Opinion: USC’s ‘security risk’ rationale to thwart peaceful protest is not justified

During Vietnam War protests, the Nixon administration called them “outside agitators.” Now my university’s provost prefers “participants — many of whom do not appear to be affiliated with USC.” Beyond Andrew Guzman’s misdemeanor of wordiness, the playbook is the same: Blame outsiders, as part of the justification for police action against students exercising their rights to question a heinous U.S. foreign policy that is killing tens of thousands of men, women and children half a world away. As the Daily Trojan reported, LAPD “officers in riot gear marched into campus at around 5:30 p.m. armed with 40-millimeter less-lethal launchers, sponge batons and zip ties.” Later, according to USC Annenberg Media, which posted a video, police fired a rubber bullet into a crowd gathered outside the school’s main gate. The surreal disconnect follows 10 days of disingenuous statements from USC leadership, which in apparent deference to donors, and perhaps with a nervous gaze at right-wing congressional attacks on university presidents, has trampled on students’ free speech rights, citing — unoriginally — “security risks.” On April 15, USC canceled valedictorian Asna Tabassum’s graduation speech. These same students presumably learned USC’s “Unifying Values” : to “stand up for what is right, regardless of status or power.” My university’s shameful doublespeak threatens to taint promising careers before they start.