Prahlad Iyengar recently came across a video of children in Gaza reacting to the sound of their school bell ringing through a pair of headphones. Iyengar watched as the children burst into tears over how much they missed school, unsure which of their teachers and friends were still alive.

Iyengar, a Ph.D. candidate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has felt similarly in recent weeks—though not to the same extent. In Gaza, Israel has destroyed communities, wiped out schools and universities, and killed more than 45,000 Palestinians, leaving many others starving, displaced, or missing. But as Iyengar watched the video from Cambridge, he shared a keen sense of loss: He, too, misses school.

The 24-year-old electrical engineering student hasn’t stepped foot on MIT’s campus since Nov. 1, when he was notified via email that he was banned from its grounds. Since then, his charges have escalated, and he now faces a yearlong suspension. He said this would effectively terminate his participation in his National Science Foundation fellowship. By January 2026, he’d be too far behind on his work, and his readmission would hinge on approval from the same committee that is currently issuing the discipline. 

Iyengar represents just one among thousands of students across the country facing repression for organizing against Israel’s genocide in Gaza, including a Cornell University student who was nearly deenrolled in the fall.

“I miss being in school, I miss going to my classes, I miss seeing my friends on campus,” Iyengar said. “But I have the luxury of being able to miss those things. The schoolchildren of Gaza, the college students of Gaza, their campuses have been bombed. None of their campuses are still standing.”

At issue is an article Iyengar, who has been heavily involved in campus activism for Palestine, wrote for the MIT student publication Written Revolution. In the latest edition of the magazine, Iyengar penned an article titled “On Pacifism,” in which he calls for a reevaluation of pacifism—or unconditional nonviolence—as an overall strategy, and to instead view it as one of many tactics within pro-Palestinian activism. 

MIT’s Office of Student Conduct swiftly responded to “numerous” complaints it said it received about the article, which also featured images of posters from the Marxist-Leninist resistance movement Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which was designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department in 1997. One image featured in the article read, “We will burn the ground beneath your feet,” accompanied by the PFLP emblem. 

In a Nov. 1 email to Iyengar, obtained by Prism, MIT called the article’s imagery “deeply concerning” and its statements “troubling.”

“The reports MIT received indicated that these statements could be interpreted as a call for more violent or destructive forms of protest at MIT,” the email said. “Including stating that it is time to ‘begin wreaking havoc’ and ‘exact[ing] a cost’ at MIT.”

MIT also banned Iyengar and the other students who led the publication from distributing the issue on campus.

Iyengar said he wasn’t expecting this fallout when he wrote the article and that restricting his campus access and magazine distribution violates free speech. He said that the inclusion of the PFLP image doesn’t mean he endorses the group but instead serves as a historical reference. He rejected claims that his article’s statements supported tactics of terrorism, including his call to “begin wreaking havoc.”

“Wreaking havoc is also a tactic of 2-year-olds when they throw tantrums,” Iyengar said.

Iyengar also denied claims that the article calls for an escalation of violence. Instead, he said it urges readers to treat pacifism as one protest tactic, instead of an overall strategy, and to reframe their thoughts about violence in response to oppression.

We cannot be honest with ourselves about a movement that’s trying to dismantle a colonial regime without acknowledging that, yes, at some level, it requires non-pacifist action.Prahlad Iyengar

“We cannot be honest with ourselves about a movement that’s trying to dismantle a colonial regime without acknowledging that, yes, at some level, it requires non-pacifist action,” Iyengar said. “But non-pacifist action is not limited to violence.”

MIT’s email to Iyengar also noted several other pending disciplinary cases, including an email blast regarding MIT’s Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), which Iyengar said has research ties to Israel. Iyengar led an October protest outside CSAIL labs, then emailed its graduate workers and postdoctoral researchers to explain the protest’s aims and invite them to join the cause.

MIT said in its email to Iyengar that he amplified an “unauthorized protest” that disrupted CSAIL work, created safety concerns, and led to an assault of a CSAIL staff member.

However, when MIT notified Iyengar of his suspension on Dec. 4, it cited disciplinary sanctions not for the article or the email, but for accusations of harassment and intimidation at a September career fair. 

At the career fair, Iyengar—who was already on probation for his involvement in a Palestine solidarity encampment and other protests in the spring—approached recruiters from the aerospace and defense company Lockheed Martin, which manufactures fighter jets and missiles used in the Israeli military. 

Iyengar said he struck up a conversation with Lockheed Martin recruiters, mentioning that he would not be comfortable working on projects complicit in Israel’s military offense. Iyengar said he was trying to think deeply about the impact of science and engineering, and to learn about Lockheed Martin’s mission. 

“And what I learned was that they want MIT students to work for the military,” Iyengar said. “That, to me, doesn’t sit right.”

MIT’s discipline committee determined that Iyengar approached Lockheed Martin recruiters with the intent to probe in a way that witnesses said went beyond civil discourse, Iyengar said. Iyengar, however, said claims that he harassed, intimidated, or taunted the company’s recruiters are untrue and that no such actions are shown in police camera footage and other evidence the committee reviewed. 

Michel DeGraff, a linguistics professor who has been vocal in his support of Palestine and the student protesters, was at the career fair and disputed MIT’s characterization of events. He said Iyengar and other students were asking “tough questions” to recruiters about the company’s role in Israel’s genocide in Palestine. DeGraff said Iyengar appeared “polite and very composed” throughout the interaction and exhibited no signs of intimidating or harassing behaviors.

He said the students have expressed “outrage” at MIT’s collaboration with such companies and that they raised a banner above Lockheed Martin’s recruiting booth that read “Lockheed kills kids in Gaza.”

“And that’s a fact,” DeGraff said. “Lockheed Martin’s weapons are killing children in Gaza.”

DeGraff described MIT’s disciplinary actions against Iyengar as a repression of speech. 

“It’s as if MIT doesn’t care about the truth,” DeGraff said. “All they want to do is to repress the students, put them in this Kafkaesque cycle of accusations, and basically get them away from expressing the deeply ethical beliefs about what’s happening in Gaza.”

An MIT spokesperson said the university cannot discuss the details of any student disciplinary matter.

“Even in instances where misinformation may be in circulation, we are unable to comment because doing so may suggest or reveal information we are obliged to keep private,” the spokesperson said in an email.

Eric Lee, a federal immigration lawyer who is advising Iyengar in his disciplinary case, said MIT’s disciplinary process raises concerns about the status of free speech on college campuses.

The university’s disciplinary procedures against Iyengar after publishing his article “should send a chill down the spine of defenders of the First Amendment,” Lee said. 

Jessie Rossman, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said that although private colleges like MIT are not subject to the First Amendment, “their policies must be applied equally and fairly.”

“University leaders should consider not only what is lawful, but also what is wise,” Rossman said. “Colleges and universities play a critical role in our democracy by providing a marketplace for ideas and expression, where multiple viewpoints can be explored and debate is encouraged—even for speech that is unpopular, controversial, or deeply offensive.” 

Iyengar filed an appeal with the student conduct committee on Dec. 11, hoping to get the suspension lifted. For now, he awaits word from MIT, with no set deadline in sight. 
“I actually feel sort of righteous [indignation],” Iyengar said. “I do think that this has had an extremely chilling effect on speech, and I think it will only get worse.”

---

---