Valedictoriangate: Thoughts of USC Faculty, Students, and Parents
The USC valedictorian debacle has received international news coverage. The essence of the affair was summarized in The Free Press:
Tabassum was selected as USC’s valedictorian, but as well as having a top-notch GPA, Tabassum appears to possess some, shall we say, robust views on Israel.
Several student groups complained about her selection and pointed out that Tabassum’s Instagram bio links to a post full of noxious anti-Israel rhetoric, including a description of Zionism as a “racist settler-colonial ideology”—in other words, the sort of thing professors are teaching college kids at top schools across the country. One group, Trojans for Israel, said that by choosing Tabassum as valedictorian, USC had turned commencement into an “unwelcoming and intolerant environment for Jewish graduates and their families.”
USC is not famous for its commitment to free expression—it once suspended a professor for simply saying a Chinese word that sounded like a racial slur. And the school had a decision to make. Administrators could have said they had made a mistake in picking Tabassum because her views were at odds with USC’s values and stripped her of the role. Or they could have stuck by Tabassum and ridden out an uncomfortable commencement day in the name of free speech. Instead, they opted for a weaselly fudge, keeping Tabassum as valedictorian but preventing her from speaking.
“Tradition must give way to safety,” said Provost Andrew T. Guzman in a letter to the USC community. It made references to the “alarming tenor” of the response to Tabassum’s selection and “substantial risks relating to security and disruption at commencement” but was light on specifics.
Tabassum called the decision “cowardly” and accused the school of “succumbing to a campaign of hate meant to silence my voice.”
USC had no constitutional obligation to select Tabassum as valedictorian. It does have a duty to be straight with students and faculty about its decision-making.
Alex Morey, director of campus rights advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), told The Free Press she thought USC’s decision was “a very calculated move” designed “to avoid censoring the student or yanking her valedictorian status, instead blaming ‘safety concerns.’ ”
“The suggestion is that authorities are concerned about true threats, but rarely is that the case,” says Morey. “If there are genuine safety concerns that local authorities simply can’t handle, the school must be as transparent as possible. The alternative is that they end up looking like censors trying to cover their tracks. That, of course, can chill campus speech.” [emphasis ours]
The media coverage runs the gamut from expressions of incredulity over how a student with such extreme views could have been selected, criticism of the university’s actions, valorization of Tabassum, and attempts to weaponize the incident to further an antisemitic agenda. As is often the case, the loudest voices may not represent the sentiments of the majority. It is therefore important to hear voices from the USC community.
Inspired by the words of Rabbi Dov Wagner of Chabad, whose open letter to the USC administration we have republished, we reached out to the members of the USC community to obtain their views on the situation. Below, we present their responses, which highlight various aspects of the “Valedictorian-gate.” We hope that the collective wisdom of our community will help the university to right its course.
I fully endorse this letter from Rabbi Dov Wagner. The administration seems to have lost its moral compass and is ignoring the core tenets on which the Trojan community is built. —Gerard Medioni, Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
USC’s selection of a valedictorian who espouses antisemitic views was a grave error that deeply offended many within the university community and beyond, particularly those who support Israel. The subsequent cancellation of her speech was intended to ease tensions among groups with divergent opinions on Israel, Hamas, and Iran. However, framing the decision as a response to security concerns inadvertently suggested an expectation of violence from Jewish groups during the event. This perception was exacerbated by inaccurate media portrayals, falsely framing the situation as a conflict between Jews and Muslims. Jewish groups have a history of peaceful demonstration but now they are unjustly shouldering an accusation of potential violence. USC’s mishandling of the situation is deeply unsettling for both the local and global Jewish communities.
Looking ahead, it is reasonable to anticipate demonstrations from both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli supporters during the upcoming graduation ceremony. The issue has escalated significantly, and it is imperative for USC to recognize the heightened security risks it now faces. Instead of solely relying on security concerns, both before and after the regrettable valedictorian selection, USC should have unequivocally denounced antisemitism as intolerable within its community and in broader society. Shielding antisemitism under the guise of free speech is hypocritical. Advocating for the eradication of Israel is an affront to Jewish people worldwide. USC’s tolerance of antisemitism in various forms, including student demonstrations, lectures, and press articles, while strictly prohibiting similar offenses against other groups, is untenable.
The administration must act decisively and combat antisemitism. Tabassum's actions, including sharing antisemitic content on social media and, subsequently, defending her views on multiple television programs (see, for example, here), demonstrate a clear pattern of antisemitism. Her calls for the elimination of Israel based on falsehoods about apartheid, or her lack of education on the truth about Israel, undermine her credibility and disqualify her from academic honors. I urge the USC administration to courageously acknowledge that Tabassum's exclusion from delivering the valedictorian speech is a direct response to her unacceptable antisemitic behavior, setting a firm precedent against such conduct at USC in the future. —Itzhak Bars, Professor of Physics
Cancelling Asna Tabassum’s valedictorian speech was more than justified. From what we know now and what we correctly deduced from her social media, her speech would likely have been anti-Israeli and implicitly pro-Hamas, equating Israel’s self-defense with a genocide. One can also ask why she was chosen as valedictorian and why the search committee ignored her social media profile. One may even wonder whether some of her high grades reflect the uncritical acceptance of views she learned in USC’s resistance to genocide program. It seems doubtful that her professors in this program or her other educators ever considered the two sides of the Israeli–Arab conflict. —Arieh Warshel, Nobel Laureate, Dana and David Dornsife Chair in Chemistry, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry
USC went through a screening process of 100 candidates, and using a combination of objective and subjective criteria selected Ms. Tabassum as the 2024 class valedictorian. What the committee didn’t do in today’s social media landscape was to look at her social media posts. Based on what I have seen, her posts presented anti-Semitic views to include the elimination of the Jewish state, which is not consistent with the values of our university. The USC Provost made a difficult decision to not have Ms. Tabassum make her speech. I can draw an analogy. What if a valedictorian was chosen and announced and then students found that he had posted racist comments and was connected to white supremacist organizations? I expect he would be denied the chance to speak and there would be little protest. I believe the university made the correct decision, and we are prepared to handle any protests that could endanger the graduation proceedings and people’s safety. One has only to look at the recent violence at Columbia University. —Patrick Henry, Assistant Professor Emeritus of Clinical Entrepreneurship, Marshall School of Business.
On October 7, 2023, the State of Israel was assaulted by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad terror groups. Hamas militants and Palestinian civilians engaged in brutal assassination, rape, dismemberment, looting, and the burning alive of civilian men, women, and children—from babies to old. The aftermath left thousands of people dead, severely wounded, and mentally traumatized, in addition to more than two hundred people who were kidnapped to the terror dungeons of Gaza, including babies. It was the most severe extermination attempt of Jewish people since the Second World War. Israel and the USA share many values of democracy, freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Israel is the strongest ally of the United States in the Middle East and has been for decades. However, antisemitism has been on the rise in the US, mainly on college campuses. Unfortunately, USC has done little to combat it, despite multiple requests and petitions. Regarding the most recent issue of selecting an antisemitic valedictorian, who openly advocates for the elimination of the State of Israel, I can only echo the open letter that Rabbi Dov Wagner wrote to the USC administration. —Ilan Rotstein, Professor of Dentistry
The selection of Valedictorian should mirror the values of equality and justice for all. Asna stands firm behind the statements that call for the abolishment of Israel as a solution for free Palestine. How can destroying a nation be the rhetoric of an accomplished, exemplary student at an acclaimed University? A student who studied genocide and resistance?! She is unapologetic for her statements. She demonstrated no reflection on the horrific, inhumane massacre by Hamas, a terrorist organization of the Palestinian people. Hamas massacred, brutally murdered, and raped, yet is supported in the name of resistance—“Free Palestine.”
A valedictorian who voices a stand with pro-Palestinian voices while calling to abolish the only state of the Jewish people is an example of hatred bias! Our society honors the evil that calls for destruction instead of standing firm to abolish the evil. Asna’s decision to support a website that is filled with misinformation and anti-Semitic statements makes it evident that, although she excelled academically, she is not a wholesome citizen. The university administrators failed to do their due diligence, and failed again by refusing to admit that expressions of anti-Semitism are supported by the chosen valedictorian. Instead, the University proposed a sham “issue” about security. —Anonymous faculty, Dornsife
I am saddened to see that USC leadership made another blunder with their public statement that has lead people to believe that the valedictorian will not be speaking because the Jews complained, when instead they should have told the truth—that her social media posts and beliefs are not in line with what should be displayed by such an honored position. Shame on USC and shame on Asna for using this episode to advocate her true beliefs that the state of Israel should be abolished. Her words are now being publicly displayed on all the news outlets and we can see what kind of person she truly is and what hatred is housed in her. —Eyal Ben-Isaac, Professor of Pediatrics
It has been alarming to see the surge in antisemitic vitriol since the announcement by the university. Blaming Jewish individuals on campus is libelous—the University made the decision to suspend the valedictorian of their own agency and cited only “security concerns.” In fact, Jewish students and organizations regard this as bowing out of a legitimate reason. Additionally, suspending the valedictorian is not and was not an identity-predicated decision. It should have been because her views called for “the abolishment” of a nation. Her pro-Palestinian views were not what was alarming, but rather her calls for the destruction of Israel and the false allegations she made regarding it. —Anonymous student, Gould School of Law
I do not feel any confidence for my child’s safety on the USC campus. More proactive steps are needed by the USC administration to ease tensions, punish the perpetrators who blatantly violate campus rules, and facilitate a respectful, fact-based dialogue for those capable of it for the benefit of the wider student body. —Anonymous parent of a USC student [full statement to be published as a separate post]
It is discouraging that, as of the evening of April 18, USC faculty and students have heard nothing from President Carol Folt on this matter. Provost Andrew Guzman spent 45 minutes in discussion with the Academic Senate on April 17, but President Folt remains silent by absence. There are many questions that the University should be prepared to answer. How was senior Asna Tabassum selected as USC’s valedictorian? She is forthright about her positions. It is hard to understand why decision makers would select a valedictory speaker with views as extreme and contentious as Tabassum’s, particularly in light of the events of October 7, and weighty response they have drawn from Israel. Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but surely the risks must have been apparent, particularly given the way the University behaved in the case of economics professor John Strauss. USC violated Strauss’ academic freedom on specious safety grounds. Now, the administration’s tortured assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, the institution follows its mistreatment of Strauss by concluding it must silence a student. Technicalities will not carry the day here. Tabassum was selected to speak under traditional circumstances, and will now be precluded from speaking in the context for which she was selected.
The institution should not be in this position. These circumstances could have been avoided with due diligence and would have been if it was being adequately led. Responsibility for this outcome falls to leadership, which has failed in this case. President Folt is quick to call out unspecified risks to community safety when she has a contentious decision to make, or an exit to cover. She claimed safety concerns to justify her unannounced decision to remove the pedestal that previously supported the statue of a Confederate soldier at UNC, Chapel Hill. She claimed safety was a legitimate rationale for banning Prof. Strauss from his classes and from campus, actions that unambiguously violated the organization’s obligations to the faculty. Now the administration puts forward a safety rationale for withdrawing an opportunity it offered a student, and which she accepted and on which she acted.
What USC’s leadership seems unable or unwilling to grasp is that the University is exercising business authority in a way that violates the contracts created when individuals rely on the representations made to them by officials representing the institution. President Folt is making herself a liability, and her silence is not helping. Safety is not an imperative. There are no safe circumstances. There are only a priori trade-offs made to mitigate known and unknown risks. Reasonableness in these choices and in avoiding to the extent possible the circumstances that necessitate them is always necessary as a matter of both personal and institutional responsibility. Claiming that Tabassum’s cancelled valedictory address presents unacceptable risks places a responsibility on the administration, particularly President Folt, to explain the source of these risks and their incidence. Failing to explain the basis for this decision invites the inference that Tabassum is at risk from the Jewish community, which she has criticized in the past. President Folt should act to diffuse the perception her organization’s actions have created. She has a duty. She is the only one who can execute it. —James E. Moore, II, Emeritus Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering
In a typical USC fashion, this has been mishandled from the start. This isn’t about “security” and should never have been framed that way. This is about a young person who was not properly vetted and never should have been chosen as valedictorian. Once the history of her anti-Semitic—not just “pro-Palestinian,” as the media has been reporting—posts came to light, her valedictorian status should have been immediately revoked. No one with a history of hate speech (whether in public or private) against any other group except Jews would be tolerated and given this honor. And, it sadly needs to be pointed out: calling for the elimination of Israel is hate speech. —Anonymous faculty, School of Cinematic Arts
I am sad and disappointed by our administration’s betrayal of the Jewish community of USC. First, by selecting Asna without examining her views and values and ensuring they align with our universities’ values; now, by victimizing the Jewish USC community by portraying it as dangerous to our own university’s safety. Nothing could be further from the truth! Why won’t the administration share the truth about why Asna is not going to speak? I can’t understand the whole campaign for our unifying culture and values when the administration cannot openly share the truth. Anger and hate among groups and towards the administration are now record-high and the whole USC community is in need of healing. My question is: what does the administration plan to do to promote that? I am hoping this will not be ignored and we will attend to these needs of repair and healing ASAP and before commencement. —Anonymous faculty, USC School of Social Work
Should USC select an antisemitic person as valedictorian? What if the selectors didn’t know that person was antisemitic, should they later rescind the selection? What if the person was falsely accused of antisemitism? What if the person doesn’t actually hold antisemitic beliefs, but associates themselves with content that includes antisemitic tropes and slurs, among other content that is more benign?
How far should a University go to prevent hurtful and possibly harmful speech from hurting its students and others in the community? Distasteful speech should not be prohibited, but should it be given an honored platform? Should someone who speaks out against a particular group’s rights and aspirations be deplatformed?
These are not easy questions, and I’m glad I’m not a University administrator charged with making these decisions in concrete cases. I think we should all strive for honest, open discussion but also minimizing the hurt and isolation this can cause, however these are sometimes in conflict. Moreover, it is important to not play favorites with particular groups and causes. Both Jews and Moslems, for example sometimes feel that while the University is very strict at punishing speech that some groups find hateful, people who denigrate their own concerns are protected by free speech principles, and, moreover, they are sometimes punished for standing up for their own beliefs.
The first I heard of Asna Tabassum was a forwarded Instagram post associating her with views calling for the abolishment of Israel and equating Zionism with ethnic cleansing. The post asked USC to explain their choice. I tried to search to find out more, and saw nothing other than a link in her Instagram page that said nothing about Palestine or Israel. On the contrary, there was much to admire and be proud of a Trojan student for in her studies and actions to promote equitable health for all, and helping disadvantaged people in many places, including Ukraine. Was the account even hers? Did she actually write or even believe all the things in the linked site that were attributed to her?
Everything changed when the University decided to cancel her speech but not base the decision on association with harmful content. It may be true that their main or only reason for this decision was security, but, as many have pointed out (e.g., here), this is very hard to believe, given the level of speakers and controversial people USC has successfully hosted in the recent past. Moreover, security doesn’t explain why an alternative platform was not provided (e.g. Zoom, as this graduating class had to experience for their first year, or pre-recorded message that was not played on campus). As someone pointed out to me, what is the meaning of “Valedictorian” other than the person who delivers a valedictory? Even worse, whether or not there was antisemitism related to commencement before, there certainly is now. Where, before a search for Asna Tabassum and “Palestine” would turn up almost nothing, now there are hundreds of stories from around the world, many of which blame Jewish groups for her silencing, and casting the concerns of Jewish groups as racism and islamophobia.
Asna’s response was heartbreaking, indicating feeling abandoned by her Trojan home. She now has a much bigger platform even then she would have at commencement. I hope she will use it to continue her prior good works and aims, and will recover from this unexpected and probably unwanted attention. I strongly agree with her closing statement—though I would also add “the Jewish and Israeli peoples,” and hope she would not disagree:
“I challenge us to respond to ideological discomfort with dialogue and learning, not bigotry and censorship. And I urge us to see past our deepest fears and recognize the need to support justice for all people, including the Palestinian people.”
The failure to respond in this manner, at least so far, I think, is the biggest failing of the University administration. Security is important, but if security were our only concern, why would anyone be allowed on campus on commencement or any other day, when there are still new Covid infections every day? This can still be a ‘teachable moment’—maybe we can’t all agree on a proper resolution for Israel and Palestine (including Gaza) or how to get there, or even whether Israel or Palestine should exist at all, but I am sure that if we talk with each other in a calm environment, there are things we can all as Americans and Trojans agree on and at least understand the real positions and concerns of others rather than third-party caricatures. The Jewish and Moslem communities at USC and in America more broadly have much in common, even as some issues bitterly divide us, most recently both feeling betrayed by the USC administration by the same decision. —David Traum, Research Professor of Computer Science, Viterbi School of Engineering
This entire episode is extremely disappointing. Our top students are outstanding, and there were many qualified students deserving of this honor. I was disappointed that the university did not seem to do its due diligence when they selected the valedictorian. But I found what they did next to be even worse—in his letter, the Provost alluded to very vague “security” concerns, which in my reading made the pro-Israeli students, faculty, and alumni who expressed their disappointment over the selection seem (unfairly) like an angry, violent mob.
Their decision to cancel Asna’s address while keeping her the valedictorian satisfied no one and robbed the university of the ability of making a strong moral statement. If they believed the initial selection was correct, they should have let her speak. And if they believed that the initial selection did not reflect the University’s values, they should have taken away the valedictorian honor and given it to one of the many other qualified students. The gross incompetence they displayed is deeply disappointing—it was a missed opportunity to lead with values, and immediately obvious to most onlookers that it would be an embarrassment for the school, which it was. And to top it off, I now find myself actually nervous about attending graduation, so if safety was the issue it is unclear how making this front page news solves that problem! This was a mess of the university's own making—I wish they would start leading with courage, rather than always seeming to worry about what others think of them and ending up satisfying no one! —Cheryl Wakslak, Associate Professor of Business Administration, Marshall School of Business
The selection of Ms. Asna Tabassum as valedictorian was a blunder, and the university’s reaction to it was unsatisfactory in many respects. The commencement is spoiled beyond repair. However, I am more concerned about the deeper implications of this debacle. Tabassum epitomizes the crisis in American education. Her family came to California from India. She grew up in a free and tolerant society, where she could proudly practice her religion without negative consequences to her career and advance on the basis of her achievements, in contrast to her home country. This should have taught her to appreciate the virtue of tolerance and democracy. She went on to study at USC. She excelled in her STEM classes, which should have taught her to think critically, to appreciate the complexity of the world, and to respect facts. She excelled in her classes on genocide, which should have taught her history, including the history of the Holocaust and Zionism. And what has emerged from all this? An articulate young woman with a stellar resume and genocidal views, indoctrinated to the brim with toxic anti-Semitism. As is now clear from her public testimonies, she indeed subscribes to the lies about Israel, calling it an apartheid state, and is deeply committed to the destruction of Israel as a means of advancing “justice” in the Middle East. How could our education fail so miserably? This brings to my mind the unanswered question from the last century: How could Germany, the country that was arguably the most technologically advanced and most cultured of Europe, have produced a generation of well-educated people who embraced Nazi ideology and committed the largest-scale atrocities of all time, all while claiming to have the highest moral principles? —Anna I. Krylov, USC Associates Chair in Natural Sciences and Professor of Chemistry
I thank everyone for their heartfelt comments on this issue. My contribution is about education at USC, or lack thereof, on the history of Zionism and how it is presented in the context of the Israel-Arab conflict. Many of our students come to USC already indoctrinated in a binary way of thinking in which there is no nuance. You must use terms such as oppressor/oppressed, white privileged/colored underserved, settler colonialist/indigenous inhabitant, etc. In this culture, there is no way to bridge across different identify groups or look critically at multifaceted issues. In such a culture, the Jews will always lose.
Universities must combat this culture by offering classes that consider contentious issues and organize activities that reach across opposing groups. I tried to focus on such activities when I served on the President’s Advisory Committee on Jewish Life in Spring 2022. I was told by Varun Soni, the committee chair, that such activities will be initiated by the permanent committee the following year. At my insistence, he included a paragraph on the need for educational efforts in the report. My recommendation was to integrate such activities into student life as they enter USC and educate students on the complexity of issues related to Zionism. Our group’s Open Letters repeatedly asked for such education but very little was done, and I was not invited to serve again on the Jewish Life committee.
I was happy to learn that, finally, this year the Shoah Foundation took the initiative to organize a trip of a group of USC student athletes to Auschwitz and Selma, in the hope that these students, who are enrolled in diverse majors, will serve as ambassadors of inclusivity and understanding at USC. Rob Williams, the Shoah Foundation Director, reported that this trip was very successful in achieving its goal. You can see the proof of that in the recording of the ceremony of the presentation of the University Medallion to the Shoah Foundation. Starting at about the 1:00 hour time mark, you can hear Rob Williams talking about the trip, and a student athlete participant interviewing Shaul Ladany, a survivor of the holocaust and the Munich athlete massacre. I am encouraged by this start and hope to see additional such activities by the Shoah Foundation.
I am wondering about the education that Asna Tabassum, a highly intelligent student, has received at USC. I looked at the requirements of the Resistance to Genocide minor and do not see any course about the history of Zionism. A while ago, I watched a webinar by Einat Wilf about a course on this topic that she gave at Georgetown University, which included a discussion of anti-Zionism. The course, in which Jewish and Moslem students participated, was so effective that she is now planning to share it online. I recommend that USC add a similar course to its Resistance to Genocide minor course offerings. I note that the Shoah Foundation has distanced itself from educational involvement in the current minor.
We may not change the opinions of all participants, but we can hope to have an informed discussion, in which conclusions are drawn based of knowledge of both sides of this complicated and long-lived conflict. Regrettably, after listening to video clips of interviews with Asna, I am convinced that she does not believe in a two-state solution and supports the abolition of the state of Israel in favor of a single Palestinian state in which Jews will live along with Palestinians. This is an unrealistic fantasy and a prescription for the indefinite continuation of the conflict. —Hanna Reisler University Professor, Lloyd Armstrong Jr. Chair in Science and Engineering, Dornsife
It is high time for the USC Board of Trustees to forcefully step in and step up, reversing the decline of the University. If they think that the latest commencement valedictorian fiasco would not affect donors, they are wrong. And they are also wrong if they think that the appearance of a university president at a House committee hearing would not be consequential. —Mike Gruntman, Professor of Astronautics
 | A guest post by
|