An Open Letter to Megha Vemuri
Cohen: “Your behavior was disrespectful to the graduates, the guests, the speakers, the alumni, and everyone who heard your speech”
Last week, you gave a speech at the OneMIT Ceremony.
I would like to quote to you the MIT Values Statement, which says "we cherish free expression, debate, and dialogue in pursuit of truth — and we commit to using these tools with respect for each other and our community.”
You did not meet your obligation to use those tools with respect for our community.
Here is a slightly abridged version of your speech, with my comments.
“I am 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... You showed the world that MIT wants a free Palestine.”
Yes, there were some protests with people chanting “Free Palestine,” many of them not members of the MIT community. That is not evidence of what MIT wants.
“Last spring, MIT’s undergraduate body and Graduate Student Union voted overwhelmingly to cut ties with the genocidal Israeli military.”
The graduate student vote was 664 students in favor, out of 7,344 eligible to vote.
90.1% did not care enough to vote yes.
The undergraduate vote was 1209 votes in favor out of an undergraduate population of roughly 4600. About 74% did not care enough to vote yes.
“You called for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, and you stood in solidarity with the pro-Palestine activists on campus.”
A permanent ceasefire with Hamas in control would mean that they can continue to rearm, rebuild the tunnels, and maintain Gaza as a pariah state, literally governed by terrorists. Hamas has promised to repeat October 7 over and over. You may trust them if they agree to a ceasefire. I don’t.
The protests were anti-Israel as much as pro-Palestine. If the protests were genuinely pro-Palestinian, there might have been calls for Hamas to return the hostages and unilaterally surrender, which would end the hostilities immediately. If the protests were genuinely pro-Palestine, there might have been complaints that Hamas diverted billions of dollars to build tunnels, instead of schools, hospitals, and roads, and that no elections have been held there since Hamas violently took control in 2007. The only solutions proposed by the protesters to improve the condition of Palestinians were the ones harmful to Israel, including permanent ceasefires that leave Hamas in power.
“You faced threats, intimidation, and suppression coming from all directions, especially your own university officials…”
The “threats, intimidation, and suppression” consisted of implementing time, place and manner restrictions uniformly. If anything, the threats, intimidation and suppression came from the anti-Israel protesters, threatening global intifada, intimidating MIT employees in their offices, and blocking hallways during protests.
“...but you prevailed because the MIT community that I know would never tolerate a genocide.”
Genocide requires intent. As the International Court of Justice says, “intent to destroy the group, in whole or in part, must be the only reasonable inference which can be drawn from the pattern of conduct.”
In Gaza, civilians are living on top of hundreds of miles of tunnels housing a terrorist army, so a reasonable inference could be made that the civilian deaths were the result of military objectives. That means that the requirement of intent is not met.
I have written a column in The Tech going into great detail about how the word “genocide” is inappropriate and have not gotten a single meaningful response.
“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 Palestine off the face of the earth, and it is a shame that MIT is a part of it.”
If Israel is trying to wipe Palestine off the face of the earth, why do they allow any food, water, fuel, electricity, medicine, vaccines, and more? Why do they warn civilians to move away from areas where they plan to attack? That eliminates any element of surprise that would benefit Israel, but it saves Gazan civilian lives.
“The Israeli occupation forces are the only foreign military that MIT has research ties with. This means that Israel’s assault on the Palestinian people is not only aided and abetted by our country, but our school. As scientists, engineers, academics, and leaders, we have a commitment to support life, support aid efforts, and call for an arms embargo, and keep demanding, now as alumni, that MIT cuts the ties.”
Again, as I outlined in great detail in a column in The Tech, none of the research being done is used for attacks in Gaza. Nobody has refuted those arguments. Much of the actual research is used to detect or shoot down rockets and missiles shot at civilian targets in Israel. Cutting the ties will not save a single Gazan, but may kill Israelis.
You then announced the traditional turning of the ring. During the turning, you said,
“We will carry with us the stamp of the MIT name, the same name that is directly complicit in the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people, and so we carry with us the obligation to do everything we can to stop it.”
This is where it gets personal.
I graduated 37 years ago, and I still remember turning my Brass Rat. It was an important inflection point, where I tipped over from one phase of my life to the next. I had a moment of introspection, of gratitude, of being present for this milestone.
For the vast majority of graduates (between 74% and 90%), you took that almost sacred moment and desecrated it by making it about the divisive, disruptive, biased message you wanted to send. You attempted to make them feel shame for going to MIT, rather than be proud of everything that they accomplished, and that MIT has accomplished.
You may have thought it was for the greater good, but it is not your place to decide how every single graduate must experience that meaningful tradition.
Your behavior was disrespectful to the graduates, the guests, the speakers, the alumni, and everyone who heard your speech. It was disrespectful to the traditions and values of the Institute.
I hope that, going forward, you are more respectful in how you choose to voice your personal opinion in a diverse community, and more respectful of the facts when you form that opinion.
Steve Cohen graduated in 1988 with an SB in Course 16.