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.

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    So we should say all Americans have been stripped of their rights, because women cannot access life-saving medical care in the event of a complication of a late-term pregnancy?

    We can say that all American cis women have been stripped of their rights, yes. However more accurately this would be on a state by state basis.

    We are arguing semantics, but you’re the one justifying a sensationalist response to an accurate statement.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Accuracy looks like “American cis women have been stripped of their right to abortion” or “non-Jewish Israelis have been stripped of their right to recognize previous nationality.”

      “Stripped of their rights” implies all rights. If you can’t see the difference, then you’re unknowingly part of the misinformation.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        “Stripped of their rights” implies all rights.

        No, it doesn’t. You can lost rights without losing all your rights. All it implies is that more than 1 right was removed, and that it was done so unwillingly.

        If you can’t see the difference, then you’re unknowingly part of the misinformation.

        Please back this statement up with some sound reasoning.

        It seems more likely that you are stubbornly refusing to admit you were wrong about something very minor.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I don’t know what else I can say. You clearly don’t understand the implications of the term “stripped of their rights.”

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Please provide a definition or rationalisation that supports your position. I’ve looked myself, and all the ones I’ve found make no mention of “all” rights being removed. Here’s one: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/strip-of

            I think you don’t know what else to say because you are wrong and have nothing to support your position. It is you who clearly doesn’t understand, but I think that’s more stubbornness than anything else.