This is an effective form of protest. It causes someone who is clearly courting public affection to see they won't get it. It doesn't interrupt the speech for others who want to hear. But it's also not going to be missed by anyone at the assembly. Moreover, it communicates to the administration–who are also courting donations and prestige–that this gets more difficult when there is a massive gap on an issue students care about between them and leadership.
My only gripe is the lack of a clear ask. But perfect is the enemy of good.
As the article mentions, this is the third consecutive year that students have led a walkout for the same cause. I don’t think anyone’s obligated to sit in on a speech they’d prefer to skip, but it’s not clear that there’s anything being accomplished here other than a new tradition that pro-Palestine students leave commencement early. They’re not making any new demands because the administration flatly refused the 2024 ones.
> it’s not clear that there’s anything being accomplished here other than a new tradition that pro-Palestine students leave commencement early
It keeps it in the news cycle. Though it was genuinely unclear to me if this was mostly a pro-Palestine thing or folks pissy about AI and the Epstein class’s public corruption.
Is it? I have to assume that Pichai was informed beforehand that there would be a walkout. Around 10% if the class walking out is not that big of a deal, especially considering that ten percent was probably not likely to seek gainful employment with Pichai’s companies anyway.
Economically, the BDS movement is making demands of so many companies that there’s hardly a large firm or other organization in the country they don’t have a problem with. But if you are saying you’re going to boycott everyone, it means you’re not really boycotting anyone.
That assumes that the real purpose of these movements is to achieve their stated goals, rather than as a social activity for people of a certain mindset. If you look at it more like a church outing it makes a lot more sense, albeit the church is really messed up.
They’re expressing a broad slice of gripes to a powerful person. The point isn’t to get a win. It’s to embarrass them. Make them uncomfortable. So that they then ask how to prevent that in the future.
I don’t think there is any action Pichai can take on this that wouldn’t hurt vastly more than a few students walking out of his commencement speech. He is a man well used to people complaining about his policies. Googlers do so all the time internally, including on this same topic, and have been for years. If gestures like this were going to move him, he’d have been moved already.
That being said, I don’t have a problem with people standing up for what they believe, even when it has no practical impact. It’s good character building. I would expect that Sundar is similarly unbothered.
If you're still trying to shame the shameless in 2026 then you missed the past decade IMO. The likes of Pichai can afford to ignore the 10% that walked out, frankly they can afford to ignore far more than that and have to great success. The idea that symbolic actions by a small number of students represents something other than entertainment for those students and hope-porn for their elders doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The upper middle class' opinions and reflections on business seem to be shifting in this environment. It seems less mutually beneficial than it used to be.
A lot of upper middle class people recognize that AI is a direct assault on their livelihood. The very jobs that AI threatens to disrupt are the bread and butter of the upper middle class.
A good majority of those will be from 2 income families, so each making about $40/hr, fairly normal in any middle class suburb near a metropolitan area.
The "no" is incorrect. Some people use it to refer to the upper middle class. But this betrays the term's original Revolutionary as well as Marxists roots, and I'd argue, is inherently incorrect.
The main reason we blur these lines is because we want to call our poor middle class. And our rich don't want to admit that we're rich.
> it's the upper middle class that own the businesses and factories
I.e. everyone with a 401(k). (Two fifths of Americans have no material shareownership.)
If you don’t own equities or real estate in America, you’re poor. If you do, you’re middle class or rich. And if you’re middle class or rich and confused which you are, if you have ever chartered a private plane you’re rich, if you haven’t you’re the bourgeoisie.
My only gripe is the lack of a clear ask. But perfect is the enemy of good.
It keeps it in the news cycle. Though it was genuinely unclear to me if this was mostly a pro-Palestine thing or folks pissy about AI and the Epstein class’s public corruption.
Economically, the BDS movement is making demands of so many companies that there’s hardly a large firm or other organization in the country they don’t have a problem with. But if you are saying you’re going to boycott everyone, it means you’re not really boycotting anyone.
That being said, I don’t have a problem with people standing up for what they believe, even when it has no practical impact. It’s good character building. I would expect that Sundar is similarly unbothered.
Of course he can. But he’s still choosing to speak at a commencement. Why?
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...:
The bourgeoisie are literally the middle class [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_class#Bourg...
There is even a funny article here: https://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-bourgeoisie-primer
There is more here: https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/hilk3e/trying...
So, if you want to play it safe, you can say, "it's the upper middle class that own the businesses and factories"
I'll give it to you
The "no" is incorrect. Some people use it to refer to the upper middle class. But this betrays the term's original Revolutionary as well as Marxists roots, and I'd argue, is inherently incorrect.
The main reason we blur these lines is because we want to call our poor middle class. And our rich don't want to admit that we're rich.
> it's the upper middle class that own the businesses and factories
I.e. everyone with a 401(k). (Two fifths of Americans have no material shareownership.)
If you don’t own equities or real estate in America, you’re poor. If you do, you’re middle class or rich. And if you’re middle class or rich and confused which you are, if you have ever chartered a private plane you’re rich, if you haven’t you’re the bourgeoisie.
At least something I agree with you, it quite makes sense