On May 29, 2025, what should have been a proud, memorable moment for MIT’s Class of 2025 turned into a stage for controversy. During the prestigious OneMIT undergraduate ceremony, class president Megha Vemuri, wearing a red keffiyeh — a symbol often associated with Palestinian resistance — chose to abandon her pre-approved script. Instead, she gave an unapproved speech, sharply criticizing Israel and accusing it of genocide in Gaza. She also used the opportunity to condemn MIT’s collaboration with the Israeli military, a move that stunned many in the audience and drew instant backlash.

The very next day, on May 30, MIT Chancellor Melissa Nobles personally addressed the matter in a firm email sent to Vemuri. In it, Nobles wrote that Vemuri “deliberately and repeatedly misled Commencement organizers” and stated clearly that her use of the stage to lead a political protest was a breach of MIT’s “time, place and manner rules.” Consequently, Vemuri and her family were barred from attending the official undergraduate commencement ceremony. The ban extended to campus access for most of the day, an action taken to preserve the sanctity of the event and prevent further disruptions.

Despite the disciplinary response, some students expressed support for Vemuri. During the official commencement, a few classmates briefly interrupted the proceedings by chanting “Let Megha walk!” as a sign of solidarity. Chancellor Nobles responded calmly, asserting, “Today is about our graduates and their families. Please respect them and allow me to continue.” Later, MIT reinforced its position in a public statement, declaring that it “supports free expression but stands by its decision” to prevent Vemuri from participating, citing that “the speech she delivered was not the one that was provided by the speaker in advance.”

Here is a timeline of how events unfolded:

• May 29, 2025 – OneMIT Ceremony: Vemuri deviates from the approved remarks, calling out the “genocide” in Gaza and demanding MIT sever ties with Israel.

• May 30, 2025 – Ban Announced: Chancellor Nobles formally bars Vemuri from attending the main commencement. She categorizes the speech as an unapproved protest. Despite student chants in her favor, MIT upholds its decision, defending it through official communication.

• May 31, 2025 Onwards – Public Reaction: Major publications including The Boston Globe, NDTV, JTA, Jerusalem Post, and Economic Times covered the escalating controversy. Debates erupted across student groups, alumni networks, and social media. While some sympathized with Vemuri’s cause, others strongly objected to her misuse of a ceremonial platform. One student remarked Vemuri “should have the right to say her opinions”, whereas many pro-Israel groups saw her actions as a disrespectful hijacking of a solemn academic event. As of early June 2025, MIT’s decision has not been overturned.

During the speech, Vemuri made several bold and inflammatory remarks, which are presented here exactly as spoken:

“Good afternoon friends, family, loved ones, community members, and of course the MIT Class of 2025. I'm so incredibly grateful to be here with you all today to reflect on our time at the Institute, to celebrate what we have accomplished, and to encourage us to approach the future with intentionality and integrity.”

“It is no secret that at this time, academic institutions across the country are shrouded in a dark cloud of uncertainty. The question of what will happen next echoes in our minds, and there is a lot of fear in many of our hearts. We must remind ourselves that when we came to this institution, we dreamt of the opportunity to make an impact on humanity. We have been given the privilege of access to a place like this, to a community like this, and it is now time to make use of it. We cannot allow fear to keep us from doing that.”

“You have faced the obstacle of fear before and you turned it into fuel to stand up for what is right. You showed the world that MIT wants a free Palestine. Last spring, MIT's undergraduate body and graduate student union voted overwhelmingly to cut ties with the genocidal Israeli military. You called for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. And you stood ... .”

“You faced threats, intimidation and suppression ... because the MIT community that I ... .”

“Right now, while we prepare to graduate and move forward with our lives, there are no universities left in Gaza. We are watching Israel try to wipe ... .”

“The Israeli occupation forces are the only ... . As scientists, engineers, academics and leaders, we have a commitment to support life, support aid efforts, call for an arms embargo, and keep demanding now, as alumni, that MIT cuts the ties.”

“Now I invite you all to join me in the tradition of turning the ring. Please raise your Brass Rat or Grad Rat bearing hands and as you lift it off your fingers, notice that the Beaver is no longer facing you, it is now facing the world. This is a world that we will be entering with an immeasurable responsibility. We will carry with us the stamp of the MIT name, the same name that is directly complicit in the ongoing genocide ... . And so we carry with us the obligation to do everything we can to stop it.”

“Class of 2025, you are MIT. Pressure is nothing to you. I know you will take it head on and I can't wait to see what you do next. Thank you and congratulations again.”

Reactions from Jewish Students and Families

Vemuri’s remarks sparked a swift and emotional response, especially from Jewish students and their families present at the ceremony. As she launched into her political statements, a noticeable number of attendees quietly rose and walked out in protest. According to eyewitnesses, these included Israeli families and many Jewish guests who found the remarks deeply inappropriate, offensive, and out of place in what was meant to be a unifying academic celebration.

One Israeli graduate was quoted saying, “All of our families came from ... .” Though the full quote was not made public, it reflects the profound discomfort felt by members of the Jewish community present. The walkout wasn’t just about disagreement; it was a visible rejection of what many perceived as an attack during a moment that was supposed to transcend politics.

The MIT Jewish Alumni Alliance issued a harsh criticism of the university’s decision to allow the speech to proceed, accusing the administration of gross negligence. In their statement, they described Vemuri as a "rogue student" who took advantage of her platform to "hijack the ceremony," using it as a vehicle for "berating and defaming Israel and promoting Hamas-inspired propaganda." This sentiment was echoed by numerous Jewish organizations, alumni, and donors who demanded accountability.

Following this fallout, MIT remained firm in its disciplinary actions. In a reiteration of its stance, the university explained that Vemuri had violated long-standing campus expression policies, and that the decision to ban her and her family from the subsequent ceremony was in direct response to these violations.

The incident has triggered widespread national debate — not just about the limits of free speech, but also about the increasing politicization of academic spaces. While some view Vemuri as a brave voice of protest, many see her actions as emblematic of a troubling trend of radical activism taking precedence over academic integrity and communal respect.

This divisive episode continues to fuel campus and public discourse, serving as a flashpoint for broader conversations about the balance between freedom of expression and institutional decorum, especially in prestigious educational settings.

Who is Megha Vemuri?

Megha Vemuri, at the center of this recent controversy, is not just another name in the graduating class. She is a 2025 MIT graduate who served as the president of the undergraduate class, a position traditionally referred to as the class marshal. A U.S. citizen of Indian descent, Vemuri hails from Alpharetta, Georgia. After completing high school in 2021, she was admitted into the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology the same year, embarking on what appeared to be a promising academic journey.

During her time at MIT, Vemuri took on an ambitious academic load, pursuing a triple major in computer science, neuroscience, and linguistics. Her academic interests were matched by her enthusiasm for campus involvement. She participated actively in student life and was closely associated with a group known as Written Revolution, an organization that promotes “revolutionary ideas” among the student body. This affiliation likely reflects her broader ideological views and passion for causes that challenge the status quo.

Her intellectual curiosity also took her beyond the U.S. borders. During her academic tenure, she undertook an internship at the University of Cape Town Neuroscience Institute in South Africa, an opportunity that enriched her global outlook and scientific understanding. Ahead of the MIT commencement, Vemuri had expressed a desire to make meaningful use of the platform, telling interviewers that she wanted to “optimize” her impact, knowing her words would be heard by leaders and innovators.

While friends and classmates described her as passionate about social justice, including advocacy for Palestinian rights, there were no prior reports of disciplinary actions against her. Despite her growing recognition in student circles, neither MIT nor Vemuri herself have made any direct references to her nationality in the context of the controversy. However, media coverage has emphasized her Indian-American identity, possibly as a way of drawing attention to her background amid rising discourse on political expression by minorities in academia.

MIT’s Response and Official Statements

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology reacted swiftly to the incident — but not with applause or endorsement. Instead, MIT administrators framed Vemuri’s speech as a violation of established university protocol, carefully distancing themselves from the notion that the case involved a suppression of free speech.

In a direct email addressed to Vemuri, Chancellor Melissa Nobles stressed that participation in commencement is a privilege, and like all privileges, it comes with clear expectations and responsibilities. Nobles wrote that while MIT “acknowledges [Vemuri’s] right to free expression,” her choice to ignore the pre-approved speech and launch into an unsanctioned protest was “a violation of MIT’s time, place and manner rules for campus expression.” The university considered it especially serious that Vemuri “misled Commencement organizers” by failing to disclose her real intent for the address.

A spokesperson from MIT later reinforced this stance to the media. The administration clarified that while the institution continues to “support free expression,” it also “stands by its decision” to bar Vemuri from the graduation ceremony because “the speech she delivered was not the one that was provided by the speaker in advance.”

Major media outlets such as the Boston Globe and Economic Times covered MIT’s response extensively. The Globe obtained the chancellor’s email, which made it clear that Vemuri had “disrupted an important Institute ceremony” and broken rules. This was not a casual slip, MIT insisted, but a breach of trust and campus guidelines.

Notably, MIT did not issue a formal press release. The university’s statements came through the chancellor’s direct communication and the media team’s responses to journalistic inquiries. The controversy also placed MIT President Sally Kornbluth, who is Jewish, in a difficult position. She had to immediately address the crowd after Vemuri’s inflammatory speech. In an attempt to steady the event, Kornbluth gently reminded the audience: “At MIT we value freedom of expression, but today’s about the graduates.”

For now, MIT has not escalated disciplinary actions beyond barring Vemuri from the commencement event. Whether the matter ends there remains to be seen, but the institution's statements have made it clear that protocol, not politics, guided their response.

Campus and Public Reactions

The fallout from Vemuri’s speech was as swift as it was polarized. Reactions flooded in from across MIT’s diverse community — and beyond.

One of the strongest statements came from MIT Jewish alumni and donors, who issued a formal condemnation. They did not hold back, labeling Vemuri’s remarks as “propaganda” and blaming MIT’s administration for allowing a “rogue student” to take over what was meant to be a celebratory ceremony. In their words, she had “hijacked commencement”, transforming it into a political stage at the expense of the institution’s integrity and the comfort of fellow graduates.

Further amplifying the backlash, the MIT Jewish Alumni Alliance stated that parts of her address were “defaming Israel” and highlighted how one parent complained that his children were upset by the aggressive political content delivered during the event. The statement captured the emotional disturbance the speech caused to families expecting a joyful academic milestone.

The incident escalated further when some Jewish faculty and students reportedly demanded MIT President Kornbluth’s resignation for what they saw as a failure to prevent the disruption or adequately address its impact. The situation became even more charged online. Prominent pro-Israel commentators and influencers picked up on video clips of the speech and responded critically. A user named Kassy Akiva remarked that Vemuri “spent her graduation speech bashing Israel,” describing the rest of the ceremony as “awkward.”

Yet, the controversy also brought forth defenders of Vemuri’s actions. Many students and free-speech advocates voiced their support for her. Posts emerged across forums and social media platforms, arguing that a commencement address is a fitting place for political statements, especially when the speaker is a class representative. For instance, Emma Zhu, a fellow computer science graduate from MIT, told The Boston Globe that “even if [Vemuri’s speech] is a bit inflammatory… at the end of the day she should have the right to say her opinions” during what she considered “probably her biggest moment” to speak publicly.

The rift was visible even during the ceremony. Chants of “Let Megha walk” erupted from the crowd, signaling that Vemuri’s peers were divided — some firmly opposing the university’s disciplinary actions. In the days following, Vemuri herself spoke out, calling the ban “an overreach” and defending her speech as a legitimate protest aligned with her values and beliefs.

What this controversy has ultimately ignited is not just a debate about one student’s actions, but a broader battle over the limits of free speech, the sanctity of academic rituals, and the place of activism in educational institutions. The echo of Vemuri’s speech continues to reverberate through MIT’s halls — and across the country.

Similar Incidents at Other Universities

This is far from the first time that American universities have seen aggressive anti-Israel protests, many of which have gone well beyond peaceful activism. Across campuses, there have been hostile occupations of academic spaces, public confrontations with Jewish students, and inflammatory speeches that spark fear and division rather than fostering thoughtful dialogue. These events are not anomalies—they form a disturbing pattern where student activism, especially when targeting Israel, slides into forms of hostility that many feel are unacceptable in academic environments.

The spring of 2025 alone witnessed two major disciplinary incidents triggered by graduation speeches, showing that many institutions are grappling with the balance between free speech and institutional order.

At New York University (NYU), on May 14, 2025, a student named Logan Rozos took to the commencement stage and used the moment to accuse Israel of “genocide” in Gaza. NYU responded decisively by withholding his diploma, at least temporarily. According to the university, Rozos had not received prior approval for the content of his speech. His supporters have since launched a petition urging NYU to restore his degree, but the incident remains unresolved and divisive.

Just a few days later, on May 17, 2025, George Washington University (GWU) experienced a similar disruption. During her graduation speech, student Cecilia Culver urged the university to divest from Israel, claiming that Gaza was enduring a “genocide.” GWU reacted by barring her from the campus and announcing that disciplinary action would follow. The incident did not end there. Several pro-Israel alumni demanded that the university also punish the dean who had publicly praised Culver’s remarks.

But these are not new dynamics. The seeds of this conflict were sown earlier. At Harvard University, back in May 2024, another graduation speech turned into a protest. Student Shruthi Kumar went off-script to call out Harvard’s actions against pro-Palestine demonstrators. Prior to her speech, the university had already barred 13 students from graduating because of their involvement in anti-Israel encampments. In response, hundreds of students walked out of the ceremony, chanting “Free Palestine” in protest of Harvard’s disciplinary actions.

At Columbia University, 2024 also saw heavy-handed disciplinary measures. Dozens of students occupied Hamilton Hall, a symbolic administrative building, as part of Gaza war protests. Following prolonged hearings, many student activists were expelled or suspended, and some even had their degrees temporarily revoked. The school also shut down the on-campus pro-Palestine encampment, partly due to threats of federal funding withdrawal.

At Yale University, between 2024 and 2025, similar protests unfolded. In April 2024, nearly 47 pro-Palestine demonstrators were arrested during encampment actions. The administration warned of strict consequences for unauthorized demonstrations. A year later, in April 2025, Yale went further by deregistering the student group Yalies4Palestine after members organized a rally without university permission. In defiance, some of these students began a hunger strike, though Yale clarified that peaceful protest alone did not warrant punishment. Still, the deregistration remained in effect.

What ties these episodes together is a clear pattern of institutional enforcement. In every case, the universities invoked procedural rules — whether regarding speech approvals, protest permits, or commencement decorum — to justify their disciplinary actions. At the same time, each institution issued statements reaffirming their commitment to free expression, which only intensified the criticism from activists who saw these moves as veiled censorship.

Analysis and Context

The case of Megha Vemuri is part of a much larger debate that continues to intensify on American campuses: the clash between student activism and institutional boundaries, especially concerning the Israel-Hamas conflict. As with Vemuri, other cases from NYU, GWU, Harvard, Columbia, and Yale show how university administrations are walking a fine line — caught between demands for action from pro-Israel alumni and donors and warnings from free speech advocates who view disciplinary measures as oppressive.

MIT’s decision — to remove Vemuri from commencement but stop short of further sanctions — represents what some describe as a “middle ground” approach. By upholding its procedural rules while acknowledging the student's right to expression, the institute tried to contain the controversy without completely silencing protest. However, this approach hasn’t satisfied everyone. Critics on the left believe this sets a dangerous precedent against campus speech, while critics on the right insist that stronger action is needed to curb what they see as veiled antisemitism.

Several key patterns emerge from these incidents:

• Ceremony Platforms: Graduation speeches have become major flashpoints. As these are high-profile and widely broadcast events, unapproved political remarks — especially related to the Israel-Palestine issue — result in immediate administrative backlash. This was evident at MIT, NYU, and GWU, all in 2025.

• Time/Place/Manner Rules: Schools often cite these legal principles to justify disciplinary actions. At MIT, Chancellor Nobles specifically referred to the “time, place and manner” rule, which has now become a recurring theme across institutions when regulating student protest.

• Mixed Enforcement: Not all schools treat these violations equally. While Harvard and Columbia issued severe punishments like expulsion and degree revocation, MIT limited its reaction to barring Vemuri from commencement. The question remains whether further consequences will follow.

• Broad Impact: Each case reverberates well beyond campus gates. Vemuri’s speech, for instance, was cited by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency as “at least the third” such commencement controversy of the year. These incidents trigger national debates over free speech, antisemitism, and the role of activism in academia.

The Broader Problem: When Activism Becomes Intimidation

What makes the Megha Vemuri case even more troubling is its timing. She made her controversial speech at a moment when the U.S. government under President Donald Trump has vowed to crack down on campus activism, particularly those actions perceived as discriminatory or threatening to Jewish students. In such a charged climate, Vemuri’s behavior wasn’t just reckless—it was provocative.

Vemuri followed the trend and used a public and shared moment to push a divisive narrative that many believe crossed the line from political expression into targeted hostility. Rather than respecting the solemn nature of MIT’s commencement ceremony—a day of unity, pride, and celebration—she turned the spotlight onto herself, injecting a contentious agenda into a moment that was meant to uplift all graduates and their families.

Her conduct went far beyond peaceful protest or opinion-sharing. Vemuri’s remarks were not limited to dissent. She accused her own university of complicity in genocide and framed Israel’s actions as total erasure of an entire community. Such claims not only lacked nuance but dangerously distorted complex geopolitical realities. In doing so, she didn’t just express a viewpoint—she misrepresented facts, and more importantly, transformed an inclusive gathering into a theatre of political provocation.

What should have been a joyous moment for every student was suddenly mired in tension and pain. Her speech was so hurtful that several Jewish students felt the need to walk out of what should have been a moment of joy. Their exit wasn’t political—it was emotional. It was an act of retreat from a space that no longer felt safe or welcoming.

In her attempt to appear revolutionary, Vemuri exposed a deeper issue facing campuses today. In the name of resistance, people like Vemuri risk replacing dialogue with dogma and inclusivity with intimidation. University platforms, especially graduation ceremonies, are meant to reflect shared achievement and mutual respect—not become arenas for singling out communities with unverified accusations.

And the most pressing question raised by this episode is not just about free speech or protest etiquette—it’s about who really gets to feel safe and heard. And when the so-called revolution begins by pushing out Jewish students from their own graduation, it might be time to question just whose rights are being defended.

This is not merely a campus controversy; it’s a wake-up call. Institutions must reckon with how far activism can go before it ceases to be constructive. Vemuri’s speech may have aimed to spark change, but in alienating and silencing others, it only deepened the divides.