The University of Southern California has cancelled a scheduled commencement speech by Asna Tabassum, citing unnamed security concerns after her selection as valedictorian was met with a wave of online attacks directed at her pro-Palestinian views.
“I am not surprised by those who attempt to propagate hatred. I am surprised that my own university - my home for four years - has abandoned me,” Tabassum said in a statement shared online.
On 6 April, USC announced that Tabassum was selected as valedictorian, a student with the highest academic achievements in her year, for the graduating class of 2024.
After the announcement was published on social media, Tabassum began receiving online attacks from an account named, “We Are Tov”, a group that describes itself as “dedicated to combating antisemitism”.
The university released a statement on Monday, saying that Tabassum would retain her position as valedictorian, but would not be allowed to give her commencement speech. The school said that the move was made to maintain safety on campus.
And your solution is to let the terrorists win?
You present a false dichotomy, and on that basis, I reject the statement
You were the one clearly implying that they had no choice but to cancel it. The other poster is clearly implying that cancelling the speech is letting the terrorists win.
If it’s a false dichotomy, it’s yours.
Wrong. Since she can still give the speech a number of other ways, cancelling the public speech ≠ “letting the terroists win” unless you believe the terrorist’s goals are to make you mad— which everyone here seems to believe.
Silencing her was the goal, and she still has many other means to deliver her speech.
Sorry, wasn’t clear. Your false dichotomy is that they either ban the speech, or put thousands of people at risk. They’ve shown the ability to secure for higher profile and higher risk things.
But this argue is bizarre. By bowing to terrorists and censoring her from giving the speech there, they are absolutely letting the terrorists dictate their policy (i.e. win). The fact that she can give the speech elsewhere doesn’t change this. It’s like saying that if they ban speech in Idaho, it’s not really a loss of free speech because they can go to New York and talk. It’s absolutely still censorship.
Nobody’s speech is banned— so you can stop pushing that lie. She simply can’t deliver it at one particular live event. She can still deliver it any number of other ways that won’t endanger the lives of others.
And now you’ve introduced the false equivalence of comparing her to some high profile speaker. She isn’t.
Your entire argument is based on logical fallacies and lies.
The valedictorian traditionally gives a speech. They banned that speech from happening. Quite literally the speech was banned. I’m not sure how you can argue against this.
Understood and agreed. The point of bringing that up is not to say she is equivalent, but to point out that they can handle higher risk speeches, so the false dichotomy of either banning the speech or running some high risk to the safety of everyone is…well, a false dichotomy that doesn’t hold much water.
It not did ban her speech, they simply canceled the public event. She can continue her speech in a number of other formats. Her speech was not banned. To continue saying this is a lie.
To continue asserting that they should give her the same deference that they give the president of United States, who often provides their own security as do other dignitaries, is the false Dichotomy. For that I reject the assertion.
Ban - officially or legally prohibit.
The valedictorian would normally give a speech, they have officially prohibited her from giving this speech. It is a ban and no amount of spin will change this.
And even if you were pedantically correct, which to be clear you are not, it’s effectively the same thing and you are just nit-picking the language. Your argument is that because it isn’t universal, it’s not really a ban. Thats like arguing that if you ban abortions in Idaho that doesn’t really count as a ban because you can still go to NY to get it done. I’m not sure why you are so invested in this lie.
Whether I think they should is not the point. You made the claim that they either ban the speech, or it’s putting everyone at too high a risk. This is a false dichotomy because they’ve been able to provide security for other high profile and more controversial speakers, not limited to just the POTUS. There is a third option: provide the security they are more than capable of providing.