If universities truly value order and openness, discipline must be rooted in principle, not political pressure.
In his commencement address, on Wednesday, May 14, New York University (NYU) valedictorian, Logan Rozos, denounced Israel’s actions in Gaza, describing the conflict in Palestine as a ‘genocide.’ Following his controversial remarks, NYU decided to deny Rozos his diploma, demonstrating alignment with President Donald Trump’s suppression of pro-Palestinian speech.
A valedictorian address might not be the time or place to deliver a polarizing speech using inflammatory language, which could be isolating for some students. However, the real wrong in this situation is the University basing its policy decisions on the attitude of the federal istration.
Universities should stand as bastions of free expression and open dialogue, not as pliable institutions swayed by the preferences of a president. Decisions about commencement speakers must reflect a commitment to academic freedom, not the shifting winds of political convenience.
It’s important to penalize the violation of a school policy to set a precedent for what’s considered an appropriate use of a valedictorian speech. Unpunished, the University would risk its commencement ceremony becoming a soapbox to express political beliefs. Simultaneously, the ability to accept punishment in the name of your beliefs is what makes acts such as Rozos’s so powerful.
However, revoking a degree is a disproportionately severe punishment, considering the $65,000 annual tuition at NYU. Though we may not be able to pinpoint an appropriate punishment, to deny someone their diploma in the absence of academic misconduct undermines core principles of fairness.
Penalization is important. Bending the rules for Rozos isn’t the way to foster an inclusive and celebratory convocation environment. Neither is stripping Rozos of his hard-earned degree.
A similar incident occurred at Queen’s last year, with pro-Palestinian protestors across the street during convocation, urging graduates to hold donations. Campus security intervened, but no further disciplinary action was pursued. The incident at Queen’s illustrates how disruptive a protest can be, while showing how responses may vary on different sides of the border.
Universities must balance enforcing policy with protecting free speech. Rozos’s provocative but principled act deserves proportionate consequences—not politically charged overreach echoing the federal istration. If campuses truly value a variety of opinions , their response to protest must remain consistent, regardless of who holds power.
—Journal Editorial Board
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].