Search Results

Henry Long speaking at Claremont McKenna College's 77th Commencement (credit: Claremont McKenna) 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. A transcript of his remarks can be found below, and you can find a video recording of Henry's speech here . 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.

I disagree with Salman Rushdie, but I welcome him as our commencement speaker. Sir Salman Rushdie at the 2014 PEN America/Free Expression Literature Conference (credit: Ed Lederman/PEN American Center) On April 25, Hiram Chodosh announced that Claremont McKenna College (CMC) had selected Sir Salman Rushdie to give the keynote address at its 77th Commencement. The selection of Rushdie has spurred controversy , with students expressing their disapproval through social media  and in The Forum . The Claremont Colleges Muslim Students Association (MSA) even issued a statement  condemning Sir Rushdie’s invitation. As someone who has deep disagreements with Rushdie, I believe that the MSA is misguided and that Rushdie should be allowed to speak. The MSA states that Rushdie “is known for disparaging a global religious community.” They are correct, but Islam is not the only religion he has disparaged. Rushdie is a self-described  “hardline atheist” and an outspoken critic of all religions, including mine, Christianity. Rushdie is part of a cultural phenomenon known as New Atheism. New Atheists prize secularism and deride religion, focusing their fire on the world’s largest: Christianity and Islam. This movement, represented by figures like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, is characterized by vitriol against and disdain for religion, especially in its fundamentalist forms. Rushdie’s speeches reflect this vitriol and disdain. He has delivered two previous commencement addresses—one at Bard College in 1996  and the other at Emory University in 2015 . Both speeches disparage religion. His Bard address is best known  for his charge to “defy the gods.” (Though Rushdie used the term “gods” metaphorically, the invective against religion was implied.) In his Emory address, he says, “I sometimes think we live in a very credulous age. People seem ready to believe almost anything. God, for example.” Between the two speeches, he mentions Jesus once and Muhammad not at all. As a Christian, Rushdie’s criticism applies to me as much as any Muslim. Though Rushdie’s derision of Islam is perhaps greater in degree, his scorn for Christianity is no less in kind. As a believer in God and a follower of Jesus, I say and do things that Rushdie would find ridiculous and oppressive. In turn, I find Rushdie’s ideas wrongheaded and his style caustic. But Christ calls  me to turn the other cheek and bless those who curse me. It’s this call—to love one’s enemy—that makes even New Atheists appreciate Christianity. Dawkins recently dubbed  himself a “cultural Christian,” saying he is “at home in a Christian ethos.” The West’s tradition of free speech and tolerance in some ways depends on Christianity, both historically and intellectually. The early liberal tracts, like Milton’s case  for free speech and Locke’s case  for toleration, argued for freedom from Christian premises.  To be fair, both the MSA expresses admirable support for Rushdie’s right to “free speech” but argues that choosing a commencement speaker demands concern for student unity and the values of the College. They moreover claim that inviting Rushdie amounts to an “endorsement.” But the best commencement speeches aren’t about unity, they’re about exhortation. My favorite commencement address is David Foster Wallace’s 2005 address  at Kenyon College. In the speech, Wallace lambasts the knee-jerk selfishness and passivity of most college graduates. Wallace says, “I know this stuff probably doesn’t sound fun and breezy or grand and inspirational, the way a commencement speech is supposed to sound.” Great commencement speeches aren’t meant to make you comfortable, they’re meant to make you think. A commencement speaker should embody the principles of the College, and Rushdie has done just that. CMC is neither a Christian college nor a Muslim one. It doesn’t stand for religious dogma or some vague notion of belonging. CMC does stand for freedom of expression, which Rushdie has embodied through his tireless defense of free speech in the face of violence. He continued to write following an Iranian fatwa  demanding his execution, a saga that culminated in a 2022 attempt  on his life that left him blind in one eye. Inviting Rushdie is not an endorsement of the content of his speech, but of his right to speak. In fact, I’m sure I’ll disagree with much of the content of Rushdie’s speech. I believe that Rushdie-style New Atheism is faltering . In the view of New Atheists and in the words  of Dawkins, our universe has “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” This tragic and false view precipitated our contemporary meaning crisis, which has spurred a renewed hunger for transcendence and faith. Several prominent public intellectuals—even a former New Atheist —have converted to Christianity. Closer to home, over a dozen of my secular friends have attended church this semester, some consistently. As the elected class speaker, my fellow graduates have granted me the opportunity to deliver remarks on their behalf. My speech will likely sound very different than his, but I’m honored to have the opportunity to hear from him. When I speak, just minutes before Rushdie, I look forward to standing opposite him, both onstage and in spirit. This article was published in conjunction with The Claremont Independent .

Commencement is supposed to celebrate all of us—this year, it won’t. Salman Rushdie delivering the commencement address at Emory University in 2015 (credit: Emory News Center) “Why are we  here?” This phrase bookends a Claremont McKenna education. President Chodosh opens every convocation with it, and it lingers in the air at every commencement. More than rhetorical, it is meant to be a compass: a reminder that this institution exists not just to instruct, but to form. Not just to credential, but to cultivate judgment, leadership, and purpose. It’s a question I once admired. It asked us to look past grades and accolades and reflect on what our time here means—who it serves, and what kind of people it helps us become. But this year, as the College prepares to welcome Salman Rushdie as the speaker for its 77th Commencement, the question feels hollow. The phrase still echoes, but it no longer lands. Because if we are still asking why we  are here, then the answer should include all of us. This year, it doesn’t. In his announcement to the community, President Chodosh described Rushdie as “a fearless writer and advocate for freedom of expression.” The College framed his selection as a principled stand, an affirmation of open inquiry in the face of repression. But for many Muslims, on this campus and beyond, The Satanic Verses —Rushdie’s 1988 novel, which includes passages widely viewed as blasphemous toward the Prophet Muhammad, his wives, his companions, and the Holy Qur’an—is deeply offensive. These passages do not merely critique; they mock, sexualize, and distort what many hold most sacred. It is a wound still felt. On May 17th, that wound will not be distant—it will sit in the audience, carried in the hearts of students and families who arrive expecting celebration, only to be met with the quiet sting of exclusion at what is meant to be the institution’s most unifying moment. The College knew this history. It knew—or should have known—what this choice would signal to members of its own community. And still, it proceeded—without consultation, without dialogue, and with no visible sign of reflection.  Commencement is not a forum for contested expression. It is not a symposium for moral disputes. It is a ritual—a final act of institutional speech meant to affirm that the College has fulfilled its mission: “to prepare students for thoughtful and productive lives and responsible leadership.” That charge is not fulfilled through disregard for the students it claims to nurture. It is fulfilled through judgment, care, and clarity about what the moment demands. There were other options. Rushdie could have been invited to the Athenaeum, or any setting where his ideas could be engaged in good faith. That would have been appropriate. But commencement is not that setting. It is a space without reply. The speaker must be heard, but not questioned. The audience must listen, but not engage. That is precisely why the moment demands restraint. A ceremony meant to unify cannot afford symbolic fracture. The College should know the difference between honoring conviction and staging provocation. The show will go on. The gowns will rustle. The names will be read. But beneath the surface lies a painful rupture. For many Muslims, the pain will be visceral. It will come from the unbearable dissonance of hearing applause for a man who profaned the very figure they hold most sacred. And the institution that taught them to lead with purpose will ask them, in that moment, to sit still and smile. Why are we here? To be present, not to belong. To witness, not to shape. To clap, and then to leave.

Everything you need to know about the misappropriation of funds and ASCMC’s response. Pickford Auditorium in the Bauer Center (Credit: Perera Construction) On Saturday, April 19, the President of the Associated Students of Claremont McKenna College (ASCMC) released an email informing the student body of “fraudulent conduct” committed by the ASCMC Executive Vice President (EVP). The email states that the EVP misappropriated funds allocated for DJ services to instead reimburse alcohol purchases for a class event. In the week before the email, CMC’s Dean of Students office (DOS) contacted ASCMC regarding “questionable activities” conducted at class events hosted by the EVP, who had previously served as Sophomore Class President. The events in question were a pregame for Pirate Palooza in May of 2024 and Four Corners in March of 2025. DOS discovered the fraudulent activity when the supposed DJ was caught in a lie with a DOS official, according to an individual close to ASCMC leadership. In addition to notifying ASCMC, DOS began their own conduct process to determine repercussions for the EVP’s actions. After learning of the fraud, ASCMC formed an investigatory committee, consisting of the President, Chief Ethics and Procedural Officer (CEPO), and Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The committee reviewed financial records and conducted interviews. They found that the EVP’s conduct during the first event was entirely above board, but her activity during the second event constituted financial fraud. During both events, the EVP paid a student $120 for DJ services. During both, the DJ bought alcohol for the class and used the money as reimbursement. The difference was that the student, who made a Spotify playlist for the Pirate Palooza pregame and thus fulfilled the role of DJ, did not attend Four Corners. In the wake of this discovery, the investigatory committee strongly encouraged the EVP to resign from office. The EVP declined. On Friday, April 18, the ASCMC Executive Board convened – deviating from their standard Sunday evening meeting time – to discuss their response to the uncovered fraud.  After asking the EVP to excuse herself from the room, the investigatory committee presented a draft statement to be sent out to the college. Aside from the EVP and all three members of the investigatory committee, only one member of the Executive Board had previously held an office within ASCMC. According to an individual close to ASCMC leadership, the committee asserted in the meeting that the EVP shared the sentiment of the statement, although the EVP had not seen the draft. After several rounds of editing from members of the Executive Board, the Board voted unanimously in support of releasing the statement. They also voted unanimously in support of a censure against the EVP: according to the email, “A censure represents strong disapproval of the EVP’s actions. The stipulations of this censure include a severe stipend deduction, loss of voting rights and removal of oversight over EVP discretionary funding.”  In the statement, the investigatory committee also recommended that the EVP “be removed from office by a senate vote.” They continued: “Two consecutive ¾ majority votes are required to remove an Executive Board Officer” and referred students to Article III of ASCMC’s Procedural Bylaws . The first senate vote occurred on Monday, April 21, and a second ad hoc senate was scheduled for Tuesday, April 22. During the ASCMC Senate meeting on April 21, the EVP openly admitted to committing fraud, but emphasized her commitment to both ASCMC and the broader student body. She further alleged that members of both the 2024-25 and 2025-26 ASCMC Executive Boards were aware of the misallocation of funds. Members of both Boards adamantly denied this. Multiple sources close to ASCMC have confirmed that members of the 2024-25 Board knew that the DJ would use the funds to reimburse alcohol. It is unclear whether Board members knew that the DJ was not present at Four Corners, and ASCMC reaffirmed in a statement to The Forum  that “No members of the ASCMC Executive Board were aware that funds were being used for services not rendered.”  Throughout the discussion, former and current members of the ASCMC Executive Board stressed that the infraction was not  that the DJ was paid to purchase alcohol for the event, but rather that the student did not fulfill the role of a DJ, and thus a student was paid for services not rendered. In their statement to The Forum , ASCMC established that “ASCMC has no control over what service providers do with the money they are paid. The central issue is that the EVP knowingly submitted a fraudulent invoice for services not performed.” ASCMC is no stranger to financial fraud. In 2018, the ASCMC President and CFO resigned  after claiming $2,000 of fraudulent reimbursements. Unlike the current case, the President in 2018 pocketed the money. Fraud also occurred two years ago, according to a source close to ASCMC. An Event Commissioner working under the 2023-24 Executive Board logged hours for working a party, during which they did not work but instead attended the party and were intoxicated. When ASCMC discovered this instance of fraud, the student claimed they didn’t know they were violating rules, and they faced no formal disciplinary action. In their statement to The Forum, ASCMC noted that “A few years ago, a censure was proposed when an officer was not executing many of their constitutional duties. It did not pass. Removal votes are historically rare.” During the senate meeting, members of the investigatory committee raised concerns regarding ASCMC’s student fees. These fees, which are currently  $350 added to each CMC student’s tuition as a “Student Activities Fee,” are allocated to ASCMC to fund CMC clubs, parties, 5C clubs with CMC participants, and other student activities. This finances the Sophomore Class President’s discretionary fund, which was used to pay the DJ. The ASCMC constitution stipulates that student fees cannot be used for alcohol. An anonymous source familiar with ASCMC processes stated that DOS, the Board of Trustees, administrators, and the college’s financial offices all trust ASCMC with the student fees. They added that this trust is “integral to [having] the freedom to host the parties we want, to have clubs do what they want to do.” They worried that fraud committed by an officer of ASCMC could break this trust. Throughout the senate meeting, many students expressed their faith in the EVP, expressing that she has always worked to serve the CMC student body, has acted with a high standard of ethics, and was a successful Sophomore Class President. Others questioned her ethics and ability to continue performing her role. The final vote tallied 18 in favor of removal, 14 opposed, and 1 abstention, falling short of the ¾ majority necessary for removal. 61 senators were eligible to vote, but the voting was closed after it became clear that the ¾ majority was not possible, according to ASCMC. At the Executive Board meeting on Sunday, April 27, the EVP reiterated her commitment to ASCMC and apologized for the contentious debate at senate. A further conversation occurred under closed minutes, lasting nearly half an hour.

5C international students share their perspectives on the recent ICE arrests. ICE agents perform an arrest (credit: Charles Reed) In recent months, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has revoked hundreds of student visas on college campuses across the country for alleged involvement with terrorist activities. Among the most notable cases are Mahmoud Khalil, a former graduate student at Columbia University, and Rumeysa Ozturk, a former PhD student at Tufts University. Their arrests, and others, have rattled the international student community, including at CMC and the other 5Cs.  Khalil’s green card was revoked after being accused of “[leading] activities aligned to Hamas,” said Homeland Security Spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin.  Ozturk’s arrest, viral on social media , came after she was detained by unmarked ICE officers. Some have speculated, without confirmed evidence, that her arrest was tied to an   article she wrote  in the Tufts Daily  Newspaper calling for Tufts to divest from organizations associated with what she called the “Palestinian genocide.” These arrests are part of a broader policy shift on immigration from the Trump Administration. In January, a White House Fact Sheet  declared that the federal government would revoke the visas of “Hamas sympathizers” and deport “pro-jihadist protests.” Senator Marco Rubio added in a briefing to reporters that “No one has a right to a student visa” or a “green card.” In the past week, the Trump administration has reinstated some of these visas. Before visas began to be reinstated, The Forum spoke to a number of international students across the Claremont Colleges, who shared their feelings about the ongoing visa revocations. At the Claremont Colleges, the impact of these developments on student morale is mixed. Some students have expressed a growing sense of vulnerability while others say they are not worried at all. At CMC, Executive Vice President and COO Sharon Basso sent out an email in March announcing a new policy requiring the school to “Identify Undocumented Individuals on Campus.” Follow-up emails as recently as this week have outlined support resources, including access to legal consultation and informational sessions on visa compliance and tax filings. “For the most part, I don’t think about it,” one international student said. “I haven’t gone to any protests, I went to the consulate to get my visa lawfully, I pay my full tuition. I feel like that gives me a safety blanket.” “I think about it every day,” said another. “I feel like one slip-up and I’m out.” Several students noted that self-censorship is already a reality among international peers, regardless of political climate. “Safeguarding myself is something I’ve thought about since coming here,” one student shared. Speaking about censorship before the policy changes, they added, “One of the first things we talk about in orientation is not getting arrested because you could get deported.”​​  A common theme among interviewees was unease around political expression. Some students said they avoided protests entirely. Others felt pressure to participate online even if they remained physically distant. “I wasn’t gonna protest in the first place because I could get arrested,” one student explained. “But I posted about [the Israel-Palestine conflict] because of the social pressure from my peers at school to do it. I don’t know if I even believed in it at the time, but I regret it now.” Students also highlighted that fears are not evenly distributed across identity groups. Those who felt as though they did not appear international immediately, either because of their skin color or their American-esque accent reported to feel much safer than others.  Likewise, many students expressed lingering distrust with the colleges, citing the arrests of 20 Pomona students  in April 2024. Now, however, many students understood that their colleges were legally bound to comply with the Trump Administration’s disclosure requirements. Some students expressed a desire for the school to take action to protect international students but were unclear what such action would look like. CMC Government Professor George Thomas emphasized that while noncitizens may have more limited legal protections than citizens, they are still entitled to some  constitutional safeguards. “All persons are entitled to due process, citizens or noncitizens,” he explained.  From a constitutional standpoint, he added, “There is a debate about whether visa holders have fewer free speech rights than citizens. But generally, once people are in the country, we don’t attach conditions that limit the speech they can engage in.” If some of these legal residents prove to be engaged in terrorism, that would be grounds for deportation assuming it violated the conditions of their Visa or Green Card, he noted. But “the government needs to make their case. Bring them to court. Charge them with something.” For many students, their questions are as much logistical as philosophical. Some wonder whether the move is connected to the elimination of DEI programs across the country. Others are wondering how “bad” of a crime they have to commit to get deported.  “Ultimately I think this is going to be to the detriment of the country as a whole, and may even strengthen America's international rivals who could use this as an opportunity to attract top international student prospects who may be fearful of their safety in the U.S.,” said international student Umer Lakhani, a CMC student from the class of 2025. Out of dozens of international students contacted for this story, most declined to speak and only one student agreed to have their name appear. As one student put it: “The stakes are so much higher for us.”

Barack Obama left office with the world praising his wisdom and diplomacy, but Syria is the graveyard that praise ignores.  A message painted on rubble in northwest Syria after devastating bombings: “We have died. Thank you for letting us down.” (credit: Rime Allaf via X in 2023) In December 2024, after thirteen years of slaughter, Bashar al-Assad’s regime finally collapsed. Rebel forces stormed Damascus, and Assad, facing certain defeat, fled into exile in Russia. The Assad family’s brutal reign over Syria, which began in 1971, crumbled not with a dramatic overthrow, but with a quiet, shameful escape. But for hundreds of thousands of dead Syrians, millions of refugees, and an entire generation whose futures were stolen, Assad’s fall came far too late. And much of that delay can be traced directly to President Barack Obama, whose catastrophic failure to act in Syria prolonged the war, empowered America’s enemies, and permanently stained American credibility. In 2012, Obama famously warned that the use of chemical weapons by Assad would cross a “red line.” But when Assad gassed his own people in 2013, killing over 1,400 civilians with sarin, Obama hesitated. Rather than enforcing his own ultimatum, he allowed Russia to broker a deal promising the removal of Assad’s chemical weapons, a promise Assad repeatedly broke. The message was clear: American warnings could be ignored without consequence. Obama’s defenders argued that America had no obligation to get involved in another Middle Eastern conflict. They pointed to Iraq and Afghanistan as cautionary examples of overreach. But this is a false equivalence. Limited, strategic action — degrading Assad’s air capabilities after chemical attacks, enforcing humanitarian no-fly zones, meaningfully supporting moderate opposition forces early — could have changed the course of the war without dragging the United States into occupation. Instead, Obama chose paralysis. He outsourced Syria to Russia and Iran and hid behind slogans about “strategic restraint” while a nation bled. The price of that inaction was staggering. Assad, propped up by foreign powers, unleashed unimaginable cruelty. Barrel bombs flattened cities. Hospitals and aid convoys were systematically targeted. Civilians were besieged and starved into submission. Chemical weapons were used repeatedly, emboldened by the world’s refusal to act. The Syrian war produced more than 500,000 deaths, displaced 13 million people, and created a refugee crisis that upended European politics and fueled the rise of nationalist extremism across the West. ISIS rose in the chaos, carving out a caliphate that terrorized millions and launched attacks across the globe. Russia reasserted itself militarily, securing a foothold in the Middle East by backing a dictator who America once demanded to step down. Iran expanded its influence through proxy militias. American adversaries, from Moscow to Tehran to Beijing, learned a devastating lesson: U.S. promises could be broken, red lines could be crossed, and atrocities could be met with speeches instead of action. The Assad regime’s collapse in 2024 is not a triumph of international justice. It is a bitter, belated reminder of how much suffering could have been prevented. It proves that evil can endure when good men and good nations look away. Assad fled not because of American action, but because Syrians refused to give up, even when the world abandoned them. Their endurance brought an end to his rule, but at an unbearable cost. Leadership is not simply about making speeches. It is about making decisions when they matter most. Obama’s rhetoric about hope and human rights collapsed the moment he faced hard choices. His administration preserved political capital at the expense of human life and global stability. While Americans cheered the myth of moral leadership, Syrians buried their children. Now, as Syria stumbles into an uncertain future, the West must confront the consequences of its abdication. American power rests not just on military strength, but on credibility. If the United States cannot defend its own injunctions, it invites chaos. If it cannot stand against mass slaughter, it abdicates its moral leadership. The Syrian people endured what America would not, and in the end, it was their sacrifice, not our promises, that toppled Assad. The victory belongs to them. The shame belongs to us. History will remember Syria’s endurance, but it should also remember the American president who watched and did nothing.

And maybe all of us too, while we’re at it. (Credit: Jasper Langley-Hawthorne) Last year, Australia passed legislation instituting a nation-wide ban on social media access for those under 16 years of age. Three quarters of the public  support the ban, especially parents.  Last month, Anya Raghuvanshi wrote an article  in The Forum  critiquing Australia's youth social media ban. Despite some flaws, the ban represents an important first step to protect children from serious harm, improve teen mental health, and facilitate societal reentry into the real world. The platforms most in need of regulation are Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and X. All of these mediums facilitate what Jonathan Haidt calls  “asynchronous one-to-many performance,” where users “perform” by posting photos, videos, or text to be viewed by a general audience when convenient. Raghuvanshi troublingly argues that social media is the place “where [teens] connect with friends, find support, and explore the world.” What world are we describing? A world of the near-endless scroll of insipidly perfect posts? Before social media, personal and social exploration was done in the actual world . Digital exploration is no analog. Yes, social media allows for connection, support, and exploration. But, these forms of experience are cheap and second-rate to that which you’ll find in reality. Social media also categorically harms mental health. At least 55 studies show a correlation  between social media use and mental health problems. These mental health effects can have serious consequences. Senator Lindsey Graham, addressing social media executives in a hearing last year, spoke passionately: “ you have blood on your hands .” The introduction of the smartphone to US teens has been linked to a 50% spike in teenage suicides . Kids die, too, in terrifyingly inane ways, like the so-called TikTok ‘black-out challenge.’ Users were encouraged to choke themselves with household objects  to film their ‘adrenaline rush’ upon regaining consciousness— at least 15 children aged 12 or younger died . I ask again: Is this seriously  the place where we want kids to “find support” and “explore the world”? The strongest argument against the ban concerns freedom of speech. Free speech is essential to any free society because it allows us to organize with others and petition the government. But social media isn’t a particularly effective conduit for political organizing and expression. Social media may increase the size of protests, but data shows that it does not make them more successful .   In high profile and oft-cited cases like the Arab Spring, the impact of social media was, in truth, mixed at best .  Moreover, a  majority of Americans believe  social media actually distracts  us from truly important issues (so-called ‘slacktivism’.) On top of that, any positive political change from social media is counterbalanced by the contagion of disinformation, hate speech, and trolling also found on those platforms. The landscape for promoting personal expression is equally as grim, given the countervailing presence of bots, political extremists, and now AI-generated content.  Promoting “media literacy” and “self-control” are bandaids on a broken system. Investing in “mental health resources that address the challenges kids face online” treats the symptom, not the cause. And yes, perhaps a ban treats young adults as if they “can’t be trusted.” So do the laws which control when teens can drive, vote, and drink. In the case of driving and drinking ages, the government recognizes a clear and present danger for still-developing youth. Why should social media be any different? Though enforcing an age-restriction can be quite challenging, it’s not hopeless. Obviously, setting the U.S. drinking age at 21 doesn’t prevent all teenagers from drinking, but it does limit the ease of teen’s access to alcohol. The drinking age simply attempts to lower the number of them doing so, and doing so to excess. The same   can be true   for technology. When Louisiana introduced age verification laws for pornographic websites , Pornhub site traffic dropped by 51 percent. Requiring some verifiable evidence of a real photo ID for social media sites would work , so long as it is introduced for all pertinent platforms and is strongly enforced.  Finally, there is the concern that banning social media for teens will ill-equip them for the world at large: “ It’s how we communicate, network, and even work. ” I would posit that teens are probably remarkably capable of learning these technologies after the age of 16 (or whatever age a restriction sets.) The boons to their development, sense of self, and overall happiness would also likely lead them to use social media in healthier and more productive ways. Beyond that, we must ask ourselves an even more important question: what if social media wasn’t the way we communicated, networked, or worked? What if social media sites (specifically those platforms which stress one-to-many performance) were banned for everyone ?  64% of Americans  say social media currently has a negative effect on society. The philosophy behind a ban on social media, either age-restricted or for everyone, does not concern the world in which teens are at present growing up in. Instead, it concerns what kind of world we want  our teens to grow up in, and what kind of world we ourselves would like to live in. Wouldn’t we rather live in the real  world?