Rutgers University’s School of Engineering will hold its commencement ceremony next week without Rami Elghandour, an alum and tech entrepreneur who produced the Oscar-nominated film The Voice of Hind Rajab. The administration disinvited him after some graduating students expressed discomfort with his social media posts criticizing Israel. Elghandour called the move “dangerous,” arguing it sends a message to students: “Don’t you dare speak up and say anything that you believe.”
Rutgers claimed the decision aimed to “honor the celebratory spirit of the event” and avoid forcing students to “choose between their personal convictions and a convocation ceremony.” The university’s reasoning, however, drew criticism for seemingly prioritizing the comfort of a subset of graduates over the principle of free expression. Similar tensions emerged at the University of Michigan, where history professor Derek Peterson faced backlash after briefly praising pro-Palestinian student activists in a commencement speech. The university’s president condemned his remarks as “hurtful and insensitive,” while Republican senator Rick Scott threatened to cut federal funding.
Read Also: Districts Seek Solutions to Special Ed Vacancy Costs
Beth Kuhel, writing in the Times of Israel, warned that when a tenured professor uses a university-sponsored platform to express views perceived as discriminatory, it raises “institutional concerns and civil rights implications.” Critics argue such actions risk normalizing censorship, even if framed as a compromise. The debate extends beyond individual speakers to broader questions about the role of universities in policing speech at events traditionally seen as celebratory.
Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic recently criticized universities for allowing “narrower, contested segments” of the community to dominate commencement platforms. His argument, however, has been challenged: expressing opinions at university events is not “commandeering a common space.” Words, he and others note, are not inherently violent or oppressive. The idea that audiences at commencements should have a vote on which voices are excluded is increasingly being questioned.
Some mistakenly believe commencement ceremonies require a “safe space” free from controversial ideas. Universities committed to intellectual freedom, however, reject such notions. Commencement should reflect a campus’s commitment to knowledge, including the freedom to challenge audiences. Instead of pressuring speakers to self-censor, institutions should use these events to amplify diverse perspectives. One proposal: invite dueling speakers with opposing views, allowing graduates to engage in open debate.
The trend toward censorship at commencements risks a slippery slope. If universities begin recording student speeches to suppress “crimethink,” the next step may be banning speakers entirely to avoid offending anyone. George Washington University recently barred alum Cecilia Culver from campus after she criticized Israel in a graduation speech. Such actions, critics argue, set a precedent for silencing dissent at any university event.
Free speech, advocates insist, must include the right to express “horrible and evil things.” Universities that claim to value intellectual liberty cannot selectively enforce censorship at their most visible events. The pressure to sanitize commencements, they warn, erodes trust in academic institutions. As one observer noted, “There’s no logical stopping point” if universities start policing speech at ceremonies—eventually, even routine campus activities could face similar scrutiny.
The raw source text mentions a “survey” and “crimethink” but omits details, leaving some claims ambiguous. The focus remains on the broader conflict between free expression and the push to create “safe spaces” at universities. While the University of Michigan incident sparked global condemnation, the underlying issue is whether institutions should tolerate controversial speech at all events, not just commencements.
Inside Higher Ed offers a subscription model for deeper analysis, but the core debate is clear: censorship at commencements risks normalizing repression across campuses. The call for “dueling speakers” and open debate reflects a vision of universities as hubs of intellectual conflict, not sanitized environments. As one critic put it, “Repression has no place at a university, not even at its dumbest ceremonies full of vapid phrases.”