Search Results

Meet the five staff members of The Forum . Name: Sara Arjomand Role: Editor-in-Chief Hometown:  Los Angeles, California Major:  Philosophy Class:  2026 From Sara:  I'm thrilled to direct The Forum  this year. I've written personal essays and social commentary for the paper for the past two years. This year, I look forward to inaugurating The Forum 's official debate series, keeping my ear to the ground re: 5C happenings, and writing about campus and popular culture. Name: Violet Ramanathan Role: Editor Hometown:  Wayland, Massachusetts Major: Philosophy, Politics, & Economics and Government Class:  2027 From Violet: I am honored to be an editor at The Forum this year. I look forward to working with a strong editorial team to expand The Forum while maintaining our core values of open discourse and thoughtful journalism. Outside of my writing, I enjoy hanging out with friends, reading, hiking, and snowboarding. Name: Enya Kamadolli Role: Editor Hometown:  Newton, Massachusetts Major:  Philosophy, Politics, & Economics Class:  2026 From Enya:   I’m super excited to be one of The Forum ’s editors this year! I hope that this year brings even more intellectual rigor, productive debate, and argumentative nuance as the Editorial team further explores The Forum ’s identity within the 5C ecosystem and beyond. I’m looking forward to writing some of The Forum ’s first articles with a more creative writing tilt, publishing even more dueling articles, and hopefully reading some phenomenal social commentary pieces! Name: Dhriti Jagadish Role: Editor Hometown:  Rocklin, California Major:  Government Class:  2027 From Dhriti:   As an editor of The Forum , I'm thankful to be helping sustain such an open and thoughtful medium! This year, I plan to write about issues in free speech, higher education, and identity politics. I'm especially looking forward to generating more debate among student authors as they tackle contentious campus matters in their pieces. Name: Shiv Parihar Role: Staff Writer Hometown:  Salt Lake City, Utah Major:  Government Class:  2028 From Shiv: I am honored to be a staff writer at The Forum this year! Last year, I contributed pieces on campus events, history, and America's place in the world. This year, I anticipate bringing a written voice to campus connecting events and ideas from past and present. In particular, I am excited to release dueling columns to present different sides of an issue.

It's time we questioned a cultural institution that promises affordability and financial security, but doesn't deliver either. This article is part of The Forum ’s Debate Series, in which student writers take opposing sides on issues of importance to public life. Read the other side of the debate here . Credit: Flickr These days, there is little that conservatives and liberals can agree on. Except for one thing: homeownership is the pinnacle of the American Dream. As president, Obama declared  that “the heart of the American Dream” is “the chance to own your own home.” Presidential candidate Kamala Harris called for increased down payment assistance , and Trump has promoted homeownership in numerous speeches , tweets , and legislation . Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson claims  that homeownership is the “best measure of how your country is doing.” And in his opposing piece, my great friend (and debate opponent in this Forum  series) Shiv Parihar ‘28 declares that owning a home is about “owning a share in our collective destiny.” With all of this bipartisan support for homeownership, who would dare question it? Well, me. In fact, I will lay out evidence that America’s obsession with homeownership is not only financially harmful to individuals, but that it perpetuates housing shortages, systemic racial inequality, homelessness, and a false path to success. I’ll begin by dispelling the most misguided defense of homeownership: that it is a sound investment. Let’s consider a thought experiment. Say you have a substantial amount of money to invest – $80,000, we’ll call it – and you go to a financial advisor for advice. She suggests the following:  “ Put all $80,000 into a single asset. There’s a small risk of your asset burning down, flooding, or getting swept away by winds, and a good chance that it’ll require thousands of dollars in maintenance and repair every few years. It will appreciate at a rate significantly lower than the stock market. You can’t sell it whenever you want, unless you want to be exposed to the elements. Oh, and that $80k was just the down payment – you’ll need to sink in another ~$330,000 on the principal and ~$450,000 on interest over 30 years.” You would call that advisor insane! Yet millions of Americans wrongly justify their home purchases as “investments.” Since 1987, the Case-Shiller Home Price Index has tracked typical home values in the US. From 1987 to 2025, real (inflation adjusted) home prices  have risen just 78%, while the real value of the S&P 500  has risen a dizzying 1,664%. And index funds hold a second, major advantage over a house: they are diversified, thus hedged against fluctuations in individual stocks. By contrast, the value of one’s home is highly dependent  on prices in the small neighborhood around it.  So no, Shiv, you can’t “raise your family in a stock portfolio” – but you shouldn’t act like your house is one. Figure 1.  Chart showing S&P 500 (red) vs. Case-Shiller Home Index (black) growth since 1987. The difference is stark. Source: Longtermtrends Earlier, I called America’s relationship with homeownership an “obsession.” Why? First, the government has done lots to subsidize the practice, driven by a cultural infatuation dating back to the Cold War . Widespread homeownership wasn’t delivered by free markets, but massive tax breaks  and cheap loans from government-sponsored enterprises . Shiv argues that, if anything, the government should go even further  to “make homeownership accessible to all.” Why not make stock market investing accessible to all  instead, providing Americans with an actual  path to retirement and affordable college education? Unfortunately, Americans seem to share  Shiv’s outsized enthusiasm. This year, 90% of Americans said that owning a home is part of the American Dream, with the average respondent ranking it above “having a job they love,” “being married/having a life partner,” and “having children.” Really folks?  Shiv would justify this ordering of priorities by arguing that one’s home is an “investment in their community and society.” It strikes me that finding valuable work and starting a loving family are better community investments than merely owning a structure. It’s a shame that most Americans don’t see it this way. Figure 2.  Survey of the “life goals” of 1000 Americans, with 1 as most important and 10 as least. Who needs love and joy when you can own a two-car garage? Source: Clever Real Estate Let me clarify: I don’t think that homeownership is all bad, far from it. But it’s also not essential. Despite what you may have been told, you don’t need  to own a house  to raise a family or achieve economic success. I am not calling for everyone to live in apartments, nor do I consider suburban sprawl a “dirty phrase,” as Shiv retorts. In many cities, you can rent a single-family home in the suburbs for 60% less  than the cost of buying while barely sacrificing on location or amenities. There are plenty of valid, non-financial reasons to own a home. Some Americans own land for farming, hunting, or to escape regulation – it’s reasonable for them to own the structures on that land as well. Other homeowners want the freedom to paint their walls a different color or fill their front yard with new plants without getting a landlord’s permission. Others still simply enjoy feeling grounded and stable – fair enough. The irony is that, for all the freedom homeowners seek, many are regularly deprived of it. Homeowners associations (HOAs) now oversee  53% of all US homeowners and a whopping 82% of new home development. Most HOAs prohibit  non-regulation paint colors, unapproved plant species, personal mailbox decorations, too many pets, and loud music at night. HOA residents have been evicted  for missing dues, taken to court  over “brown” lawns, and fined hundreds of dollars  for handing out free water. Sure doesn’t sound like good ol’ American freedom to me. Figure 3.  An actual HOA letter received by my parents (yes, admittedly I was raised in an owned home – it takes one to know one). We were chastised for “noncompliance” over “weeds.” There were, in fact, about five weeds. Source: my camera roll Despite our cultural obsession with homeownership, prospective young homebuyers consistently feel “priced out”  of the market. While home values have risen slower than stock market values, they have certainly outpaced Americans’ wages. Over the 1987-present period, during which real home values rose 78%, real median wages  grew just 14%. In other words, homes have gotten exorbitantly expensive , while Americans’ earnings have barely budged – and yet, young people continue to see homeownership as a prerequisite for attaining the American Dream. Disparities between wages and housing costs have real impacts – economists found a direct correlation  between the cost of housing and homelessness rates, even  when you adjust  for poverty rates and unemployment. This is largely because American cities with the highest homelessness implement zoning laws  meant to shield home values  that inadvertently reduce housing supply. But even the “Abundance” liberals developing these critiques  gloss over the core problem: too many of America’s homes are owned. Homeownership is a zero-sum game for buyers and sellers. If I currently live in an owned-home neighborhood, I want home values in my area to rise; if you want to move into my community, you want home values to fall. One of us will lose – and usually, it’s the current homeowner that wins by fighting to artificially restrict supply . By contrast, if I rent my home, I’m perfectly happy for rents in my area to remain low, as would be someone who wants to move in. Shiv provides his own economic evidence that homeownership causes better life outcomes, but these studies generally fail to hold up to scrutiny. He cites Robert and House (1996)  to show that homeowners report better health. Yet the abstract of this paper reads, “financial assets, especially liquid assets [stock holdings], are associated with health throughout adulthood” – not  homeownership. Shiv then points out that homeowners remain in one place longer than renters. I agree – that’s exactly what homeownership incentivizes . But being stuck in one place hurts American workers  who could stand to gain by moving, especially those in the working class. Figure 4.  Sorry, Shiv, but Robert and House just “robbed” your argument for owning a house. Source: Robert and House (1996) Furthermore, even when home values rise, not all Americans benefit equally. Homes in Black neighborhoods are consistently undervalued  by roughly 23% of what they would be worth in non-Black neighborhoods (meaning a $400k home in a White neighborhood would be worth $292k in a Black one). In fact, homeownership has an insidious history as a covert method for racial segregation. American suburbia, specifically of owned homes, sprang up in the 1950s as a way for White, middle-class Americans to create racially homogenous neighborhoods  outside of increasingly Black and Latino city centers. Homeownership may not have caused systemic racial inequality, but it certainly perpetuates it. There are some legitimate concerns about renting that need to be addressed: namely, that renters are at risk of extortion by landlords and can be pushed out of their own communities by gentrification . The best solution to these problems isn’t homeownership, but local community organizing. Tenant unions , co-ops , and community land trusts  have all succeeded in the US and abroad in stabilizing rent prices and fending off gentrification of cultural communities. If you skimmed through this piece to the end, let me put it this way: homeownership in this country is a bit like a Green Beach party at CMC. Some people actually like it, but most of us have no idea why we’re there: we just followed the crowd, and now we’re paying the consequences. Let’s shake this habit, America.

Homeownership isn’t a luxury, but an essential ingredient in republicanism. This article is part of The Forum ’s Debate Series, in which student writers take opposing sides on issues of importance to public life. Read the other side of the debate here . California homes in 1850, painted by George H. Burgess. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons) In the other half of this Forum op-ed series, my friend Caleb Rasor ‘28 argues that the traditional American cultural emphasis on homeownership is a mistake. Mr. Rasor’s grasp of economics and politics is strong, but my piece will aim to demonstrate that this emphasis is, in fact, supported by both data and political theory. Not only is widespread homeownership a ticket to a wealthier and safer society, but it has functioned as an essential ingredient for republican self-governance. Property allows citizens to participate in the republic, and arms allow citizens to defend it. The greatest expositor of the role of property was the 17th-century English political thinker James Harrington. Where others speak of a “balance of power,” Harrington identifies a “balance of property.”  In his 1656 The Commonwealth of Oceana , Harrington presented his vision for a model republic. He viewed widespread ownership of property as a prerequisite for successful self-government. Harrington wrote that property must be distributed “at such a balance that the power can never swerve out of the hands of the many.”  I believe that Harrington’s insights hold true for the modern moment. Homeownership remains the best way to ensure that property, and thus power, is held by the people. A society where renting predominates over homeownership takes this power away from those actually living in homes and gives it to landlords. At worst, this would hand more power to corporations that purchase properties by the thousands to rent out to the masses. Ideally, these homes should be investments for individuals. Mr. Rasor makes the case that Americans are mistaken in regarding homeownership as an investment at all. He rightly points out that inflation-adjusted home prices  have risen 78% since 1987, while, over that same period, the value of the S&P 500  has risen 1,664%. However, the point of homeownership has never merely been individual investment. You cannot raise a family in your stock portfolio. Homes are a practical  asset—gaining value is only an additional upside. While it is not fundamentally necessary to own a home in order to raise a family and build a life, homeownership supplies you with the roots to do so successfully.  In any case, the individual monetary benefits of homeownership are secondary to homeownership’s role as a community investment. In his Virtue, Commerce, and History ,   historian of political thought J.G.A Pocock summarizes the role of property in Harrington’s model republic, writing: “[T]he citizen possessed property in order to be autonomous…he did not possess it in order to engage in trade, exchange or profit.” Your home is more than an investment in yourself as an individual. It is the best way to hold a share of your community. Homeowners have a unique interest in making their neighborhoods safer and more wholesome places to live—both for themselves, and for the next generation. Research  indicates that homeowners are more likely to have children, and thus have a stake in the future  of their communities, too. A 2013 study  by economists William Rohe and Mark Lindblad affirmed both the intuitions of classical republicans such as James Harrington and common sense. Rohe and Lindblad found that homeownership improved quality of life along five metrics: “psychological health, physical health, parenting and children’s academic achievement and behavior, social and political participation, and neighborhood/social capital.” Psychological health and community participation saw the greatest benefits. Several of these benefits were attributed to increased likelihood for homeowners to remain in a community long-term. The longer the tenure of one’s stay, the greater the incentive and ability to participate in community organizations. Mr. Rasor would have you believe that this pattern is merely coincidental. But Robert and House (1996) found  that even “after controlling for education, income, and liquid assets, homeownership was positively related to self-reported health.” That makes sense; after all, homeowners are more likely to report feeling  safe in their communities. Unfortunately, as Mr. Rasor observes, rising costs have made homeownership less accessible for many Americans. Actions must be taken to lower prices to make homeownership accessible to all.  Among these might be subsidies and regulations to increase the building of smaller  homes. The average size of an American home has increased  by 244% since 1950—from 983 square feet to over 2,400—and costs have risen in turn. That isn’t to say that all new development ought to be urban. “Suburban sprawl” has become a dirty phrase in recent housing discourse. It shouldn’t be. Suburbs designed in an earlier era aimed to build communities that integrated single family homes and small businesses. The only way to grant our generation the lives our grandparents enjoyed is thoughtful  sprawl—sprawl that mimics a bygone age of smaller homes and “corner” businesses. The best of walkability and the best of homeownership can coexist. A simple model  for attempting to encourage the benefits of widespread home ownership might be found in Singapore. The Singaporean government constructs small homes for those in need and sells them on 99-year contracts that function as de facto home ownership. This has allowed the resources of the state to distribute property to those otherwise unable to buy. Although this alone would not bring about the balance of property as envisioned by Harringtonian thinkers, it would certainly revitalize homeownership culturally. In short, owning a home is about one’s place in society. To own your home is, of course, to own the roots that tie you to a place. But it is also a liberating action that allows and incentivizes you to work within our democratic framework for the betterment of your community. By owning your home, you are owning a share in our collective destiny.

Applications close Friday, October 3rd, 2025 at 11:59pm. Credit: Antonio Litterio The Forum  was founded by ASCMC to provide affiliates of the 5Cs a medium for the exchange of ideas. We're hosted by the Salvatori Center at Claremont McKenna. ​We are an open-submission, student-run newspaper, but we're looking to expand our team of dedicated staff writers, too! Our platform covers a wide range of topics, including politics, 5C campus news, world news, culture and anything else of interest to the Claremont Colleges community. Staff Writer Position Expectations: Write 1 article every two to three weeks. Attend 1 one-hour meeting with the team each week.  Application Due Date: Friday, October 3rd, 2025 at 11:59pm.  Apply HERE If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to Sara Arjomand (Editor-in-Chief) at:  sarjomand26@cmc.edu or 310-422-4245. This is not a paid position.

We cannot rehabilitate children without nurturing them. "im locked up" "time is slow" You know you can ring the bell to let them know you’re here, right? A perceptive teenager in a black hoodie waiting with his mother and sister saves us from our awkward pacing as we wait to be let into the probation facility. He’s escorted back into the facility about ten minutes before us. San Mateo County Probation is built to mimic a high school. A smiling correctional officer gives us an informal tour as she escorts us to the cafeteria where we’ll be teaching for a few hours. This is the administrative office. This is the health center. All the youth get health check-ins, she tells us with pride. She’s clearly experienced at this performance, and the subtext is clear: don’t worry, we’re humane. But it’s telling that she refers to those detained by the facility—many as young as 12 or 13—as youth  rather than children. There’s not much childhood to be found here, in this humane  facility. A series of paintings, presumably done by the youth, line the walls. An attempt to make outside visitors slightly more comfortable in the otherwise clinical, double-locked, 24-hour surveillance space. We walk through an outdoor area of “the campus” and enter a reception area with lockers. The correctional officer encourages us to bring a jacket ( you might get cold ) and softly reminds me to keep an eye on my pen ( they’re hot here). This interaction would stick in my mind later— the officers are clearly capable of speaking gently, with warmth and kindness. When they do not, it is a choice. The dominant perception of youth in probation—many of whom have admittedly committed felonies, often violent—is that they must, first and foremost, be taught how to respect order and authority. The ‘rehabilitative’ project upholds a rigid conception of social order and presumes that these youth will spur disorder unless acted on by a restraining force. The youth, especially the boys, require an environment defined by militaristic structure and discipline. You’re prepared for a particularly disruptive class, right, warned the correctional officer who briefed us upon entry.  But the boys that I spent two hours with—who called us all “ma’am” without ever being told to do so, who kept each other in check ( don’t speak like that, there’s a girl present ), followed instructions and only needed gentle encouragement to participate in our creative writing lesson—were far from disruptive.   Juvenile detention facilities focus on transforming ‘troubled’ youth into law-abiding good citizens. They derive their legitimacy partially from their rehabilitative mission. The State has a public interest in creating good citizens, but in this environment, they’re also de-facto occupying a role that we typically relegate to the private sphere—parenting children into adults. This latter duty, that of child-rearing, goes direly neglected in the average American juvenile detention facility. I should note that San Mateo’s correctional officers were far from the worst I’ve seen or read about, at least in front of us. They did not unnecessarily assert their dominance just to put the youth in their ‘place.’ Although they were generally cold and indifferent with the youth, they were not aggressive nor rude. While certain officers had established rapport with the youth, they seemed to do it to garner grudging respect, not to foster emotional comfort. While many of them were perhaps benevolent wardens, they were far from parents or caring guardians. We don’t often think about juvenile detention facilities as places where parenting occurs or should occur—rather, we tend to think first of education, reform, and punishment. Certainly, not much parenting occurs within these facilities. But these children are perhaps the most in need of good parenting. Children who commit horrible crimes don’t relinquish their right to being nurtured and loved, nor is it in the public interest to deny them the critical emotional development that caring parents help foster. In most cases, it is not the youth that are intrinsically dangerous, but rather the environments in which they were raised. Which begs the question: is this environment any less deficient? In many ways, the detention facilities they find themselves in are no less defined by violence than the neighborhoods that they come from, just violence of a different kind. There may be fewer fights here, but there are also no hugs. Denying children the ability to form emotional bonds with adults that care for them is state-sanctioned emotional violence. The creative work and reflections that our students produced (which they gave me permission to share) during our two-hour writing classes are profound. I share them because empathy starts with true understanding. As a patchwork quilt, they tell a common story of material deprivation and desire, wanting to step up for their families, missing their homes and home countries dearly, and painful recognition of the unfreedom of their status quo. They remind us that the youth we are talking about are first and foremost children. Their answers to creative writing prompts often jarringly paralleled the hands they had been dealt in real life. What would you ask a genie (who turns out to be bad at granting wishes) for, and what would you actually get? “I asked for a house and I got a cardboard box” “I ask the genie for a million dollars but he gives me a few quarters” “I asked for designer clothes and he gave me baby clothes” These are boys that love their families—and miss them dearly—and want to be providers. “[This picture is me] stacking up my money to buy some stuff like a car or something for my mom.” “I found a time capsule in a random field filled with 1 billion dollars. After I bought a couple houses, cars and some more stuff, I also gave some to my family.” “I want to go home and open my present and give some to my family.” "fina be outside Decth 14 to go walk around the park and chill with family." "I wanna go Home and open My present and give some to My family." Some of them are already fathers and want to support the mothers of their children. One confided in me that his one-and-a-half-year-old nephew is who he misses most. This is me and him playing in the park, he tells me, describing his ‘future self-portrait’ drawing. These are boys that dream of being rich, going to Hawaii, starting businesses, traveling the world. They tell their future selves that “once you’re outside get your life straight, don’t mess up and keep your family safe.” They dream big, and they dream realistically. One writes “I wanna be a[n] elect[rician] and wanna get my permit and get a job and focus on my career and not come back to this place.” " for my future self I wanna be a electrection and wanna get my permit and get a job and focus on my career and not come back to this place and take care of my nephew" But these are also children who are struggling deeply. " this picture shows my world crumbling into pecies before my eyes." "me in my room. doing my time I've been served." "I wake up and wait fo the officer to tell me what to do" "We all eat lunch to save time" "I would to show them the lack of freedom and how we living like in here" One student writes and illustrates a comic about alien abduction, centering himself as a protagonist. The boys are taken from their cells by aliens, and eventually join alien families. “We eat, and then we get adopted, ”  is how it ends.  It feels obvious that these boys should be treated with love and kindness. That they clearly have so much good within them, and that they should be told that they can amount to something in this world. But the tragedy is that the way we currently treat these children becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you deny a child a consistent source of love, they struggle to emotionally regulate for the rest of their lives. When children are only surrounded by adults that presume the worst of them, they begin to assume the worst of themselves. One student drew Xs over his eyes in his ‘future self-portrait.’ He doesn’t think he has a future, let alone a better one than his past. We will continue to fail our highest-need children unless we bring parenting into juvenile detention facilities, or take children out of them.

The recent DC shooting shows the danger of a movement that fails to stand on principles. College students are not innocent. Masked protesters at Pomona College, 10/07/24 On the evening of Wednesday, May 21, two staff members from the Israeli embassy — Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim — were shot and killed  outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC. The shooter shouted “Free, free Palestine” as he was detained by security. This tragedy is not merely a one-off incident, but part of a larger movement in the Western world that justifies terrorism and antisemitism in the name of righteousness. College students play a large role. On October 7, 2023, Palestinian militants associated with the terrorist organization  Hamas invaded  Israel, murdering 1,200 civilians and taking 251 hostages, according to  the U.S. Department of Defense. The subsequent Israeli offensive in Gaza has spurred activism across the West, including prominent actions on American college campuses. In Claremont, groups like Pomona Divest from Apartheid (PDfA) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) have staged protests and spread messaging calling for the colleges to divest from Israel. While their initial motives may have been innocent, the movement quickly mutated into something more insidious. Beyond divestment, student organizations at the Claremont Colleges have associated  Israel — dubbed “the zionist entity” — with white supremacy and colonialism, mourned the deaths of terrorist leaders , and spread  antisemitic conspiracy theories. They have glorified  Hamas, describing terrorists as ‘martyrs’ and claiming  that allegations of rape and murder were made up. They’ve labeled anyone who disagrees as threatening, fascist, racist, and genocidal. Worse, they have repeatedly targeted and villainized Israeli and Jewish students, creating an environment on our campuses and fueling a movement throughout our country that justifies discriminatory fear-mongering and hatred. On April 5, 2024, masked protesters took over  Alexander Hall at Pomona. Dozens of students gathered in the building, harassing and physically obstructing administrators. At least 18 students occupied the president’s office. Over 100 more chanted outside. This incident resulted in 20 arrests, 10 suspensions, and additional campus bans, sparking poorly substantiated claims  that Pomona College was suppressing free speech, targeting pro-Palestine activism, and engaging in racial profiling. After their disruptive and hostile display of force, activists claimed they were victimized, choosing to ignore how their actions worked to create a toxic and unsafe  campus culture. On October 7, 2024, one year after the horrific attack on Israel, masked protesters occupied  Carnegie Hall at Pomona. They carried signs with slogans like “Repression Breeds Resistance” and “Long Live the Intifada.” They stormed the building, disrupted classes, barricaded doors, and committed blatant acts of vandalism — spray-painting “Free Palestine,” “Intifada,” and “From The River to the Sea” in red on the walls and cutting wires and projector screens. They explicitly embraced fear tactics : witnesses present at the event have recounted protesters harassing Jewish students using explicitly antisemitic language, and multiple journalists and professors have also described being accosted. Many have rightly wondered why these protesters would choose that particular day — the anniversary of a brutal attack, a day when many Jewish and Israeli people were mourning friends and family members killed or held hostage — to stage such a disruptive incident. Throughout these protests, chants  have used violent anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric. “From the river to the sea” is a call for the erasure of Israel, a state created  by the United Nations for the Jewish people who felt homeless due to longstanding European antisemitism culminating in the Holocaust. “Globalize the intifada” references two major incidents of unrest between Israel and Palestine, the second  of which was defined by widespread terrorism and the killing of over 1,000 Israelis. This is an explicit call for violence against Israelis and Jewish people across the world — like the recent attack in DC. The shooter’s exclamation, “Free, free Palestine,” is another chant frequently used by student organizers across the country, including those in Claremont. This series of events illuminates a devastating conclusion: a movement founded in opposition to violence has come to embrace it. The rhetoric of groups like PDfA and SJP, through signs, chants, and social media posts, has helped create a climate throughout our country and the Western world where profiling, harassment, assault, and even murder are encouraged and praised if carried out in the spirit of ‘liberation from oppression’ (just look at the response  to the cold-blooded assassination  of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson). Colleges should make young people feel safe to express any identity and voice any opinion. But masked students invading campus buildings, interrupting classes, accosting Jewish students, and committing vandalism has instead produced an environment of fear within our institutions. These groups not only condone and justify terrorism — they themselves are proto-terrorist organizations. Members of these movements often claim that the antisemitic actions of a few bad actors don’t represent the entire cause. But refusal to condemn these incidents — antisemitic conspiracy theories distributed in pamphlets , the use of a racial slur  against a college administrator, comments using antisemitic tropes  about Jewish people covertly controlling the world — sends a message that student protesters support, or at least condone, these acts. The silence of the pro-Palestine movement in the wake of the DC shooting speaks volumes.   Acts of violence against civilians — be they American, Israeli, or otherwise — are never justified in a functioning democracy. This should be an uncontroversial claim. When movements turn away from principles of nonviolence and protecting the sanctity of human life, they not only commit heinous acts in the name of justice; they also weaken their cause. Our nation’s history shows  that nonviolent movements can affect widespread change — from civil rights to lesbian and gay activism — and that violent protests alienate potential supporters, inhibiting progress. Violence makes a movement objectionable — and for good reason. We cannot turn back the clock. Mr. Lischinsky and Ms. Milgrim cannot be brought back. They are not the first victims of this wave of antisemitism, nor will they be the last. If student activists truly care about ending violence, they need to drastically change their narrative now.

The class of 2025 elected Henry Long to deliver remarks on their behalf at Claremont McKenna College's 77th Commencement Ceremony on May 17th, 2025. You can watch a video of his speech above or read a transcript of it below. Thank you, President Chodosh. As President Chodosh mentioned, I’d like to pick up on a question that he left off on . If any of you have attended convocation over the past four years, you’ve heard it many  times before. Say it with me: Why are we here? But rather than asking this question in a narrow sense—why we (students) are here (at CMC)—I want to ask it more broadly:  Why are we here at all ?  It’s a question that should unsettle you to your bones. You should forever be taken aback by the oddity of your own existence. The world around you is just as odd . The universe is bigger and stranger than you could possibly imagine. The 18th century Romantics called this concept “the sublime.” They found it in the splendor of nature and the vastness of the unknown. Some  will argue that the best response to the vastness of the unknown is to be larger than life, to be greedy, to grab what you can. But this is mistaken. If you’re larger than life, you’ll always be squinting to see. Being small allows you to appreciate life in full detail. Life is best accepted as a gift, not seized as a trophy. You can’t truly partake in life’s joys unless you receive it like a child . You must be poor in spirit  to recognize the riches on offer. Now, the right  response to the grandeur of the world is wonder, awe, and—dare I say it— humility . Now I know a word like that is hard to hear on a day like today. After all, isn’t today about pride ? You’ve worked so hard and learned so much, and yet—in the last analysis, your paltry human wisdom amounts to nothing. Heartwarming, I know. This idea won’t make you popular at parties. Socrates  said something like this—so did St. Paul —and they both got killed. The word humility—and the word human, for that matter—both come from the Latin word humus , which means ground, earth, or soil. That’s kind of a lame namesake, right? But it’s a poignant reminder that we’re material creatures—for dust  we are, and to dust we shall return. But we’re not merely  material either. We’re also filled with what ancient traditions call “ the breath of life ,” which is prana  in Sanskrit, ruach  in Hebrew, and psyche  in Greek. This breath, however shallow  it may be, inspires a hunger for the heavenly, a thirst for the transcendent, and a recognition of our incompleteness and ignorance . But that’s not the end of the story. We’re not just stuck wallowing in ignorance. Humility and wonder are the beginning  of knowledge, not the end. Even more remarkable  than reality itself  is our uncanny ability to understand  it. The universe follows patterns, which our minds can recognize. Just think for a second about how miraculous that is. At CMC alone, we have math professors  researching the rules of Banach spaces, philosophy professors  exploring German theories of metaphysical grounding, and science professors  researching tree reconciliation methods for host-symbiont cophylogenetic analyses. I’m not even sure what most of those words mean. But without the strange correspondence between our minds and reality, none of this research would be possible. Science would be defunct, education would be a farce, and this College as we know it wouldn’t exist. Philosophers have a name for this improbable connection between our mental experience and the world around us: It’s called “ psychophysical harmony .” How’s that for a five-dollar word? Some philosophers  argue that this harmony is so striking and unlikely, it’s as though it were by design. Follow the patterns of reality, and you may be surprised where you end up. Graduates, the world you enter is a wonderful place, but it has its dangers. Your life poses a series of questions to you. Despite what some say, there are wrong answers, and these wrong answers will ruin your life. Don’t let the drudgery of your office job, the mundanity of your daily routine, the intensity of your political loyalties, or the vapidity of your Instagram feed distract you from the enchantment of the world. But don’t just settle for a vague, “vibesy” sense of enchantment either. You should be deeply dissatisfied with how little you know. But you should also recognize that some things are rightly beyond your knowledge and your control. It’s not your job to reinvent the world . It’s your job to humble yourself, learn from the world, and serve others. You’re imperfect, and you always will be, on this side of paradise. Today is a joyous day, but also a serious one. As you walk the stage, remember that you join in a tradition that spans nine decades here at CMC and ten centuries around the world. Today’s ceremony inaugurates rather than culminates your intellectual journey, and Claremont is a mere Route-66 pit stop on your path towards truth. Your education has led you out, graduation is just a step, and this commencement is just the beginning. Thank you all, congratulations, and God bless you all. Now, please join me in giving a warm welcome to our stellar senior class president, who has done so much for our class this year, Tori Williams!

Enforcing linguistic rules isn’t oppressive; it’s liberating. Monument to Cuban victims of communism at Florida International University (credit: Ivan Curra) Last week, Greta Long ‘28 wrote an op-ed  in the Claremont Independent  criticizing the training she received at the Center for Writing and Public Discourse (CWPD) for claiming that correcting grammar in accordance with the rules of Standard American English (SAE) was “racist.” This article sparked substantial debate  on campus and social media regarding language and its standardization.  Why should we standardize language? As someone that comes from Miami, a city where the majority of the population, including myself, speaks English as a second language, I find it silly that a community shouldn’t standardize its language. In Miami, words and phrases that would be considered improper in academic English are ubiquitous. I use those words and phrases regularly when speaking to my friends back home, but if I were to use the phrase “pero like” (which means “but like”) in an essay for a class, the professor would and should mark it as an error because this phrase is not used in academic English.  I do not expect my professors to understand these words—after all, they are not from Miami. Likewise, it’s common to tell someone to “get down from the car” instead of “get out of the car” because that’s the direct translation of the corresponding phrase in Spanish. This Spanglish isn’t academic, it’s a purely colloquial language, and in any context outside of South Florida, its usage would be deemed incorrect. I don’t think it should be accepted academically because that’s not what it is for.  Standardization exists for the same reasons language exists, it provides a shared means for communicating with others. We cannot communicate if we do not agree on the meaning and structure of words. Modern Standard Arabic has no native speakers, but it has 335 million speakers, because even though a Moroccan and an Iraqi would not be able to understand one another speaking in their local dialects, they are able to by speaking this standardized form. Saying we should speak SAE in our academic writing is not racist. In fact, it promotes dialogue by allowing people with completely opposite backgrounds to be able to communicate with one another in a manner that is easily understandable to both. To use and insist on the use of SAE is not to claim its superiority above other dialects of English, it is to invite someone to a common table from which we may all eat. Does this mean other dialects of English should never be spoken? No, languages are fluid, variant, and it is natural for them to be diverse. A language like English with a far reach across the world is going to have several different variations, however, there are certain aspects common to the language that still make it English. In Italy, you will hear people speak different languages across different regions, and these are separate languages rather than mere dialects. These languages spoken, such as Sicilian, Lombard, and Sardinian, all evolved directly from Latin, rather than a separate Italian language once spoken across the peninsula, largely due to Italy’s late unification in the mid-1800s. The language we know today as Italian largely draws from a specific Tuscan dialect spoken in Medieval Florence. This dialect was standardized upon Italian unification to enable better communication in the new nation. If a Sicilian tries to order a meal in Rome in their native Sicilian tongue, the waiter won’t be able to understand. It isn’t racist or imposing Florentine supremacy to ask him to order in Italian. If we choose to get rid of the standardization of language, we might as well abolish language in general. If we don’t want to correct people’s grammar for fear of trampling on their personal expression, then why make any language the common language? Why have languages at all, if we can’t all agree on how they should look? Languages are imperfect tools by which we interpret and explain our reality, they are never going to capture the full picture. We speak English at this college because it is the language most available to us all, and we use SAE because it is the version of English that is most available to us all. If correcting grammar is racist, so is insisting on any given language. And as someone who did not learn English until I was three years old, I am grateful for the fact that I did because it has allowed me to communicate with others. If we refuse to correct grammar on the basis of racism, if we do not enforce the common standards that allow us to effectively communicate with one another, the language falls apart. Languages need rules to function, and to abolish those rules would destroy the language.

To create an America where everyone can flourish, we’ll all need to pitch in. Protester displays “Tax The Rich” sign. (Credit: keegstra) Like many anti-Trump Americans, I’ve been closely watching Bernie Sanders’ and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Fighting Oligarchy  tour, for which these politicians have traveled to cities from Los Angeles to Boise with the sole purpose of resisting the Trump administration. In front of crowds of tens of thousands, their   speeches  lambast Elon Musk’s DOGE for firing federal workers and threatening to gut Medicaid and Social Security. They call upon their listeners not only to defend existing social programs, but also to support politicians that will establish Medicare for All, expand housing programs, and fund renewable energies – policies that our country desperately needs. Their plan to pay for these proposals matches the overall Democratic narrative: “tax the rich.” As a voter, it’s tempting to believe that simply taxing elites could solve our social and fiscal problems. Democrats like Bernie, AOC, and others are right to call out unacceptably high  wealth inequality and tax evasion among the rich. There’s just one problem: taxing the rich alone won’t cover the expansion of social services, let alone fund the services our federal government already  provides. Before getting into taxation, let’s talk about just how horrendous the United States’ current finances are. In 2024, the federal government  took in $4.9 trillion in tax revenue, but spent a whopping $6.8 trillion. That means that for every dollar you paid in taxes, the federal government spent $1.39 – mind you, in a year without a pandemic, recession, or war. The national debt has grown so large that we now spend more on interest payments than the entirety of Medicare. If the federal government were a household, this is a bit like parents maxing out their credit cards and hoping the kids will eventually pay off the balance. Politicians like Bernie and AOC would argue that the debt and deficit are secondary to abating poverty and inequality now. Perhaps so, but it’s undeniable that the consequences of deficit spending are fast approaching. The Social Security and Medicare trust funds are projected to run out  of assets by 2033 and 2036, meaning that the elderly and disabled would receive smaller payments and millions  would be thrown into poverty. This makes Bernie’s proposed Medicare for All, which would cost  an additional $24 to $36 trillion over a ten year period, virtually impossible under current circumstances. Why won’t taxing the rich solve these deficits and allow the expansion of social programs? Consider the “wealth tax,” a proposal by Elizabeth Warren  to tax ultra-wealthy households as a percentage of their assets’ value, even before those assets are sold. To understand its limitations, let’s take an extreme scenario. Suppose the federal government were to seize all  assets of the 801 US billionaires – every stock, mansion, watch, and car. It would only raise  enough money to cover a mere 3 1⁄2 years of current deficit spending , one time  (of course, on top of crashing the US stock market). That’s the fundamental shortfall of wealth taxes. Even if such a tax could be implemented without loopholes or evasion, wealth is finite at any given moment. While the wealth held by Americans and the interest it accrues are both enormous, taxing that wealth will never yield enough to cover current deficits, let alone fund more spending. So why not simply tax the income  of high earners more? Unfortunately, that won’t be enough to reach our goals, either. Let’s take another extreme scenario: what if the federal government taxed all income above $500,000 at a 100% rate (assuming that this income doesn’t dry up)? It would raise  a significant $1.5 trillion per year above current taxation levels – but this wouldn’t even cover our current deficit of $1.8 trillion annually. Neither would raising taxes on corporations. If we went back to the pre-Trump corporate tax rate of 35%, it would bring in  just $130 billion a year in additional revenues. To be crystal clear, I do  believe that our nation’s rich need to pay more in taxes. We need to reform  the Social Security tax system, eliminating the cap  on taxable income at $176,000. We need to remove loopholes  and crack down on tax evasion  among the top 1%, who alone evade an estimated $163 billion per year. We need to undo Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, most of which  went to stock buybacks that benefitted wealthy shareholders. These reforms are necessary, but not sufficient, if we hope to protect and expand our nation’s social services. At the end of the day, America needs its welfare network. Social Security alone  lifts 1.4 million children and 16.5 million elderly out of poverty. Medicare and Medicaid represent a last line of defense against exorbitant medical costs, providing at-risk Americans with increased access to care and economic security. Recipients of housing vouchers see improved health , economic mobility , and access to educational opportunities, while SNAP food assistance further reduces poverty  and provides access to nutritious meals. As a nation, we need to make it a priority to defend and build upon the social services we provide. What, then, should we do in order to prevent shortfalls in (and even expand) programs like Social Security and Medicare? As Bernie Sanders  himself says, we must look across the Atlantic to nations like France, Denmark, and Norway with superior welfare networks . As tax expert Jessica Riedl  explains, Scandinavian and other European countries have top income and corporate tax rates at similar or even lower levels than the US. Where they outpace the US in tax revenue is in middle-rung income brackets and value-added taxes (in effect, very similar to sales taxes ), both of which, when done well, fall disproportionately on the middle class . Progressive Democrats are right to fight vigorously against Trump’s proposed cuts to social services, and they’re right to call for expanding federal programs even further. But it’s time for the rhetoric on taxation to change. If we want to build a better America, where every family is secure in having healthcare, housing, and sustenance, we can’t just scapegoat the rich. We need to emphasize the role all of us, including the middle class, will play in making true American equality and opportunity a reality.

What’s wrong with CMC’s new Department of Integrated Sciences? Construction work on the Robert Day Integrated Sciences Center As the final panels are placed on the Robert Day Integrated Sciences Center, it is worth pausing to reflect on the nature of integrated science and its relationship to the broader university project. Instead of orienting itself around the traditional scientific disciplines of physics, chemistry, and biology, the new Kravis Department of Integrated Sciences (KDIS)  is “organized around three major grand challenges related to the health of our species, our brains, and our planet.” The website claims that “these three priorities interrelate with one another and provide opportunities for important intersections with the study of psychological sciences, economics and business, government and policy, philosophy and ethics, and other disciplines at CMC.” The scientific endeavor entails the pursuit of knowledge. After all, the word “science” comes from the Latin word, scire , which means “to know.” But the new integrated sciences department is primarily concerned with building skills  rather than knowledge . The focus is no longer on understanding  reality but shaping  it. The Greek pre-Socratic philosopher Thales of Miletus was among the first  to practice science, predicting an eclipse in 585 B.C. The Greek historian Plutarch wrote  that Thales was “the only wise man of the time who carried his speculations beyond the realm of the practical .” The Greek philosopher Plato tells a story  in which Thales was so distracted by looking at the stars that he fell into a well. These descriptions indicate that the scientific enterprise, as originally practiced, involved eschewing practical concerns and aiming at pure knowledge  of reality.  Meanwhile, the new integrated sciences—often associated with the applied sciences—are less concerned with what science can teach to us  and more concerned with what science can accomplish for us . It’s telling that no “grand challenge” in the department directly relates to physics—the scientific discipline that most clearly embodies a desire to plumb the depths of reality. Another figure often dubbed  the “first scientist” was Aristotle. Aristotle represents how the original scientific enterprise was properly integrated with other disciplines. For Aristotle, science allows us to learn about nature, which acts as a guide  for philosophy and politics. It’s ironic that we call our new sciences “integrated,” when in fact, the department represents a disintegration  of this classical model. Rather than seeing nature as a teacher of philosophical and political truths, the integrated sciences see nature as a tool to achieve predetermined philosophical and political ends. Ancient science treats nature as a master; integrated sciences treat it as a slave. The integrated sciences follow in the tradition of a different scientist—Francis Bacon. Bacon, nearly two millennia after Aristotle, wrote that the “furthest end of knowledge” is not intellectual enlightenment but the “relief of man’s estate.” Bacon believed that scientific and technological advancement could limit or even eliminate the woes of the human condition. The integrated sciences share this orientation towards technological liberation , wielding science for human empowerment. But this technological liberation may soon turn into a technological slavery. As C.S. Lewis forewarns , “Man’s conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature’s conquest of Man .”  The Department’s Baconian insistence on the practical can be seen in its approach to course selection. Professor Ran Libeskind-Hadas, the founding chair of the department, said  that “Each of our courses is framed by one or more contemporary issues. We use a just-in-time approach that teaches new material in response to addressing a current challenge.” This “just-in-time” model teaches students that scientific methods' final ends are to overcome a “challenge,” not to understand  a concept.  Ultimately, the “just-in-time” model reverses the priorities that should guide scientific inquiry. One would hope that a student or professor’s self-selected curiosities would act as their North Star, with any practical or professional implications of their curiosities as secondary concerns. Instead, integrated sciences teach students that practicality comes first, filtering their classroom experience through the lens of “compelling current problems.”  In addition, the history of scientific advancement is rife with examples of discoveries that began as purely theoretical but went on to have practical applications. General relativity at first seemed like a strange oddity of physics but became practically important with the advent of space flight and GPS technology. The CRISPR mechanism was originally thought of as a quirk of bacterial DNA before being employed decades later as a gene editing tool. Students should be taught not to merely react to the issues of the day, but probe the world around them according to their curiosities, letting applications come as they may.  To be clear, the department will no doubt employ many thoughtful scientists devoted to the pursuit of truth—it already does . But the problem with the department is not its personnel but its purpose. By focusing on application rather than knowledge, the “integrated sciences” end up segregating  themselves from other academic disciplines. Ultimately, the issues with integrated sciences are downstream from CMC’s enduring   obsession  with preprofessional   preparation . The Department’s website  touts the many postgraduate pathways majors may take. It’s not that graduates shouldn’t be prepared for these careers, but the primary goal of the class should be to cultivate a thirst for knowledge rather than feed an existing hunger for wealth or status. If CMC continues to allow careers to dominate the classroom, it will risk becoming—in the words  of a wise professor—”a white collar trade school.” This article was published in conjunction with The Claremont Independent .

Students react to the announcement of Rushdie as Commencement speaker. Salman Rushdie at the Asia Society in 2008 (credit: Bill Swersey/Asia Society) Novelist Sir Salman Rushdie will deliver the keynote address at Claremont McKenna’s commencement ceremony on May 17, a decision that has sparked controversy and drawn the condemnation of many Muslim students and their families. Rushdie—a Booker Prize  winner, member of the Royal Society of Literature , and one of TIME   Magazine ’s  “100 Most Influential People” in 2023 —has made significant contributions to postcolonial literature and historical fiction with over a dozen works. Rushdie first garnered critical acclaim with Midnight’s Children  (1981), a magical realist depiction of India’s independence struggle.  However, it is The   Satanic Verses  (1988) that remains Rushdie’s most recognizable and infamous novel. With its controversial depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, The Satanic Verses  is widely considered to be blasphemous by prominent religious leaders across the Muslim world. Controversial Elements in The Satanic Verses In a series of dream sequences , the novel’s protagonist embodies the archangel Gabriel (Gibreel), the Quranic figure responsible for delivering God’s revelations to the Prophet Muhammad. Rushdie represents Muhammad through the character Mahound. The novel’s namesake refers to a disputed historical event  in which Muhammad is said to have recited verses praising pagan deities, but later recanted when he realized that they were deceptions from the Devil rather than revelations from God. This non-canonical incident is depicted in the novel, bolstering Rushdie’s main assertion that prophets are fallible—and perhaps even self-serving as in the case of Mahound—when they profess divine truth.  Other controversial elements  include Rushdie’s use of the name “Mahound” itself (a pejorative name for Muhammad historically used by medieval Europeans) and the names of the novel’s prostitutes (the same names as Muhammad's wives, women held to be the mothers of Muslim believers).  Though Rushdie considered himself an atheist at the time of writing The Satanic Verses —and continues to be an atheist—he was born and raised in Mumbai, India to a liberal Kashmiri Muslim family .  Censorship and Religious Violence The Satanic Verses  were soundly condemned by a number of Muslim communities shortly after publication. Multiple countries censored the novel, with Rushdie’s native India only removing its import ban in December 2024. Thousands took to the streets in protest  of the work, and escalations between police and demonstrators led to dozens of deaths in India and Pakistan as well as firebombs in UK and US bookstores.  In 1989, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa , calling on Muslims to assassinate Rushdie as well as the novel’s collaborators. Shortly thereafter, the novel’s Norwegian publisher was shot and the Italian and Japanese translators were stabbed, the Japanese translator ultimately succumbing to his injuries. Rushdie spent nearly a decade in hiding after the fatwa was issued.   In August 2022, during a literary event in New York, an attacker stabbed Rushdie  over a dozen times. Rushdie sustained critical injuries and was hospitalized for weeks, ultimately losing his right eye. His attacker was convicted in February 2025 for attempted murder and assault, with his sentence  to be delivered May 16—just one day before CMC’s commencement.  Despite the decades-long threats to—and eventual attempt on—his life, Rushdie has remained a staunch advocate for freedom of expression, criticizing the Charlie Hebdo attack , denouncing censorship on college campuses , and working closely with (and formerly leading) the literary free speech organization PEN . In The Hague, approximately 5,000 Muslims demonstrate against The Satanic Verses  (credit: Rob Croef/Anefo) Claremont’s Muslim Students Speak Out In an April 25 email announcing Rushdie’s invitation, CMC President Hiram Chodosh wrote,“Sir Salman leads an open, engaging life and writes with brilliance, humility, and honesty…We are eager to hear and learn from his inspiring example.” The announcement was met with mixed reactions and drew immediate backlash from many Muslim students.  When asked for comment, the Claremont Colleges’ Muslim Chaplain Imam Hadi Qazwini stated that he seeks to provide students “space to speak for themselves…if they wish to do so,” declining an interview in favor of letting Muslim students express their own feelings.  Indeed, the Claremont Colleges Muslim Student Association has been vocal, first calling to disinvite Rushdie in an official Instagram statement  on May 2. Though “protecting free speech is vital on campus,” the message reads, this invitation endorses an individual that has “disparag[ed] a global religious community.” As a result, an event meant to “celebrate and unite the graduating class…disregards the values of inclusion and respect that CMC claims to uphold.” In an interview with the Independent , the MSA Co-President also disapproved of Rushdie’s “disparaging comments about Palestinians.” Per the Co-President, Rushdie has claimed that if “[Palestinians] gain self determination…that [Palestine] would turn into some Taliban state…as if…they’re not equal human beings like the rest of us.” This is in reference to a May 2024 comment Rushdie made  on a German podcast; though Rushdie has supported a Palestinian-led state since the 1980s, he stated that an independent state in today’s era would only be controlled by Hamas—hence, would be a “Taliban-like” country.  On May 7, the MSA posted a more detailed justification  for their condemnation, outlining three of Rushdie’s “Offensive Elements,” including “Islam Mocked as a Demonic Religion,” “Perverse Depictions of the Prophets Wives [sic],” and “Sexualization of the Prophet (PBUH) [Peace Be Upon Him].” They also dedicate a slide explaining how Rushdie “Minimiz[es] the Genocide,” referencing his comment on Palestine. These two concerns drive the MSA’s opposition to Rushdie’s selection. Excerpt from Muslim Student Association post . Though the MSA frames this matter as a clash between “Muslim dignity” and “Western liberal narratives,” the Co-President said that their stance does not reject liberal ideals of open discourse. The Co-President explained that free speech is very important to the MSA, as many Muslim students believe that if expression is targeted, “we’re the first ones [who are] going to be victims of…censorship.”    However, the MSA makes a clear distinction between inviting Rushdie to simply “hear his perspective” versus “endorsing” his ideas on a distinguished platform at Commencement.  “If this was a student group that invited him, or even if CMC invited him as part of a dialogue with other people…[or in] an [Athenaeum] talk…that’s perfectly fine,” said the MSA Co-President. In fact, Rushdie has already spoken at the Athenaeum  in 2006, with no reports of backlash or protests documented by campus newspapers. To the MSA, it is the honoring of such a controversial speaker, with no time or space given for disagreement, that is unconscionable. “Giving someone a stage and invitation to a commencement isn’t neutral—it’s an endorsement.” Muslim Student Association Statement, May 7 Posters distributed around campus. Photo via student. Individual Muslim students have chosen several other avenues to protest the invitation. The Co-President confirmed that at least one Muslim student, a CMC senior, intends to boycott commencement. Most students involved and pushing for disinvitation have opted to write to President Chodosh directly, meet with the Dean of Students, publish op-eds , and contact the news  media.  The Los Angeles office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations  also published a press release on May 7, stating that Rushdie “has made troubling statements about Muslims and Palestine” and urges CMC to “address the sincere concerns” of its Muslim students.  Support Sustained for Rushdie’s Invitation Nevertheless, some students and faculty remain supportive of Rushdie’s invitation. For instance, Government Professor George Thomas, who teaches courses on the intersections of religion, liberalism, and the American Constitution, considers Rushdie’s merits in the context of an academic institution’s responsibilities.  Thomas has advocated for Rushdie to be commencement speaker in years past. With sweeping historical plots and “brilliant English prose,” Rushdie bridges cultures in Thomas’s view, “teaching the East about the West and the West about the East.” Thomas’s following defense of Rushdie’s invitation stems from this literary merit.  “What [the MSA students] dismiss as the ‘liberal narrative,’ I view as the liberal achievement,” said Professor Thomas, emphasizing that religions relinquish their coercive elements in exchange for “civic peace.” According to Thomas, a secular liberal arts institution is a defender of this commitment, advancing tolerance and open inquiry. While this principle may clash with the tastes and feelings of certain beliefs, these beliefs “are [not] sacred” in a setting of rigorous study—the “[liberal] arts will win out.” Though Thomas sympathized with the MSA argument that commencement is not comparable to other venues of inquiry, he asked: “Who speaks for the true strand of Islam?” He cited the example of Rushdie’s fatwa, a “political use of Islam” that many Muslims view as a corruption of the faith.  Following the fatwa, many prominent Arab and Muslim intellectuals—including Palestinian author Mahmoud Darwish, Moroccan composer Ahmed Essyad , and Egyptian author Naguib Mahfouz— rallied behind Rushdie  and his expression. Some of these supporters, such as Palestinian scholar and activist Edward Said , were close friends of Rushdie. “No book should ever be the cause of a death sentence being pronounced upon its author. The very idea is intolerable, inadmissible. It bears no relationship to the tolerant Islam I was taught.’” Tahar Ben Jelloun in  For Rushdie: Essays by Arab and Muslim Writers in Defense of Free Speech Similarly, there is disagreement even within Claremont’s community. One Muslim student told the Independent  that he welcomes Rushdie, not only on the basis of CMC’s Open Academy principles , but on theological and cultural grounds. For one, this student does not view The Satanic Verses as blasphemous, explaining that “my acceptance of Rushdie is partially because I [disagree] with the Islamic doctrine of non-depiction.”  When asked if Rushdie’s work was too provocative, thus sliding from blasphemy to mockery, this student disagreed. When viewing Rushdie’s novel in totality, this student does not believe Rushdie’s ideas are an “insult to Muslims” or a “veiled insult” of the Prophet, but a means of cultural analysis: “question[ing] the foundations of prophetic revelations” in all organized religion.  Another Muslim student told the Independent that though he believes Rushdie is an “inappropriate speaker” for a celebratory event like commencement, he rejects “narratives that the content of his books is Islamophobic.” This student stated that “if any criticism of dominant [religious] narratives…gets labeled as discriminatory, then we would deprive ourselves of necessary discourse within religion.”  Because there can be no “spokesperson for Islam,” Professor Thomas stated, it is not possible for an academic institution like CMC to establish a “category of blasphemy” that is agreeable to all.   Moreover, Thomas noted that Rushdie is being platformed not only for his literary merits, but for his fortitude. It would be a “lesson for graduates” to consider “what happens when [your life] suddenly takes a turn,” imparted by someone with such unique and harrowing experiences.  As of May 9, President Chodosh has not issued a statement to the College acknowledging the controversy or defending CMC’s selection. While the other Claremont Colleges have announced their commencement speakers to the public, CMC has not published Rushdie’s invitation on its website. Commencement will begin  at 2 p.m. on Saturday, May 17 at Pritzlaff Field.   Shiv Parihar contributed reporting. This article was published in conjunction with The Claremont Independent .

It’s not about silencing insult—it’s about mastering the self and embodying dignity through knowledge. Salman Rushdie at the Frankfurt Book Fair in 2023 (credit: Elena Ternovaja) Islam, at its core, invites vulnerability. The Qur’an does not silence its challengers—it calls them. It dares disbelievers to question, to test, to engage. Why? Because its backbone is knowledge. Islam holds that faith without knowledge is void. This conviction is what separated the earliest Muslims from the disbelievers when Islam first emerged in the Arabian Peninsula. What set them apart was not tribe, wealth, or emotion—it was ‘ilm , understanding. That is Islam’s most enduring power. The world has always been ruled, transformed, and manipulated by those who possess knowledge. Knowledge builds civilizations. Knowledge topples them. And more dangerously, knowledge allows one to shape the emotions of others. In every sphere, religion, politics, economics; those who understand emotion use it to sway the masses. But the most dangerous decisions in history? They are the ones made not from knowledge but emotion: impulsive, fragile, self-justifying, and ego-driven.  Any attack on your emotions is an attack on your dignity. And if you respond with uncontrolled emotion, you lose both. But if you stand your ground—with restraint, conviction, and humility—you win, and the perpetrator is humiliated. That response requires what few possess: deep knowledge, firm character, and radical humility. So when someone spits in your face, disrespects you, violates what you hold sacred, what should you do? Match their energy and become a mirror of their behavior? If you do, you become the very thing you condemned. You have, in effect, condemned yourself. The harder path, the path Islam calls us to, is to respond intellectually, with knowledge and clarity, not rage. This is where activism, when mixed with religion and devoid of understanding, becomes dangerous. True activism in Islam is molded by knowledge, governed by wisdom, and executed with dignity. The goal is not always to convert, it is to enlighten  and achieve mutual understanding. That requires the hardest sacrifice of all: ego. Salman Rushdie’s infamous portrayal of Islam in the Satanic Verses  was not a scholarly critique. It was an emotional provocation masked as fiction. A cowardly act, hiding behind art to launch a baseless attack on a global religion. He is not a scholar; he is a provocateur. But the tragedy is not that he wrote what he wrote, the tragedy—or victory—is how we  respond. Western governments have celebrated Rushdie under the banner of “free speech.” But does free speech have no limits? Is it not a dismissal of the dignity of believers when mockery of sacred faiths is normalized? When President Chodosh honors Rushdie’s “artistic courage,” he simultaneously invalidates the spiritual pain of those whose Prophet was maligned in Rushdie’s book. He has his rationale, perhaps. But it is a flawed one and this is the hard truth we all have to swallow. President Chodosh’s decision to invite Rushdie as commencement speaker was, without a doubt, a flawed choice. It disrespects the emotional and spiritual dignity of Muslim students, whether he intends to or not. Any public attack on any religion transcends the bounds of free speech—it becomes, instead, a quiet dismissal of the sacred convictions of its followers, whether one is religious or not. But the real effects of this decision depend on how the Muslim community responds. Will they let Rushdie win and have emotional power over them?  Let us also consider another chapter: the Iranian fatwa against Rushdie. It was issued in anger, cloaked in piety, but it was fundamentally a loss. Rushdie provoked exactly what he wanted; Impatient Muslims’ rage, ego, and retaliation. And unfortunately, he won the emotional war and some Muslims fell for it. Islam was never meant to be weaponized to satisfy personal pride. In his final sermon, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) emphasized the sanctity of life, property, and dignity—even when offended. To violate those principles in the name of defending Islam is to betray the very faith we claim to protect. Those who support the fatwa, or who advocate for hostility in defense of Islam, misunderstand it. The Prophet endured ridicule, slander, and physical abuse, but never let it corrupt his judgment, kind words, or principles. He engaged his enemies, debated them, prayed for them. Islam spread not through rage, but through conviction, knowledge, and character. So let me say this clearly: listening to Salman Rushdie will not harm a knowledgeable and humble Muslim. And if you find yourself offended by him, know that he has won and he has emotional power over you. The real test of faith is not in avoiding provocation, but in rising above it with dignity. The Prophet’s path is not of outrage. It is resilience. It is grace under fire. It is the slowness to anger, the sharpness in intellect, and the steadiness in principle. I want to commend the MSA and the many Muslim students at CMC who have chosen the path of knowledge, dialogue, and principled dissent in responding to President Chodosh’s decision to invite and honor Salman Rushdie. This moment is not merely a grievance—it is a challenge to the Muslim faith and dignity. The question is: are we intending to win it, or to lose it even before May 17 ever arrives? CMC is watching. The world is watching—ready to either laugh at our outrage or congratulate our resolve and wisdom. The outcome will not be decided by Rushdie’s words, but by our  character. Rushdie will speak. The day will pass. But we will be remembered for our response. If we disengage with everyone who disrespects us, what kind of world do we live in? Dialogue would end. Progress would stall. Justice would die. And emotional manipulators would always win. Someone must be the better person. Someone must take the harder path. Islam says: that someone must be you.