NYU Withholds Diploma of Graduation Speaker Over Gaza Remarks, Spotlighting Troubling Antisemitic Undercurrents

By: Fern Sidman

In a move that has stirred sharp debate and drawn national attention, New York University has announced it is withholding the diploma of student speaker Logan Rozos after he  delivered an unsanctioned and inflammatory graduation speech that accused the United States of funding “genocide” in Gaza. As The New York Times reported on Thursday, Rozos’s address at NYU’s Gallatin School graduation ceremony marked a flashpoint in the ongoing campus battles over free speech, anti-Israel activism, and institutional responsibility.

The university said Rozos, 24, blatantly defied its policies and misled administrators about the content of his remarks, turning what was supposed to be a unifying and celebratory moment into a platform for political provocation. In a statement, NYU spokesman John Beckman confirmed that Rozos would not officially be considered graduated until the disciplinary process is complete.

“Mr. Rozos lied about the speech he was going to deliver and violated the commitment he made to comply with our rules,” Beckman stated, as reported by The New York Times. “NYU is deeply sorry that the audience was subjected to these remarks and that this moment was stolen by someone who abused a privilege that was conferred upon him.”

Rozos’ brief but charged comments, which lasted about two and a half minutes, opened with a declaration that “the only thing that is appropriate to say in this time and to a group this large is a recognition of the atrocities currently happening in Palestine.” As video of the speech revealed, this was met with cheers from the majority of attendees at Manhattan’s Beacon Theatre—but it also drew sharp rebuke from others who saw it as a thinly veiled attack on Israel and a gross misuse of a commencement platform.

While some media outlets rushed to frame Rozos’ actions as courageous, what remains conspicuously absent from much of the coverage is a deeper interrogation of the substance—and consequences—of such statements. As The New York Times observed, NYU has taken a tougher stance against pro-Hamas activism in recent months, including barring dozens of students from university buildings after disruptive protests.

Rozos accused the United States of directly supporting a “genocide,” referencing U.S. aid to Israel, and ended his speech with a condemnation of American complicity. Such rhetoric, particularly in an academic setting meant to foster learning and mutual respect, dangerously collapses complex geopolitical realities into simplistic—and inflammatory—talking points.

This kind of activist language, cloaked in the moralistic tone of social justice, often veers into territory that, while purporting to be political commentary, tiptoes into antisemitism. While Rozos did not explicitly target Jewish students or reference antisemitic tropes, his speech fits a broader pattern seen across American campuses: the transformation of anti-Israel activism into a vessel for more insidious bigotry. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has repeatedly warned that extreme rhetoric about Israel, particularly accusations of genocide or apartheid, can bleed into antisemitic sentiment, especially when delivered in emotionally charged public forums.

“We are appalled by the speech,” said Scott Richman, regional director of the ADL, according to The New York Times. “We are thankful to the NYU administration for their strong condemnation and their pursuit of disciplinary action.”

The contrast in reactions to Rozos’s speech has exposed a deepening chasm between free speech advocates and those concerned about rising antisemitism. Muslim advocacy group CAIR-NY praised Rozos, demanding his diploma be released and all disciplinary proceedings halted. Yet for Jewish students and faculty, the speech marked another moment where campus activism seemed less about policy debate and more about vilification of Israel and, by extension, its supporters.

Rozos, whose personal biography identifies him as a “gay Black trans man,” has previously positioned himself as a voice for the marginalized, a narrative that can obscure valid criticism of his rhetoric. His intersectional identity has been prominently cited in support of his actions, yet it does not shield him from the obligation to speak responsibly—especially on issues that can inflame tensions in diverse university settings.

The New York Times also noted that Rozos is not new to public platforms. He gained attention as an actor in the 2019 television series David Makes Man, and has since advocated for LGBTQ rights. While his passion for activism is apparent, it does not justify co-opting a graduation ceremony to deliver a divisive political statement in violation of the university’s code of conduct.

In light of his actions, NYU has come under pressure from both sides. Pro-Palestinian groups have decried the university’s response as censorship, while Jewish organizations and many faculty members have applauded the administration for enforcing its standards.

Even within the university community, concerns persist about the growing normalization of anti-Israel sentiment wrapped in the guise of activism. As The New York Times has chronicled, universities across the country are bracing for more such moments during commencement season, where protests and provocative speeches may erupt under the pretense of social justice.

NYU’s decision to discipline Rozos sends a clear message: the privilege of addressing a graduating class comes with the responsibility to uphold the values and guidelines of the institution. When a speaker uses that opportunity to promote controversial views that many perceive as deeply offensive—or potentially antisemitic—the university has a duty to respond.

Rozos may well see himself as a moral truth-teller, but in this case, his dramatic flourish masked a calculated breach of trust and decorum. As the incident continues to draw national scrutiny, it also serves as a reminder that while political discourse is essential to higher education, it must not come at the expense of civility, community, or truth.

And in this case, as The New York Times reported, the university has chosen to draw a firm line—one that many believe was long overdue.