USC’s handling of this is an unmitigated, unprincipled train wreck. Given how many people they have working in disaster mitigation and crisis management these days, it’s amazing that they are handing this so badly.
IT's spring, 2024. There *will* be dozens or more highly disruptive Pro-Palestinian protests at commencements across the country. Many will be frankly anti-Semitic. At least one will be escalate into some kind of danger.
It's not all this talented young woman's fault.
It's not ideal.
But they picked an anti-Semitic bozo as a valedictorian and had to wriggle out of it somehow.
Understand there were other options.
Unconvinced there are clear-cut better options.
EXACTLY: "Given how many people they have working in disaster mitigation and crisis management these days, it’s amazing that they are handing this so badly."
Having done some research into how universities handled various kinds of rights cases with students and faculty for cases I worked on when I practiced law, I'm not the least surprised. Rapacious corporations handled things better.
/2 First: let’s assume arguendo they are telling the truth, that they think the security and disruption risks are too high to let the chosen valedictorian speak. That’s the exact definition of a heckler’s veto. It’s also incredibly alarming, far more than their brush-off suggests.
The LATimes reports "USC officials chose [the speaker] from nearly 100 student applicants who had GPAs of 3.98 or higher." Would have been a lot easier just to have chosen someone else.
And, this may be where you're going with this, but the stated reason may be cover for something else, namely avoiding antagonizing either donors or just the flocks of parents who would prefer colleges to be politely neutral, with no whiff of "politics". So, they're going to sanitize this.