By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Dakota State University (DSU) will award an honorary doctorate and commencement speaking role to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, prompting a student-led protest. The demonstration will challenge Noem’s record on immigration and LGBTQ+ issues, actions students believe contradict DSU’s values. Fear of reprisal, particularly among international students and those in the cybersecurity program, has created a tense atmosphere on campus, despite faculty and student senate votes against the honor. This event marks a departure from DSU’s typically apolitical campus environment.
Read the original article here
South Dakota State University’s decision to award an honorary doctorate and invite Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to deliver the commencement address has sparked considerable controversy among the student body. Many students strongly oppose this choice, citing concerns about Noem’s political record and actions, yet fear openly expressing their dissent. This fear is particularly pronounced among international students, who understandably worry about the potential repercussions for their immigration status and future opportunities. The perceived risk of jeopardizing their careers or even facing deportation creates a chilling effect, silencing voices that would otherwise be heard in protest.
The apprehension felt by students highlights a deeper issue regarding free speech and the potential for retaliation in today’s political climate. The very real fear of negative consequences for expressing opposing views underscores a chilling atmosphere on campus, raising concerns about academic freedom and the open exchange of ideas. This situation compels a careful examination of the university’s commitment to fostering a truly inclusive and open environment for all its students, regardless of their political beliefs or immigration status.
The controversy extends beyond the fear of reprisal. Many students object to Noem’s record, pointing to specific actions and policies they find objectionable. The seriousness of these objections is not diminished by the inherent risks associated with voicing them. Students feel a responsibility to express their ethical and moral concerns about awarding an honor to someone whose actions they deeply disagree with. This underscores a conflict between personal conviction and the potential professional and personal sacrifices required to act on those convictions.
The arguments against Noem’s selection are not solely based on political disagreements; they also involve deeply personal moral objections. The gravity of these objections, as illustrated by some students’ references to past incidents, creates an environment where the decision to honor Noem feels deeply inappropriate to many within the university community. The feeling that the university is rewarding actions seen as morally repugnant further fuels the student body’s opposition.
The university’s response to the student protest is an important factor to consider. The silence or dismissiveness from the administration, as perceived by many students, only exacerbates their concerns and reinforces their belief that their voices are being ignored. The perceived lack of responsiveness from university leadership further entrenches the sense of helplessness and vulnerability among those who oppose the decision. This dynamic reinforces the notion that students are left with limited options for expressing their dissatisfaction.
The situation at DSU provides a cautionary tale about the intersection of politics and higher education. The controversy highlights the delicate balance universities must maintain between academic freedom, student rights, and the potential for political controversy to disrupt campus life. It also raises questions about the selection criteria for honorary degrees and the responsibility of universities in upholding their stated values when confronted with conflicting interests. The students’ anxieties reflect a larger societal concern about the suppression of dissent and the consequences of speaking out against powerful figures.
The students’ dilemma forces a consideration of the very nature of graduation ceremonies. The possibility of choosing to boycott the commencement ceremony rather than risk personal consequences reveals the deeply personal nature of the conflict. It points to the fact that, for some, obtaining the degree itself is the primary concern, and the ceremony is a secondary consideration—a recognition of their academic achievement rather than a celebratory event. This decision-making process underscores the extent to which students are weighing personal safety and career aspirations against their moral compulsions.
Ultimately, the protest, or lack thereof, represents a complex interplay of fear, moral conviction, and personal ambition. The situation at DSU should serve as a stark reminder of the challenges facing universities in maintaining an inclusive and equitable environment in today’s politically charged climate. The students’ concerns cannot be dismissed lightly. They raise fundamental questions about the responsibilities of higher education institutions and the critical need to protect and defend the rights and voices of all students.