The University of Maryland Student Government Association voted overwhelmingly to press the school to ban Israeli Defense Forces speakers after a campus event in October drew protests and detentions; the move has sparked a free speech fight, raised campus safety questions, and exposed a campus political split over how to handle controversial speakers and protesters.
The SGA approved the resolution by a 25-0 margin with one abstention, demanding the university condemn the IDF visit, apologize to protesters and restrict future campus appearances by certain military-affiliated speakers. The measure followed an event where Students Supporting Israel invited three IDF soldiers to speak, and a protest broke out during that appearance. Four people were detained by university police at the scene, which became a key grievance for the resolution’s sponsors and supporters.
The SGA language asks the university to forbid any “speakers who have been found, or are being actively investigated for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or systematic human rights violations” from campus, folding international allegations into campus policy. That phrasing ties local event management to sweeping, often politicized international claims and hands student government real power over who gets a platform on campus. Critics argue that allowing a student body to blacklist speakers based on investigations or allegations risks eroding the long American tradition of open debate.
Supporters of the resolution say campus safety and moral clarity demanded action after an event that many students found hurtful and provocative. They also demanded the university apologize for the detentions and meet with those who were held so they could voice concerns and push for policy changes. One SGA sponsor framed the matter as a matter of fairness and protection for students who felt threatened by the appearance and the university’s response.
“It was a double standard that the university decided that it was worth university resources to protect war criminals rather than their own students, considering students who vocally spoke out against this event were detained,” Zyad Khan, UMD student and SGA representative who sponsored the resolutions, told The Diamondback. That line captures the anger on one side of the debate, but it also raises real questions about how campus police and administrators weigh speaker security against protester rights.
University policy does prohibit disruption of events and restricts protesting inside venues to ensure speakers can be heard, a rule administrators cite when they act to protect events. Protesters argue those policies are enforced unevenly, and the SGA resolution explicitly calls for an apology for the detentions and for a meeting to discuss policy reform. Those demands put administrators in a tough spot: back speakers and risk alienating parts of the student body, or placate protesters and open the door to selective silencing.
The resolution also referenced a September United Nations report that said Israel committed “genocidal acts” in the Gaza Strip such as “killing and seriously harming unprecedented numbers of Palestinians” and “blocking humanitarian aid leading to starvation,” among other claims. Citing international findings to justify campus bans blurs lines between legal standards, political opinion and campus governance. For many on the right, using international reports as a basis for denying campus platforms feels like politicizing education and weaponizing allegations instead of defending free expression.
This episode at UMD is a snapshot of a larger national trend on campuses: student governments and activist groups pushing to limit who can speak, while administrations try to enforce order and protect property. Republicans who follow these fights will focus on defending free speech, calling out double standards in enforcement, and insisting universities must remain places for debate, not gatekeepers that shut down perspectives they dislike. The fight over who can speak at a university is not just local; it is a test of whether college campuses will stay committed to open discourse or drift into partisan gatekeeping.
