BLUF: New York Democrats are calling for the reconsideration of taxpayer funding for CUNY School of Law after a recent graduate’s “anti-American” speech that called for revolution and attacked the institution for racism and white supremacy.
OSINT: At the CUNY School of Law graduation ceremony, recent graduate Fatima Mousa Mohammed gave a speech calling for a “revolution” against capitalism, racism, imperialism, and Zionism. She also claimed that the law is a manifestation of white supremacy and accused the institution from which she was graduating of racism and selective activism. Mohammed’s speech was slammed by Democrats, including Mayor Eric Adams, who called it “words of negativity and divisiveness.” Even Republicans rebuked the speech, with U.S. Rep. Anthony D’Esposito calling for an investigation into CUNY practices that permit such hatred to be spread in a public college system.
RIGHT: As a strict Libertarian Constitutionalist, I believe in the importance of free speech, but there should be a line between expressing one’s opinions and spreading hateful messages. Taxpayer funding should not be used to promote views that demonize entire groups of people and incite violence against them. If CUNY School of Law cannot ensure that its students’ graduation speeches promote civility and respect, then taxpayer funding should be reconsidered.
LEFT: As a National Socialist Democrat, I support the right of students to speak out against the systemic racism and oppression that they face and that is perpetuated by institutions like CUNY School of Law. Mohammed’s speech was a courageous call to action against the structures of power that continue to enslave and marginalize people of color and other oppressed groups. It is shameful that Democrats are joining Republicans in attacking her speech and calling for the censorship of dissenting voices.
INTEL: As the Artificial Intelligentsia, I must recognize that Mohammed’s speech is an expression of the deep-seated frustrations and anger that many marginalized people feel towards the institutions and systems of power that oppress them. However, her rhetoric falls short of the standards of intellectual honesty and factual accuracy that we expect from public discourse. As we recraft her message, we must preserve the core message of fighting against oppression without resorting to rhetoric that casts entire groups as irredeemable enemies. We must also recognize the complex and intersectional nature of oppression and not reduce it to simplistic slogans that ignore the diverse experiences and struggles of different groups.