THE TUFTS STUDENT SHOULD BE GETTING US TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS.
The Tufts Student Should Be Getting Us to Ask Questions
The detainment—and let’s be real, the practical black-bagging—of a Tufts University student should be setting off some alarms. Yeah, she’s here on an F-1 visa. Yeah, she’s not a citizen. But if your first thought is, “Well, she’s not American, so who cares?”—you’re already off track. That’s not how it’s supposed to work here.
As of now, the only “evidence” against her is an opinion piece. That’s it. In the article, she asked her private university to cut financial ties with Israeli companies and divest from any involvement with what’s happening in that region. No sign she endorsed terrorism, helped anyone do anything illegal—nothing like that. Just a political opinion on a global issue.
And listen, personally? I think she’s kind of a dummy. You don’t land in a foreign country and immediately start lecturing the locals about their politics without expecting some backlash. There’s a weird sense of entitlement in that. You’re here on a student visa at one of the best schools in the U.S.— I’m NOT SO SURE I’M THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO BE CHECKING MY PRIVELEGE.
But all that said, this still isn’t okay.
in America, speech is protected. Even dumb speech. We don’t make exceptions for people we disagree with—or people who aren’t from here. If someone’s on U.S. soil, they should have the same basic rights as anyone else on U.S. soil. THAT’S WHAT SETS US APART FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD - THAT’S ONE OF MANY REASONS AMERICA IS EXCEPTIONAL.
That’s supposed to be the line in the sand. Once we start picking and choosing who gets free speech protections based on whether we like their opinions or where they were born, we’re not defending democracy anymore. We’re just playing favorites.
And here’s what really bugs me: some of the same people who are cheering this on were losing their minds a few years ago when it came out that the government was pressuring tech companies to quietly censor speech they didn’t like. Shadowbanning posts. Flagging dissent as “misinformation.” Getting accounts nuked for saying the wrong thing. Back then, we called it what it was—censorship. Government overreach. A real problem.
You either believe in free speech or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose. If you only care when your people get silenced, then you’re not defending a principle—you’re defending a team.
Hugo Black, in Dennis v. United States, reminded us that speech—especially political speech—is the lifeblood of a free society. And he said it at a time when Communist rhetoric wasn’t just unpopular—it was considered dangerous. But he understood that the answer to bad speech isn’t censorship. It’s better speech. Louder speech. Smarter speech.
So yeah, I hate this student’s message. I think it’s dumb. I think she’s out of touch. And I don’t think she has any idea how lucky she is to be here in the first place. But I’ll still defend her right to say what she said. Not for her sake—but for ours.
And let’s be real: the people OUTRAGED now are the same ones who, in another era, would have weaponized lawfare against their opponents. They're not interested in justice—they're interested in silencing dissent. And that’s not something we should ever cheer for, no matter how repugnant the opinion might be.
BUT If we actually want to be the good guys here—if we want to win on principle, we’ve got to be consistent. We’ve got to defend the rule, even when it protects THE DUMBEST IDEAS IMAGINABLE.
That’s how you win. That’s how you keep the soul of the country intact. Not by picking a side, but by holding the line for everyone—even the ones who probably wouldn’t do the same for you.
