So if she’s a pro terrorist, who are the people making threats if she’s allowed to speak?
Another campus official who was part of the decision, Erroll Southers, said threats came in via email, phone calls and letters. Southers is USC’s associate senior vice president for safety and risk assurance.
Individuals “say they will come to campus as early as this week,” Southers said. He did not elaborate.
The safety issue is a concern but there are bigger picture issues. It's commencement...it should be a happy, joyful event for grads and their families. The introduction of politics, especially in the current environment, is just the dumbest of the dumb ideas. It casts a pall on the entire event.
There are other things going on. Why was this candidate selected over 100 others? Guzman knew what he was doing. I don't believe for one second that they didn't review social media, at least of the finalists. Even if it was true, why didn't they review social media? It seems an obvious step in the process. I was telling my daughter 8 or 9 years ago to be thoughtful about what she shared on social media because it could cost her admission to the college of her choice or maybe a job one day. And USC didn't bother to look? Nonsense.
And now we have Guzman, a Harvard guy, who put himself in the position of potentially appearing anti-Semitic. USC can't risk that from an appearance standpoint either in losing potential quality students, or more importantly, donations from wealthy alums. We continue to see companies who are slow to learn that financial backlash for stupid choices is for real. USC is no different and for lack of a better analogy, they haven't been able to avoid stepping on their own dyk for years now.
Once again, USC is national news for all the wrong reasons. Both sides are angry and it was totally avoidable.