NYU was right to discipline a student who used commencement to deliver a political attack—graduation is a time for shared celebration, not divisive rhetoric.
At a time when American universities are under intense scrutiny over campus climate and federal compliance, it is more important than ever to draw a clear line: graduation ceremonies are not the place for political grandstanding. The recent case involving NYU student Logan Rozos proves just how damaging it can be when that line is crossed.
On May 14, 2025, during NYU’s Gallatin School graduation, Logan Rozos—a transman—delivered a speech condemning Israel and the U.S. government, referring to what he called a “genocide” in Gaza. The speech was not approved by the university in advance. According to NYU, Rozos lied about the content of his speech, violating the rules of the event. In response, the university announced that it would withhold his diploma and pursue disciplinary action.
That response is not only justified—it’s essential.
Graduation Is a Shared Space, Not a Soapbox
Graduation is meant to be a celebration of academic achievement—a milestone that brings together students, families, faculty, and staff from diverse backgrounds and beliefs. It is not the time to promote controversial, one-sided political views. Doing so risks turning what should be a unifying event into a divisive spectacle.
In this case, Jewish students and others who support Israel were forced to sit through a speech that painted the Jewish state as a genocidal regime and accused the U.S. of complicity. Regardless of one’s views on the Israel-Gaza conflict, this was an inappropriate forum for such rhetoric.
Universities Have the Right—and Responsibility—to Enforce Standards
NYU did the right thing by disciplining Rozos. When a student violates agreed-upon rules—especially during a high-profile, school-sponsored event—there must be consequences. The university had clear expectations for the speech, and Rozos knowingly disregarded them.
This isn’t about silencing free speech. Rozos, like any student, has ample opportunity to express his political views through student groups, op-eds, or social media. But once he accepted the role of graduation speaker under false pretenses, he took advantage of the platform in a way that was dishonest and disruptive.
Federal Funding and Campus Safety Are at Stake
Under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Education has taken a firm stance: universities that tolerate antisemitism risk losing federal funding.
Rozos’s speech did not occur in a vacuum. It landed in the middle of a broader campus environment where some forms of political activism have created hostile spaces for Jewish students. The Anti-Defamation League was right to condemn it, noting that “no student—especially Jewish students—should have to sit through politicized rhetoric that promotes harmful lies.”
The Irony of Misplaced Solidarity
Rozos identifies himself as a gay, Black trans man and an advocate for LGBTQ rights. Yet, in this case, he voiced support for Palestinians in Gaza without acknowledging that groups like Hamas are violently anti-LGBTQ. In Gaza, being openly gay or trans can result in imprisonment or even death. There’s an alarming irony in standing with regimes that would persecute people like him for who they are.
Final Thoughts
Universities must protect free expression, but they also have a duty to uphold standards, ensure student safety, and maintain decorum at official ceremonies. Graduation speeches are a privilege—not a license for personal activism. NYU was right to respond firmly. Allowing this kind of behavior without consequence would not only damage the integrity of academic institutions, but also erode the trust of the diverse communities they serve.
Previous opinion posts
Leave a Reply