An ugly edge case which is also clarifying

An edge case that challenges our modern epistemic environment. 

A Turkish woman, pursuing graduate studies at Tufts University, has been detained for deportation on the grounds that she supports terrorist organizations.  

Opponents to the detention and prospective deportation are focusing on whether she was targeted in transgression of her free speech rights.  

Easily located are legacy mainstream media articles in support of the woman, Rumeysa Ozturk.  See the New York Times for example:  Targeting of Tufts Student for Deportation Stuns Friends and Teachers by Anemona Hartocollis.  The subheading is The Trump administration said she “engaged in activities in support of Hamas.” Her friends and lawyers say all she did was co-author an essay critical of the war in Gaza.

Also extensively shared, are videos of her detention.

The horrific moment that Tufts grad student and anti-war activist Rumeysa Ozturk was detained (kidnapped) by Trump’s ICE thugs.

Somerville, MA #FreePalestine #FreeRemeysa pic.twitter.com/eetyAN1LSF

— Working Mass (@DSAWorkingMass) March 26, 2025

Among all the tweets, you can immediately tell where the poster sits based on the framing:  "She was detained . . ." versus "She was kidnapped . . . " versus "She was taken into custody .  . ."

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has a clear explanation of why she was detained.

 

WATCH 🔴

Marco Rubio on Rumeysa Ozturk, the Turkish student who was detained:

“We revoked her visa. It’s an F-1 visa, I believe. We revoked it, and here’s why—I’ve said it everywhere, and I’ll say it again.

Let me be abundantly clear: If you apply for a student visa to come to… pic.twitter.com/ysnncquYue

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) March 27, 2025

Finally, it appears that the Secretary of State does have broad latitude for revoking any visa at any time on the basis of national security concerns, fraud, or ineligibility based on new information.  

So where are we?  Dangerous terrorist supporter?  Victim of free speech abridgment?   Authoritarian overreach by the Secretary of State or pragmatic pursuit of legitimate policy (against terrorism and against antisemitism)?  Is Rumeysa Ozturk a real danger to the safety and security of the nation or is she a naive student who F***ed around and Found Out?

Rubio's argument seems pragmatic and unexceptional.  We have no obligation to admit individuals who choose to constitute a danger to person, property, or our Republic.  If they engage in such activities, the Secretary of State has broad latitude to revoke their visa and then deport them.  

Lawyers will be arguing the details of every part of that statement, as they do make pedantic arguments to win points, but from a practical perspective, I am comfortable working from the above assumptions.

Further, I have to assume, for the time being, that all the evidence is in the public forum.  The government could very well have additional knowledge which bears on their actions but which is not out there yet.  

Based solely on what is known and reported though, this seems a marked edge case.

While there are complications to the government's position, the Mahmoud Khalil case at Columbia University is comparatively straight-forward.  He actively led and participated in actions on campus which led to the destruction of University property, disruption of classes and operations, and which entailed the harassment and assault of University students based on their religion.  Further, the actions have the plausible appearance of being in support of properly designated terrorist groups such as Hamas.

His actions were illegal (property crimes, violent protest, harassment and injury) regardless of visa, residence, or citizenship status.

Rumeysa Ozturk does not seem comparable (based on public information).  It seems that she co-authored an op-ed which brought attention to her and which in turn led to her detention.

What has been striking is that in none of the many initial accounts, did anyone, sympathetic or otherwise, link to the op-ed.  This raised my suspicions.  If it was so clearly innocuous, they would have mention as part of the general indictment of the inexcusably broad net being cast.

It took me a while to find, but the op-ed is online; Try again, President Kumar: Renewing calls for Tufts to adopt March 4 TCU Senate resolutions by Rumeysa Ozturk, Fatima Rahman, Genesis Perez and Nicholas Ambeliotis, Published Tuesday, March 26, 2024.  

Ozturk and her colleagues are demanding that the Tufts University administration "acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, apologize for University President Sunil Kumar’s statements, disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel."  

The Tufts Community Union Senate passed a number of pro-Palestine, pro-BDS resolutions which the University administration appears to be ignoring.  

Fairly run-of-the-mill pro-Palestinian demands which are frequently associated with on-campus antisemitism and are congruent with the sentiments and objectives of various terrorist groups such as Hamas.  But it sure looks only like speech, nothing incendiary or directly linked to violence.

Is Rubio simply exercising discretionary power over-broadly?  What else is in the op-ed?

It reads sophomorically in a high school fashion of overindulged students with an exaggerated concept of their wisdom and rights over others and a disposition to overstate the facts and represent themselves as speaking for everyone when they are only speaking for themselves.

There is much rhetoric and hothouse conviction with little credibility.  Much of the argument is dependent on very fine parsing of words.  

There appear to me to be no calls for violence.  In fact, it very much reads as a childish proclamation of self-importance.  

The only real hook I see, bar one, is that the op-ed alludes to the Graduate Students for Palestine group and the Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine as opposed to the administration.  It is possible that the authors of the editorial are members of one or both of those groups and that each or both might have a more explicit role in violent protests with illegal actions.  

Graduate Students for Palestine seems to be a nationwide group closely affiliated with violent and antisemitic protests and actions.  The ADL has a writeup for Students for Justice in Palestine.  Key points include:

• SJP refers to a network of anti-Zionist student groups on university campuses across the U.S.
• SJP is also used as shorthand for National SJP or NSJP, the National Students for Justice in Palestine, which is led by a Steering Committee.
• Individual SJP chapters and National SJP have justified and/or glorified the Hamas-led October 7 attack on Israel. They were also a central organizer of the 2024 student encampments across US universities and colleges.
• SJP chapters take their cues from NSJP and often promote and cross-post the same messaging and “calls to action” on social media and at protests.
• National SJP (NSJP) and many SJP chapters have called for "Zionists"— those who believe in the Jewish people's right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland and have connections to Israel—to be removed from campus spaces or from universities altogether. Some SJP chapters have called to ban Hillel (the premier Jewish student group in the US) and Chabad, and some activists have gone so far as to call for harassing or intimidating Zionists and vandalizing Zionist institutions.
• Many SJP chapters have shared explicit pro-Hamas or other FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organizations) rhetoric on social media, including through the promotion of FTO statements and images featuring members of FTOs, at times with weapons.

The authors of the editorial refer to the support of their points by Graduate Students for Palestine and Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine, both nationwide alliances of students pursuing violent protest on university campuses and in support of Hamas and in opposition to Israel and with reasonably explicit degrees of antisemitism.  

Was Rumeysa Ozturk in any way affiliated with either Graduate Students for Palestine or the Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine?  If so, then the deportation order makes much greater sense.  If not, then it is still very much an edge case.

That's about as far as I got with fifteen minutes of research.

I am uncomfortable that the rational for the deportation order seems based on free speech.  On the other hand, I fully support that the Secretary of State seems to have the authority to make a determination whether a visa holder's actions, even if non-violent, and even if otherwise protected speech for citizens, might pose a potential danger for US citizens.

Ozturk co-authored an editorial that is seemingly consonant with the objectives of two violent advocacy groups who explicitly support the objectives of Hamas and also explicitly oppose the existence and actions of a longterm US ally, Israel.  

Is that sufficient grounds to deport her?

I would prefer a clearer case, of which there are many.  But way out on the edge, even if she is non-violent herself, not in a leadership position of either violent group and perhaps not even a member of either group?

I don't like it but if pressed, I am fine with someone in the administration making a pragmatic decision along the lines articulated by Rubio.  You are a guest of this nation and you are admitted to pursue an education, not to function in an advocacy role against the interests of the citizens and the nation.