How should universities deal with graduate speech malfeasance?

What should a university president do if a student uses his graduation speech to push a divisive political topic and criticize the university? That came up at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology this year. MIT banned its 2025 class president, Megha Vemuri, from the main graduation ceremony after she abandoned her pre-vetted speech and delivered a pro-Hamas speech during an event the day before, with a university spokesperson stating:

MIT supports free expression but stands by its decision, which was in response to the individual deliberately and repeatedly misleading Commencement organizers and leading a protest from the stage, disrupting an important Institute ceremony.

The speech was posted online by the Palestinian Youth Movement. Vemuri wore a keffiyeh for the speech and called out MIT for its research ties with the Israel army, "aiding and abetting" Israel with its "assault on the Palestinian people... As scientists, engineers, academics and leaders, we have a commitment to support life, support aid efforts and call for an arms embargo and keep demanding now as alumni, that MIT cuts the ties," she said, "We are watching Israel try to wipe out Palestine off the face of the earth, and it is a shame that MIT is a part of it." She also said that the undergraduates voted in favor of the university cutting ties with Israel, and faced "threats, intimidation and suppression coming from all directions, especially your own university officials... But you prevailed because the MIT community that I know would never tolerate a genocide."

The next day, MIT President Sally Kornbluth said at commencement that the Institute allows "a lot of room for disagreement, whether the subject is scientific, personal, or political," but encouraged the new grads to rely on the "beauty and power of the scientific method,"and "I need you all to become ambassadors for the way we think and work and thrive at MIT."

Did MIT do the right thing?

Vemuri offended in two ways. First, she misused her position to advance her personal political views in a forum meant as a celebration of finishing study at MIT. She ruined the ceremony for Jewish and Israeli students and other people who disagreed with her support for Hamas. Second, she lied to the Administration, saying she was going to give one speech and then giving a completely different one.

Lying is the worst offense. Lying is cheating, like cheating on an exam, but worse. Cheating on an exam would just give the liar an undeserved A, but cheating on the speech directly hurt many other people, and directly hurt MIT’s reputation. For that she deserved to have her degree withheld, just as if she had cheated on an exam. New York University prevented a student from graduating this year after a similar incident.

President Kornbluth should have prepared for this possibility in advance and immediately turned off Vemuri’s mike. She should have had campus police escort Vemuri off the stage, taken her place and apologized to the graduates for the incident. Kornbluth was too nice to Vemuri, which meant she wasn’t nice enough to the graduates offended by the speech. A college president needs to be tough. If President Kornbluth were known to be tough, nobody would have tried this stunt. Vemuri only did because she thought she could get away with it.

What if the administration had not asked, and the student had not lied about the speech that was to be given?

This was not the case at MIT, but it makes for a useful hypothetical. When the news broke Thursday, I posted it on the discussion board of the MIT Free Speech Alliance (join MFSA here!), an alumni group; membership is free, but one of the perks of being a member is access to these online discussions. MFSA has a congenial if wary relationship with the MIT Administration. We praised President Kornbluth for her testimony before Congress; we criticized her for suppressing a student publication that said the time was over for peaceful protest. When the news about the Vemuri speech broke, I posted several Administration email addresses so MFSA members could commend her for banning the student from graduation. But I got pushback. One of our more leftwing members wrote:

Why would members of a free speech group reach out to commend punishment for free speech?

One of our more rightwing members agreed:

I agree 100%. When we reach out to commend the administration for shutting down this radicalized useful idiot from spewing her hateful lies, bringing shame upon our alma mater, we should do it as individuals, not as the MFSA.

It took the October 7th atrocities to get the cancel culture Wokies at MIT to discover the importance of free speech. There is no sense backtracking on that. Unless this moron violated clearly stated time, place, and manner restrictions this is not an MFSA issue. In fact, barring that, one could rightly argue that the MFSA should come to her defense.

We must let violent antisemites show the world who they are.

And one of our more centrist members agreed too, coming at it from a different angle:

Declaring graduation ceremonies to be inappropriate venues for unbridled student expression seems reasonable. We have no idea whether this is what happened at MIT. If MIT did allow a class president to speak at a ceremonial gathering, with no guidelines on appropriate topics or preview of the planned speech, then MIT deserves to be as embarrassed as they were. If Ms. Vemuri gave a speech different from what she told the administration she was going to give, then MIT could have reasonably withheld her diploma, not just ban her from graduation. I am guessing that MIT knew Ms. Vemuri's politics, did not restrict the topics she could speak on as class president, hoped that Ms. Vemuri would do the "right" thing for the gravitas of the occasion, and were (unjustifiably) surprised when she didn't. Shame on MIT. Punishing the student afterwards for MIT's failure to provide appropriate restrictions was probably wrong. I bet they don't make this mistake next year.

My response was this:

I still think MIT should be commended. It's for a reason similar to time-place-and-manner restrictions, but less formalized. I just submitted an op-ed to the New York Times. In it, I say I can change the length, but also that I can make the language less spicy because I would be their guest. Similarly, if you are valedictorian, giving a graduation speech, you have a duty to speak appropriately. You shouldn't advertise your lawnmowing business; you shouldn't make a campaign speech for Donald Trump; you shouldn't try to offend half your audience; you shouldn't say bad things about your school. You can do that another time.

In the hypothetical, where the student speaker did not lie to the Administration, I would not hold back the student’s degree. A 21-year-old should not have to be told to be polite and inclusive in a graduation speech, but 21-year-olds often do have bad manners and are thoughtless about other people’s feelings. Bad manners is not an expellable offense. At the same time, an ill-mannered student needs to be taught a lesson. A university education is not just an education in facts and theories, but also in manners and discourse. We must teach our students the principles of knowing when and how to disagree strongly and even say things to offend people, and when to hold back and speak inclusively in a way to brings people together. Each of these has its place, and each needs to be taught.