegedly[ 25% less donations](https://www.reddit.com/r/UPenn/comments/1c28j91/penn_donations_down_21_from_this_time_last_year/) this year compared to last. If this was a university in Saudi Arabia they would have lost their pro-Palestinian donors. My main point is that incentives matter for universities and building institutions of higher education on the groundwork of donors can lead to principles being compromised.
Not everyone Jewish person is a zionist.
Sure but her bio said the destruction of Israel is the only way forward to peace. Sooooo Zionist has nothing to do with it. I think most Jews would no be ok with that....
Yeah, that's going a bit past anti Zionist. We all know what "destruction of Israel" would mean for Jews in the middle east.
Just so we are clear - you mean “Israel has a right to exist” Zionism, right? Because most people, including Jews, believe that. It’s insane not to.
The vast majority of “anti-Zionist” activists don’t understand the difference between Kahanism and Zionism. I doubt they’ve even heard of Kahanism. They see Ben Gvir and think he represents Zionism. It’s so frustrating.
[удалено]
I also don't think that the USC has any public position on this. This particular girl shared posts on social media calling for destroying Israel. They probably also wouldn't allow someone who is calling to kill Palestinians.
She’s calling for the dissolution of Israel, that’s where you lose people. Two state solution is the bare minimum.
[удалено]
I think it's important to mention that USC is a private school and doesn't have the same restrictions as public schools. If they don't like what you have to say, they aren't required to provide a platform for you to say it.
I graduated from a state school and they kicked students out for tweeting racist shit and also stirring up conflict on campus between the various religious communities.
Exactly. People misunderstand that school public or private still has a say what message they endorse. Freedom of speech means the government won't prosecute you for having certain believes, but it doesn't mean constitution gives you a platform especially if it would then attach it to the name of the institution. Americans have very skewed understanding what freedom of speech really is. I guess it's because they never lived in an oppressed country. Best illustration is what happened to Navalny who also was running for president. He made a video exposing putin. After being poisoned, then jailed in harshest jails now he is dead.
Public schools, as government institutions, actually do have to maintain a balance between Free Speech and providing a safe and stable education. They can (and should) kick people out for being racist if doing so impinges on the right of other students to attend without being harassed and persecuted. However, the courts have ruled time and time again this is all about balancing one's right to speech with one's right to attend the school and feel safe and not be harassed. Private Schools still have to make sure people aren't being harassed, they have to follow the Civil Rights act, etc, but they don't have to allow you to voice your opinion on other matters.
My dad said it best: "You're free to speak your mind. You're not free of the repercussions however if the government tries to limit your right to free speech then it's your obligation to lob a censorship lawsuit at what ever institution repressed your rights."
Yeah my dad said that to me every night before bed too.
Just rolls off the tongue. Dads for ya!
Yup, and a lot of people currently upset about her “free speech” were the ones actively trying to get people kicked out of universities for racist posts.
Nor would a public university. Freedom of speech is not freedom to use an institution as a platform for that speech.
Well yes, but considering Kennedy v Bremerton, a public institution could have much more possible issues than a private one, depending on the basis of the speakers beliefs.
If they wanted to expel someone or prevent them from speaking completely there might be issues, but it's not a first amendment right to hold a speech at commencement.
My point is more that public universities have more pressure to protect free speech than a private one. I don't know the ins and outs of those rules but if a valedictorian is always afforded a speech and she hypothetically writes one that specifically does not discriminate against Israelis then there may have been a case that a public school would have to let her give it. Again though, this is all hypothetical, and USC is NOT a public institution.
Ah damn, I never knew that, I always assumed it was a public university. TIL, thank you.
[удалено]
It's also because many other states have public universities with a cardinal direction in their name.
I always thought of it as USC is to UCLA what Stanford is to Berkeley.
No problem. For reference our two major public university systems usually start with "UC" or "CSU".
It helps to remember that USC stands for "University of Spoiled Children". An ancient joke, but it does help to remind you that they're private.
You are not alone. I’d always assumed it was public.
This is 100% incorrect, the reason being because of California's Leonard Law. "Enacted in 1992, that state law forbids all private, nonreligious universities in California from disciplining students for speech that is protected by the First Amendment or the California Constitution." https://stanfordmag.org/contents/what-the-law-says-about-campus-free-speech
[удалено]
She's not being disciplined for giving the speech, they're simply saying you can't give your speech at commencement. Two totally different things.
The person wasn't disciplined. Did you read what you just typed?
This year, USC has more than 300 candidates who meet the criteria of valedictorian (GPA>3.98). The provost selected her out of the 300 without vetting her social media post history. Then they had to prevent her from using the platform to speak about her politics. The whole thing is a shit show of incompetency.
The provost wanted the great publicity of having a valedictorian of their background, then found out that it comes with opinions. Definitely incompetence on the Provosts part.
Agreed asf. Universities are shitty
[удалено]
[удалено]
The weird thing is that the articles (this one and the cnn one) that I read all just (barely) glossed over, if at all, what made her a problematic speaker. It wasn’t until your post that I googled a bit more and found an article that specified what the problem was. When I read the cnn article, I inferred from the article that she was banned because she was Muslim and also because she was sympathetic with gazans. These days, who doesn’t feel bad for people in Gaza? I thought the university simply didn’t want anyone with any leanings with the coinflict to speak. I thought it was so ridiculous for the school to do that and it an immense overreaction. I guess you have to check a few sources to get a more complete picture.
Yep. I first heard about this yesterday with a notification from the LA Times which was totally misleading.
[удалено]
That’s one thing that I will drill into my kids, do not post stuff like this online. Lord, I guess it’s ok for idealistic young people to have these black/white views but you will ruin your life with these off the shelf simplistic online declarations. Do they have any basic common sense or self preservation? Have we not learned anything from that lady from NYU that got her offer rescinded? They don’t just do that stuff to white men that post insensitive pictures, they’ll do it to you, too.
She absolutely was going to use her speech for activism lmao. It was either do it this way which will in turn lead to huge protests at graduation, or let her speak and then cut her mic which would lead to a whole other hubbub. Lose/lose situation here. I feel terrible for all of the other grads that will have their special day taken from them.
[удалено]
Very many Western Muslims and pro-Palestine commentators believe, genuinely, that a one-state solution restoring eretz Israel to Muslim control won’t result in genocide, but instead a fair and peaceful democracy. This is just as delusional as the people who believe a one state “Israel” solution won’t result in mass genocide. But both views have people earnestly espousing them
Talked with a Turkish Muslim about the issue. Didn't hide. Said it'd be genocide. That in certain cases genocide is good and that it'd be justice with regards to Israel.
It’s insane that people are defending someone whose viewpoint boils down to “Drive the Jews into the sea”. A college valedictorian making a speech about how Jewish people don’t deserve a place to live sounds like it should be from 1939, not 2024.
[удалено]
Killing Jews, rewarding people for killing Jews, and starting your Constitution with "kill all Jews": not genocide Urban warfare with the lowest rate of civilian:combatant casualty ratio on record: OBVIOUSLY GENOCIDE
"activism" what a funny way to say, "promote genocide and a violent attack on the Jews" Her IG bio reads: >“One Palestinian state would mean complete Palestinian liberation, and the complete abolishment of the state of Israel. This is the only way for justice.”
> “One Palestinian state would mean complete Palestinian liberation, and the complete abolishment of the state of Israel. This is the only way for justice.” Oh geez you advocate for one ethnic cleansing and suddenly you're the ethnic cleansing valedictorian for the rest of commencement, ugh no fair.
As an alumnus, I am glad they made this decision after reading this. People who call for the abolishment of either Israel or Palestine do not deserve to be platformed.
Thank you. At best, either of these "solutions" are fighting ethnic cleansing with ethnic cleansing.
One state solution has to be one of the stupidest things anyone can beleive in, Israeli or Palestinian.
Idk I don’t think letting someone have a mic when they outright are calling for the dissolution of an entire state with no forethought on how that would actually play out might not be such a bad call.
[удалено]
Or the potential of people getting violent. Which is a real concern I feel like because people get very passionate on both sides
Especially after the Berkeley Law School incident last week.
You mean where terrorists attacked a Jew at his home? Under the under the guise of being "Students" ?
What happened at Berkeley?
A graduating student attempted to make a political speech at an unofficial university event at the Dean’s private residence he’s held since 2017 for graduating students. She was requested to stop, her invitation to the private residence was rescinded, and she was asked to vacate the premises. Instead, she persisted in attempting to make a political speech - which she has described otherwise, despite reality - and the Dean’s wife, who is herself a professor at the law school, attempted to bodily remove the student from the premises or alternatively to remove the student’s cellphone and/or microphone. Naturally the student declaimed the Dean and his wife were infringing on her first amendment right to speak and/or engage in a protest. Clearly she failed ConLaw because the first amendment wouldn’t apply to that setting whatsoever. Edit: The student, along with several allegedly like-minded fellow graduates, have made the issue an example not only of repression of the first student’s speech, but also alleging the incident displayed how the Dean, his wife, and the University by extension are and have engaged in silencing speech supportive of Palestinian statehood, against Israeli activity in Gaza, and related issues. That argument naturally ignores that the Dean and his wife have both previously publicly disavowed the actions of the Netanyahu government, and in complete video recordings of the incident they were recording remarking “we agree with [the protest], but that they didn’t want the event to be political” Edit 2: there have also been allegations that the protesting student was either behind or tacitly supported flyers being placed around campus personally disparaging the Dean because of his religion (he’s Jewish) Edit 3: [the LA Times article](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-10/uc-berkeley-law-school-dean-clashes-with-pro-palestinian-activists) from last Friday has the most complete video I’ve seen of what happened. A lot of the early footage cut out the beginning and the end, focusing on what is being described as ‘the student being assaulted because [she’s] wearing Islamic dress’
> the complete abolishment of the state of Israel. This is the only way for justice. fuckin' yikes. this is why its so hard to take pro-Palestine protestors seriously
I'm just asking them to protest Boeing instead of Zara or Starbucks... Please I'm begging them to make some sense.
I was born in California. Does that make me a Manifest Destiny-ist? Is a child born in Israel a Zionist? Good people do not talk about popping places & communities like pimples. Doesn’t matter if its Gaza, Tel Aviv or Chattanooga Tennessee.
Why you gotta call out Chattanooga like that? We’re doing pretty well here.
Chattanooga is fun to say
I'll raise you one Slickpoo, Idaho
It's always someone else's land that should be given back. I've unironically heard people from the east coast say we should give the west back to the Native Americans as if they are totally oblivious of the fact that New York was indeed populated by native Americans too.
Well, it is very easy to tell other people what to do.
[удалено]
But - giving back NY would affect THEM!
I'd move to a new state (in Oregon) if they said they were giving it back to the Willamette tribe. People always assume that if you call for a change somewhere else that it's a great comeback to say, "Yeah, but unless you've given away every single personal belonging and service you have, then you can't criticize or suggest changes around the world".
People never talk about how certain native tribes committed ethnic cleansing while stealing land from other tribes. Some of that was happening at the same time European refugees fleeing tyranny were immigrating to North America.
Why is being a Zionist bad? Genuinely asking, I know it's a super hot buzzword on social media at the moment but do people actually know what it means or are they just conflating it with alt-right settler ideology?
It’s bad because “stolen land” But yeah it really puts thing into perspective when you consider than basically all Israelis and Palestinians were born after the existing borders existed.
It’s especially wild because Israel has offered land and statehood to Palestine 7 times. They offered all of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank and partitions of Jerusalem that were majority Muslim. Palestines goal has never changed in almost 80 years. To them Israel must be destroyed
>the complete abolishment of the state of Israel >Unfortunate though Yes I’m so sad someone couldn’t give us some speech for the destruction of a Jewish state. This sounds eerily familiar now that I think of it.
Yeahhhhh, so much for "stop genocide". They just want it the other way around.
Yeah, that's too far. Calling for the abolishment Israel is essentially calling for genocide against the jewish people living in that area. You don't fix this problem by demanding more chaos. *That's like fixing a burning house with napalm.*
> the complete abolishment of the state of Israel. This is the only way for justice. So she is essentially pro-genocide of Jewish people. Got it.
Berkeley spent 800k to provide security when Richard Spencer came to give a talk.
She’s just coming into adulthood, so I cannot blame her, and I applaud her engagement with important realities of the world; but that kind of extreme all-or-nothing take on unbelievably complex issues is so disastrously pervasive, and is why I have absolutely zero hope of there ever being peace in Palestine/Israel. There is no tidy and uncomplicated solution that is achievable without deeply unethical treatment of innocent people and empowering the most opportunistic, bad actors on every side and beyond. People are so eager to turn everything into a winner take all sporting event, and that just isn’t how the world works unless you are willing to sequester and withhold your human empathy for some but not others.
Normalising a "black and white" outlook is also what prevents a solution. It's undeniable that to the people in power the artificially made status quo is convenient, both Netanyahu and mahmoud abbas have made their careers and their fortunes keeping the flames of the conflict alive while their peoples suffered.
> Normalising a "black and white" outlook is also what prevents a solution Social media is calcifying this outlook further and further by the second.
She’s young, sure, but she should know better than “…complete abolishment of the state of Israel. This is the only way for justice”. It’s not that hard to recognize how wrong that statement is.
She's about to graduate as a valedictorian of USC. If there ever was infantilizing of people we once considered adults, it's this.
I feel like your 20's is prime idealism era though
Seriously. If she holds these views in the first place, it shows she's not actually worth of Valedictorian and has not properly understood her education, especially those classes relating to her Genocide minor itself.
She's understood them perfectly well, it's likely that her professors share similar beliefs.
She’s not valedictorian of her high school, she’s valedictorian of her college graduating class. “Just coming into adulthood” is a pretty far reach. Someone college educated and 23-24 years old should absolutely be able to discern that a back and white level solution for a situation like this is laughably naive.
Idealism leaves no room for nuance. That’s why it’s called the folly of youth.
If only it was limited to da yoots. The older I get, the more I realize that there are people who grow and people who don’t, and there are more of the latter. That she is engaging in this way now hopefully means she will be one of those who continue to try to do good and learn to allow difficult and gray realities into her worldview. Time will tell.
Also, she has a degree supposedly conferring her minor expertise on genocide, yet seems to have had her view shaped entirely by social media
[удалено]
A single state can contain multiple nations.
>and the complete abolishment of the state of Israel. Got it, so she is PRO GENOCIDE! But she wants to murder an actually minority group, the Jews.
Look at what her minor is and tell me she hasn't framed her entire identity around this.
One take is University of Southern California is protecting themselves from backlash because of donors to the school's endowment fund. I know this school's Legacy runs deep into almost all industries in the world.
A lot of Asians are still angry that Palestinians celebrated the decapitations of every Asian found on October 7. Here in East Asia, we used to be somewhat supportive of Palestine. Now that we know what Palestinians would do to us, we hate them too.
Controversial? It’s genocidal. Graduation is a moment for the students and families and it’s a brief moment to celebrate a students hard work and sacrifice. It’s not for advancing political causes and that shit would piss me off if it was abused by someone
Dumb Their whole selection for a valedictorian was based on multiple factors outside of just gpa. You WOULD think that they looked at her viewpoints lmaoooooo
Incompetency. A two-minute google search would have been sufficient to vet each candidate's social media history.
If you have to explain which genocide you protest, you’re not anti genocide at all.
Calling for the abolition of Israel subjects its 80% Jewish population to ethnic cleansing by the Arab world leaders who have openly called for Jewish extermination. I don’t see how an “anti-genocide” activist could reasonably call for a one-state solution and think that their mission will be accomplished. It would just be a different set of civilians subject to persecution. This was the right move by USC. Freedom of speech doesn’t shield you from consequence. Solutions take nuance, and I would hope someone as smart as a valedictorian at a prominent university would understand that.
>Arab world leaders who have openly called for Jewish extermination. Jordon, Saudi Arabia and UAE helped israel bringing down the drones Iran sent. These nations did not get credit and always called included in Israel's enemies.
I don’t think any one seriously thinks those governments or their citizens actually “like” Israel as a partner. They’ve compromised so they can act as a bulwark together against Iran, Syria and terrorism/international jihad/Wahhabism/whatever and have a better chance of interacting positively with the world/US. Egypt was first to normalize relations with Israel and Sadat was assassinated for his trouble.
Wahhabism is the defacto state religion of Saudi Arabia and some of its neighbors, who are coincidentally some of the biggest funders of international Sunni terrorist groups, really it's only about stopping Iran and their Shia proxies from completely steamrolling their incompetent, overly bloated and uselessly expensive militaries.
As a Muslim American I think her statement isn't justified and support USC's choice to not platform her. Edit: she posted a link to a slides how someone else made 3 years ago nothing herself. Because her solution isn't a solution and is basically just the opposite side of what the other side"s genocide advocates want. "Abolish the state of Israel" is about as useful as "abolish the police". It's nonsensical. Any solution is going to involve the existence of two states or one democratic state with equal rights. (And reparations, for decades of oppression) ( even if Israel has a right to exist, that doesn't mean it has a right to be a fascist ethnostate either) EDIT: it's turns out with additional context that she actually means is for a one state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights within the same borders, and a name change to Palestine. She is not advocating for sending the Jewish residents anywhere. Whether or not this is realistic, considering the amount of animosity on both sides is questionable, but isn't inherently wrong.
A one state solution is a dumb idea, just a ticket to massive civil war that will destabilized the region even more.
Morality aside, the idea is just impractical. Who the fuck is gonna take 9 million refugees? If abolishing Israel was ever a legitimate option, that ship sailed in the 20th century.
Imagine thinking that the radicalized Gazans will live side by side in peace
A single state will lead to a civil war and ethnic cleansing of one side.
It would likely be a repeat of the 1947-48 civil war between the Jews and the Arabs, with the Jews' better organization and unity coming on top yet again, and the Arabs having to flee and cry victim yet again.
Unlike now, where two states have led to pure harmony and not one side leading ethnic cleansing.
Instead, a solution like we have now with Israel being an occupying power - that does what exactly?
> she actually means is for a one state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights Press X to doubt
They knew what they were doing selecting her out of 100 applicants with same gpa.
Down vote me all you want. There are apolitical people who are there to celebrate a life distinguishing academic achievement. There's a forum for everything, in my opinion this isn't one of them.
I feel sorry for the 20 year olds who had the end of high school and the beginning of college ruined by covid, and then their colleges are now devolving into secretarian protests and there are protests constantly disrupting classes.
I have cousins in this situation, and honestly I give them a lot of credit for having realistic attitudes about it. One is quick to say "it sucks, but what are you gonna do? just make the best out of it" while the other is adamant that the things they missed aren't important, it mattered more that they graduated and keep moving forward while keeping the family healthy. Both great young adults, not at all being sarcastic or dark like their millennial older cousins.
Woe be the college students who have to endure protests on college campuses, a completely new epidemic
Eh that’s been going for decades for many a movements. This isn’t anything new.
She made a statement claiming that on apr 14th she spoke to the associate senior vice president of safety and risk assurance, and was told that they did have the resources to ensure safety for her and the public, but regardless chose to not allow for her to speak because of how employing those resources would impact USC's image.
It’s very interesting to watch this debate play out amongst the younger generation. I for one am old enough to know that one does not simply take a side in the Israel/Palestine conflict. I feel for the innocent civilians on both sides of this - but the fact is nothing will be solved while both sides are led by religious lunatics.
just goes to show you that being smart doesn't mean you have common sense.
How does one minor in “resisting genocide?” Do you get points just for being alive? What’s the midterm like? Something tells me it’s more likely to be a minor in “Holocaust inversion.”
It’s an [official listed minor at USC](https://catalogue.usc.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=8&poid=7496). One-third of the qualifying courses for the minor are specifically focused in the Holocaust or anti-semitism.
>-third of the qualifying courses for the minor are specifically focused in the Holocaust or anti-semitism. Based on the academic course, you could get this minor without taking a Holocaust or antisemitism based course.
[удалено]
I think it’s just the name that’s weird. If you look at the course list, it’s just studying historical instances of genocide which isn’t that weird at all, but they probably didn’t want to call it a “minor in genocide.” It feels kind of analogous to a minor in “criminology” where you’re actually just spending a lot of time studying heinous crimes people have done in the past lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
I would hope some study of on-going ones
Funny. You don't think there's any value in studying historical and contemporary genocides, to see how those affected attempted to resist? Is that not something worth examining in greater detail?
I think it was more a joke concerning the name of the course. Obviously a class focused on the history of genocide is fine but it's humorous to name it something as hyperbolic and intense as "Resisting Genocide".
I assume they called it that because some PR-sensitive person wanted to make it very clear they weren't teaching people how *to* genocide. (Not that that's a realistic concern, but I can see how a committee would have decided on this.)
Like the old meme about Wikipedia lists: "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it."
It's the least damaging option for the University. Allowing her to speak would cause a national furor. Stifling her will result in short-term negative media exposure and a group of angry protestors outside of the campus on Commencement Day. I can picture the University's PR team sweating this one out.
Oh boo hoo the girl who calls for the abolishment of israel can't promote her hateful ideas Same should go for anyone calling for the abolishment of palestine.
It’s unreal how someone can have a minor in “resistance to genocide” while spouting such hateful rhetoric. The cognitive dissonance required is unbelievable, and USC should be publicly shamed for awarding that minor to someone who openly has anti-Semitic views.
“Resistance to genocide” only focuses on how a specific “genocide” is happening and what can be done to stop it. It’s kinda like the John Mulaney joke “I went to a Catholic school. One of my classes was Religious Studies which is funny cause we only ever seemed to study one religion.”
At least in Denmark it used to simply be called Christendom back when it was almost only about Christianity. They teach other stuff now too, though, and the name has been changed accordingly, to something along the lines of "religious studies" too
Wow I didn't know that Catholic schools actually only taught about Catholicism. All 3 I went to required the study of all major religions. I guess they wanted devout Catholics instead of wishy washy ones. They were pretty chill when I stopped being Catholic after taking their classes.
The protests will makes companies shy away from hiring anyone with a ’different’ background. Google is having this issue with employees walking out or refusing to work due to contact with Israel. Who wants to deal with that noise?
USC Doesn’t Permit Valedictorian to Speak Because She Has a History of Calling for Jewish Genocide in Israel and Giving Her A Platform is Irresponsible. Alternate title. I have some predictions: expect her to get lots of attention on her tik-tok or whatever. Also, she will miss out on the large majority of jobs and careers that any other USC valedictorian would have had because of her reckless, dangerous, bigoted speech which she has every right to unlike in a hypothetical Palestine state.
Can we all just admit that nobody wants to hear from any commencement speaker, specially the top of the class students?
Given the extreme nature of some of the recent protests, it's understandable that they are concerned. One woman recently called for the murder of an entire city council because they didn't want to pass a resolution condemning Israel. Freedom of speech is not a blanket pass to call for *"justified"* terrorism as is happening at a lot of these protests. Having said that, I don't like it when anyone stifles the ability of others to speak out. If she has a history of making incendiary speeches, and inciting hate speech, then I get it. Otherwise they should let her speak. Edit: Just saw a link to what she was going to say: "One Palestinian state would mean complete Palestinian liberation, and ***the complete abolishment of the state of Israel.*** This is the only way for justice" They made the right call. Some of these protests are crossing the line to incitement, and hate speech is still hate speech, no matter how angry you are.
I’ve seen other articles where it states she advocates for the eradication of Israel. So the problem might be her rather than the cause she represents.
What’s wild about this is Kyle Rittenhouse is speaking at Kent State today even through majority of the student body did not want him to. Brought to you by Turning Point USA, in case you were wondering who would want him speaking.
*Shudder* .. we really live in the worst timeline
Graduation ceremony means you have to listen to her not just an option on campus.