MIT is in the wrong
Re “MIT bars class leader from graduation after speech,” (A1, May 31):
I was disappointed to read that MIT class president, Megha Vemuri, was banned from her graduation ceremony after she gave a speech at commencement the day before. Her main point — in the very short amount of time allotted to her — was that MIT receiving research funding from Israeli entities made her school directly complicit in the genocide that is being perpetrated on the Palestinian people in Gaza. Vemuri simply made a courageous statement. In doing so, she followed the advice of those who have come before her at MIT: to be bold, principled, and aim to make a positive difference in the world.
She was criticized for having deceived MIT leadership by submitting a different speech than the one she actually gave for their approval. But did Alexei Navalny ask for Vladimir Putin’s permission to speak his truth? Likewise, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King did not gain freedom for themselves or their people by following instructions.
Hubert Murray
Cambridge
Given MIT’s long experience with commencement speakers and protests, I was surprised the university would ban the president of its graduating class from commencement. Such a move seems misguided.
First, banning a graduate from commencement is the nuclear option. A student has the chance to walk only once, and the event has great importance for their families as well. Of course, Megha Vemuri knew she was taking a risk, but she may not have accurately predicted the school’s reaction. When a student is invited to speak, the university should give clear guidance on what type of message will provoke a ban from commencement. Otherwise, it is hard to make the severe punishment seem just.
Second, MIT’s move has only given Vemuri’s words more visibility. The Gaza protests have been ongoing for more than a year, so the speaker was not breaking new ground. Most graduates may have forgotten her speech as commencement day receded into the past. But MIT’s jarring punishment has given her words a wider audience and secured her a place in MIT’s history.
Third, MIT’s president and chancellor missed the chance to explain to the graduates, their families, and the public why MIT collaborates with scientists from countries whose actions they may abhor. MIT’s leaders might have said that, wherever scientists come from, their work with MIT gives humanity a chance for a better future.
Cynthia M. Barr
Boston
While many universities were busy securing commencement speakers to inspire their newly minted graduates, MIT was lucky enough to have one already within its ranks: class president Megha Vemuri.
Unfortunately, MIT used its immense power to silence her critical views about an unpopular war by banning her from graduation.
Congratulations to MIT for squashing free speech and taking a page from President Trump’s playbook. From MIT’s actions, graduates may learn that they should only parrot what the richest and most powerful people in the room want to hear.
Carol Szymanski
Old Wethersfield, Conn.
Megha Vemuri misled commencement organizers by not revealing the content of her speech. Why? Because she knew that she would not be able to say the words that needed to be spoken.
It is her act of courage that motivates my letter.
MIT president, Sally Kornbluth, stepped onto the stage after Vemuri’s speech and tried to redirect the audience’s cheering. “Today is about the graduates.”
Of course it is! What better way to encourage MIT graduates, those future leaders in science, industry and policy, to demonstrate the courage to speak out against grave injustice like Israel’s war that is supported both by the US government and MIT’s research ties?
Mark Golden
Newton
Neither the time, nor the place
Megha Vemuri hijacked MIT’s graduation to advance her own agenda. She deviated from the speech she had submitted, and failed to stick to the approved remarks.
In Jewish tradition, there is a compilation of teachings called the “Ethics of our Fathers,” one of which (4:13) states, “There are three crowns — the crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of sovereignty — but the crown of good name surmounts them all.”
In other words, it doesn’t matter if you are the most learned, the most holy, or the most powerful, if you can’t be trusted.
Good luck to Megha – being banned from the next day’s ceremony is the least of her problems. In the long run, employers will prefer to hire someone with a less-than-MIT degree who can be taken at their word.
Marla Choslovsky
Brookline
MIT’s class president staged a commencement coup in broad daylight by submitting one speech, then delivering another. This was premeditated platform theft.
The administration’s response? A gentle slap on the wrist and a misguided reference to free speech. As the president of one of our most esteemed universities should know — free speech does not include the right to give remarks at an MIT commencement, or to secure the podium through deception. There is nothing about free speech that confers the right to give an address at MIT’s commencement, which is for the entire community.
Families who traveled to celebrate graduates became unwilling spectators in one student’s political theater and the university’s mistaken indulgence. The graduates’ moment was taken through calculated misrepresentation.
President Kornbluth should have stopped this deception immediately. Instead, she stood by passively, then offered toothless remarks about “focusing on the graduates.” Leadership means enforcing standards in real time, not offering commentary after the damage is done.
At any serious institution, engineering a graduation-day coup would result in real consequences. That MIT lacks the will to defend its own norms reveals an institution more concerned with avoiding conflict than upholding integrity.
The only people who preserved their dignity were the Jewish and Israeli families who walked out. They understood what MIT’s leadership doesn’t: integrity requires action, not post-hoc commentary, even when confrontation is uncomfortable.
If this student represents MIT’s values, then MIT has made its choice— and it’s the wrong one.
Todd L. Pittinsky
Port Jefferson, N.Y.
Few options, no end to the conflict in sight
I read your article regarding MIT’s student president making pro-Palestinian comments during commencement and have several thoughts.
Protest behavior escalates when oppressed groups feel unheard and lack legal options. Over time, if no resolution is found, this behavior becomes violent, illegal, and explosive. Historic examples include the Magna Carta, Boston Tea Party, 1960s civil rights riots, and Rodney King riots. The Palestinian cause has been festering for decades, unresolved, so the campus protests should not have come as a surprise.
Second, both sides have inappropriately drawn antisemitism into the dialogue. Some protestors advocating for Palestinian rights have engaged in antisemitic behavior against Jewish students, yelling anti-Jewish slogans and preventing them from attending class. This has not helped their cause. On the other side, some supporters of Israel claim that any opposition to Israel’s expansion into Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank is antisemitic. This has silenced any rational discussion on the underlying issues.
Until both sides are willing to engage in dialogue where they listen to one another, avoid antisemitism, and focus on the land disputes, this conflict will go on. The choice is theirs.
David Weden
Dover