University of Southern California’s 2024 valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, will not be allowed to deliver a speech at the university’s commencement ceremony due to, according to the school’s provost, security concerns. The cancellation comes following a wave of criticism over what groups such as US-nonprofit StopAntisemitism labeled “her authoring [of] an antisemitic social media post on her Instagram account.”
This is a textbook attack on the principle of free expression in the name of security. The move is designed to avoid controversy and save face by unjustly silencing those whose beliefs and speech differs from that of other, often more powerful, groups.
You don’t have to agree with Tabassum. You may well see her position on Israel-Palestine as radical and impractical. But how could anyone who stands for pluralism, debate and free expression take USC’s side?
“While this is disappointing, tradition must give way to safety,” Provost Andrew Guzman wrote in an email to the university community. “This decision is not only necessary to maintain the safety of our campus and students, but is consistent with the fundamental legal obligation — including the expectations of federal regulators — that universities act to protect students and keep our campus community safe.”
“To be clear: this decision has nothing to do with freedom of speech. There is no free-speech entitlement to speak at a commencement. The issue here is how best to maintain campus security and safety, period,” Guzman added.
While somewhat rhetorically compelling, the email’s justification shouldn’t convince those who cherish free expression and meritocracy. Even if it is true that no one is “legally” entitled speaking time at the podium, Tabassum hit the highest marks and became valedictorian — she earned it. This, by definition, should be the sole criteria. Yet because of her controversial views — wanting to “abolish” Israel is a pretty common view on college campuses — she has been denied the opportunity.
Guzman’s line of logic can be — and has been — used to justify the silencing of anyone with heterodox, controversial, or simply different views. It is because of this way of thinking that dozens of conservative speakers have been disinvited from colleges throughout the country before.
In usual fashion, according to Tabassum, the so-called safety concerns remain unmentioned by university administrators. She told CBS News correspondent Carter Evans: “I was never given the evidence that any safety concerns and that any security concerns were founded.”
Responding to criticism, Guzman kept things conveniently abstract, resorting to the language of safetyism. He alluded to the “intensity of feelings” that have “grown to include many voices outside of USC,” and about how “similar risks have led to harassment and even violence at other campuses.”
Questions about the university’s self-interest and legality aside, as a matter of principle, how can the answer to this issue be shutting the speech down? Instead of canceling it, couldn’t the university have taken further steps to enhance safety for the graduation ceremony? And if there’s an identified threat, why can’t they neutralize it or explain its nature to the public?
The answer to those questions are simple. In fact, conservatives have been screaming them for years, yet the many of the liberals angry over this today have all too often looked away, if not joined the mob. In response to the 2018 visit of the Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro to USC, student leaders introduced an amendment, attempting to give de facto veto power to their student government over which speakers are allowed on campus.
Section V-7A of said amendment read, “Any proposed guest, including but not limited to celebrities, political speakers, commentators or concert performers, who is scheduled to appear at a ticketed campus event, projected to draw attendance of 100 people or more, poses a threat to student safety, or requires substantial security detail will be subject to Special Guest Approval.” Sounds a lot like Guzman, right?
Maybe this situation can remind many of the students who would celebrate when a conservative gets disinvited from campus why the principles of free expression matter. On college campuses, more than anywhere else, we should all always stand for free expression — a threat to it anywhere is indeed a threat to it everywhere.
