On Tuesday, the University of Southern California canceled a planned graduation speech by its valedictorian, a young woman named Asna Tabassum. My New York Times colleague Stephanie Saul reported that the “school said the decision stemmed from security concerns based on emails and other electronic communications warning of a plan to disrupt the commencement, including at least one that targeted Ms. Tabassum.”
Shortly after Tabassum had been named valedictorian, two student groups, Trojans for Israel and Chabad, objected. Her social media bio apparently included a link to a group that condemns Zionism as a “racist settler-colonial ideology.” Trojans for Israel said Tabassum “openly traffics antisemitic and anti-Zionist rhetoric.”
Oddly enough, Andrew T. Guzman, the university’s provost, claimed the decision to cancel Tabassum’s address “has nothing to do with freedom of speech. There is no free-speech entitlement to speak at a commencement.” While Guzman may be correct as a matter of broad legal principle — there is no right to be a graduation speaker — he is completely wrong that the decision to cancel has nothing to do with free speech.
In fact, canceling a speech because of future safety concerns is a more egregious form of censorship than the classic “heckler’s veto,” when protesters silence speakers by disrupting their speeches. USC’s decision to cancel Tabassum’s speech was a form of anticipatory heckler’s veto. USC canceled the speech before the heckling could even start.
To support Tabassum’s ability to speak is not to minimize very real safety concerns in a tense and volatile time. In February, for example, a violent mob at UC Berkeley forced attendees to evacuate an event featuring a speaker from Israel. But it is the responsibility of the state and the university to protect both the liberty and the security of their students and guests.
I disagree strongly with condemnations of Zionism as racist, and I think it would be a serious mistake if Tabassum chose to commandeer her commencement platform to express such views. But I’m far more concerned about setting yet another precedent showing that threats and intimidation work than I am about the content of a single graduation speech. It is exactly when security feels most precarious that American institutions must be most vigilant in the defense of freedom.
The alternative is grim. If a fail-safe method of silencing speech is summoning a mob, or even merely threatening to summon a mob, then expect to see more mobs.
David French is a New York Times columnist.
