2 days Ago By Austin Sarat
-- Shares Facebook Twitter Reddit Email Until March 25, 2025, Rumeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University graduate student from Turkey, might have assumed that when she wrote an op-ed in the school’s newspaper critical of her school's failure to stand up for the human rights of Palestinians, she was doing what people in the United States were free to do . Indeed, all who live in the U.S.
might have thought the same thing, even if we disagree with the views she expressed in her piece. Those assumptions were well grounded . The Washington Post notes , “The First Amendment protects the right to speak, protest and publish views, regardless of citizenship status.
“ It quotes a 1953 Supreme Court decision that said: “’Once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country, he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.’” But since then , the Court “has not directly addressed the issue of immigrants’ free speech rights.” Whether people here illegally are protected by the First Amendment has not been settled by the Supreme Court.
However, that silence on immigration status is irrelevant in this case. Öztürk was here legally on a student visa. She was seized and taken into custody because "DHS and ICE investigations found Öztürk engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans.
" No one has said what those activities were. But Öztürk has never been charged with a crime or with violating the rules or policies of Tufts University. Related "There are reasons for them to be afraid": Immigrants are starting to feel that nowhere is safe That didn’t stop the Trump administration from revoking her visa and spiriting her off to an ICE detention facility in Louisiana.
It claims that the secretary of state has authority under what the Associated Press calls “a seldom-invoked statute...
to revoke visas of noncitizens who could be considered a threat to foreign policy interests.” Efforts to silence people who create a ruckus suggest that “the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio says, “If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us that the reason why you’re coming to the United States is not just ’cause you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we’re not going to give you a visa.
” “If you come into the U.S. as a visitor and create a ruckus for us.
.. We don’t want it in our country.
Go back and do it in your country,” All Öztürk did was write an op-ed in March 2024, long after university buildings had been vandalized or taken over. No evidence has been presented to suggest she was involved in those activities. The “ruckus” that made her unwelcome to continue to study here was caused because she said something in public that the administration in Washington did not want people to say.
Seems odd and out of step with the First Amendment. We need your help to stay independent Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism The First Amendment protects speech even if it creates a commotion, disturbance, stir, or fuss and is troublesome, offensive, or even hateful. Only if it falls into specific, narrowly defined categories of unprotected speech , like incitement to violence or true threats, can speech be prohibited or punished.
Speaking out on topics where there might be disagreement is not prohibited speech. In fact, If some speech didn’t create a ruckus, it wouldn’t need protection. As Princeton’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions says, exchanging ideas should “disturb and unsettle us.
" Their statement continues: “That means that all positions and points of view, no matter how radical or even unjust or immoral they may seem to people who oppose them, are on the table for discussion, scrutiny, and assessment on equal terms.” Considering those principles, let’s look at Öztürk’s op-ed. Its purpose was to take the administration of Tufts University to task for ignoring resolutions passed by the Tufts Community Union Senate, a student government body.
Along with three co-authors, Öztürk acknowledged, in the best First Amendment tradition, arguments against their position. “(A)n argument may be made,” the students wrote, “that the University should not take political stances and should focus on research and intellectual exchange.” But they argued, “the automatic rejection, dismissive nature, and condescending tone in the University’s statement have caused us to question whether the University is indeed taking a stand against its own declared commitments to free speech, assembly and democratic expression.
” So far, it is hard to see any hint of the kind of ruckus or threat to foreign policy interests that should get someone who is here legally deported. The authors were engaging in a spirited discussion about the nature of the University’s commitment to free speech. The problem seems to be that Öztürk and her co-authors went on to demand that the “University acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, .
.. disclose its investments, and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.
” The op-ed called for Tufts “to end its complicity with Israel insofar as it is oppressing the Palestinian people and denying their right to self-determination — a right guaranteed by international law.“ Let me say, if it matters, that I strongly disagree with this description of the war in Gaza and with the call for divestment. I also think the authors should have condemned the October 7 terrorist attack in Israel as part of their account of the war.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter , Crash Course. But there is nothing here that would suggest that they support either Hamas or terrorism. In fact, the op-ed “affirm(ed) (its belief in) the equal dignity and humanity of all people.
” I don’t see anything beyond what is universally regarded as protected speech. Why Öztürk came to be a target remains somewhat unclear, although reports surfaced saying pro-Israel groups gave her name to the authorities . They did so even though, as the Boston Globe notes , “friends and family said Öztürk isn’t actually much of an activist, let alone a terrorist sympathizer .
...
. Multiple people who know Öztürk told the Globe..
. that she had not been a leading figure in protests at Tufts last spring.” By grabbing her off the street in broad daylight, the Trump administration signals the lengths to which it will go to instill fear in those who use their free speech rights in ways that they consider unacceptable.
We have seen attempts by those in power in this country to silence dissent before. Professor Wilson Huhn reminds us that examples of such things date back to the Republic's early years. The early twentieth-century Red Scare and its later incarnation in the McCarthy period provide other instances in which government officials tried to stop people from saying things or supporting causes of which they disapproved.
In each of those “limitations on freedom of speech were,” Hun observes, “in effect, limitations on the right of the people to govern themselves.” He cites Alexander Hamilton, who characterized the relationship between the people and their government “as one of principal and agent.” Efforts to silence people who create a ruckus suggest that “the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master.
” “The implication for freedom of expression,” Huhn says, “is that just as an agent may not silence the principal, the government may not silence the people.” Make no mistake, what has happened to Ruymesa Öztürk (and to others) is a sign that the Trump administration is prepared to set the government above the people, and not just green card holders and those who are here on student visas. That is why we all have a stake in Öztürk’s fate and why we should call out this violation of our constitutional norms for what it is.
Read more about the Trump crackdown "A pivot moment": Some travel agents are now urging their clients to avoid the United States "An utter state of fear": In Springfield, Haitian immigrants quietly prepare for an exodus "This is not right": Trump deportees desperate for help after being stuck in limbo at Panama hotel By Austin Sarat Austin Sarat is William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College. His most recent book is " Lethal Injection and the False Promise of Humane Execution ." His opinion articles have appeared in USA Today, Slate, the Guardian, the Washington Post and elsewhere.
MORE FROM Austin Sarat Related Topics ------------------------------------------ Commentary Donald Trump Humanitarian Parole Immigration Mass Deportations Tps Venezuela Due Process First Amendment Free Speech Ice Immigration Marco Rubio Tufts University Related Articles Advertisement:.
