In your opinion, should USC’s valedictorian be allowed to give her commencement address?

👍 Yes (47%) – "I think this student should be allowed to give her speech. It will be a speech and we all can draw our own conclusion from what she has to say. We should remain civil and open to qualified people's opinions. My speculation is that what she has to say is worth listening to!"

• "She earned it. Pure and simple. I understand the security risk, but take away the background noise and what do you have? A college student who worked HARD to make it to the top. Let her give her speech, she might have something to say we can all learn from."

"On a university campus, the freedom to speak freely should be encouraged, honored, and protected. Conversely, bowing to threats of violence from those who would limit that freedom essentially encourages, honors, and protects the violence the institution hopes to avoid. Prosecute those who commit crimes of violence, protect those who utter unpopular or offensive words."

• "America was built on the principles of being different. Different view points. Different heritages. Different life stories. At what point are we going to stop being a muted country. People from every walk of life should be able to tell their story without fear of being muted, canceled or threatened. If we, as Americans, can no longer have open, honest dialogue about different values, are we really American?"

"I answered yes, but it is a tempered yes. With the controversy, her speech should at least be screened so that there are not inflammatory statements. She should be able to talk about the experience of Muslims and the challenges of the conflict, and some statements that are uncomfortable but true should be allowed, but also should not be able to express openly the destruction of Israel."

👎 No (37%) – "USC has to think of the safety for everyone. When you choose to participate in controversial subjects, you have to know there will be consequences, both good and bad. That is the real world. Teachers, for example, have to be constantly aware of what they engage in on social media or in the classroom as it can affect their jobs! If you truly believe that your engagement is the utmost priority, then you are saying you are willing to sacrifice other things, not because you are being cancelled, but because what you are doing can affect others in a negative way. As your daily quote from Charles Dickens references, USC has to think of what kind of burden may be posed on the entire crowd and on the speaker."

• "USC should have done a better job in selecting their valedictorian. A simple social media check could have brought this to light. It’s not like high school where you may have only 1 or 2 students to choose from. They could have just remained neutral by selecting someone else. This short sighted decision put students at risk."

"Graduation ceremonies are a celebration of the work that everyone graduating did to get to that point. One person should not be allowed to steal the show and create risks for the majority of people that just want to celebrate with their loved ones."

• "One student should not be allowed to endanger others. If there are threats to the ceremony and others in attendance, the speech should not happen. If she does speak and something happens, imagine the news coverage and liability to the university. Many would sue (and possibly win) because the university "ignored threats and warnings""

🤷 Unsure/other (16%) – "This is simply a no-win situation. There will be backlash either way. Right now, people are mad because it has been cancelled, but if USC reverses course and reinstates the commencement speech amid what seems to be credible security threats and something does happen, people are going to publicly rage about that. I'm a 'better safe than sorry' person and feel like the risk of lives outweighs political statements."

• "It is unclear if allowing her to give the address would cause the entire event to be disrupted and for the other attendees to participate in a once in a lifetime event. There have been many cases of these disruptions occurring as "free-speech" when, in fact, they impinge on other's right for a gathering."