The echoes of graduation ceremonies across America this year carried a dissonant note: the vocal disapproval of students towards commencement speakers who lauded artificial intelligence. While the widespread adoption of AI among younger generations is undeniable, a growing undercurrent of fear and mistrust regarding its future implications is also becoming increasingly apparent. A recent Gallup poll highlighted this trend, revealing a significant decline in Gen Z’s sentiment towards AI, with only 22 percent expressing excitement and a substantial 42 percent reporting anxiety. This backdrop of apprehension set the stage for a particularly striking event at Stanford University, a long-standing pipeline into Silicon Valley’s elite tech industry.
At Stanford’s commencement, over a hundred students staged a walkout during the address by Google CEO Sundar Pichai. While Pichai’s speech did not explicitly focus on artificial intelligence, the demonstration’s organizers underscored that their protest extended far beyond concerns about AI. Their primary objective was to draw attention to Google’s contracts with the U.S. and Israeli governments, as well as with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This coordinated action, which garnered international media attention from outlets like CNN and the BBC and amassed millions of views online, signals a potent shift in student activism, moving beyond technological anxieties to confront the broader ethical entanglements of Big Tech.
The Genesis of a Protest: Stanford’s Role and Student Activism
Stanford University, deeply embedded within the Silicon Valley ecosystem, has historically been a breeding ground for tech innovation and a primary recruiting ground for major technology firms. However, this year’s graduating class demonstrated a stark divergence from that established trajectory, choosing to challenge the very institutions that have shaped their academic and professional futures. The walkout was not an isolated incident but the culmination of years of student organizing around issues of environmental justice, human rights, and corporate accountability.
Amanda Campos, a graduate in Environmental Policy, articulated her journey from aspiring environmental innovator to activist. "I quite literally came to Stanford because I knew I wanted to take action, to solve the environmental crisis," Campos explained. Her initial idealism, however, was quickly met with the reality of the university’s deep ties to the fossil fuel industry. This realization, coupled with the escalating conflict in Palestine, led her to see the interconnectedness of environmental justice and the Palestinian liberation movement. As a lead organizer with Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Campos recognized the symbolic weight of Pichai’s selection as commencement speaker. "Choosing a Google CEO is indicative of such a tie and of such a bias, really," she stated.
Eva Jones, who pursued master’s degrees in Hydrology and Water Resources alongside bachelor’s degrees in Feminist Philosophy and Freshwater Engineering, shared a similar trajectory. She arrived at Stanford five years prior with the belief that the institution would harness its resources to address existential threats. "I came to Stanford… because I truly believed that a place like Stanford was looking to pool together minds and resources to tackle these existential threats to humanity, to build the kind of world that I always envisioned could be possible, one of connection, one of belonging." Her experience, however, also led her to confront the university’s administrative challenges, particularly through anti-sexual violence organizing. By 2023, the student encampments in solidarity with Palestine became a focal point for collective action, allowing students to redefine their educational purpose.
Beyond AI: Unpacking the Core Grievances
The Stanford walkout, while occurring amidst broader concerns about AI, was fundamentally rooted in a critique of Google’s corporate practices and its complicity in human rights violations. The press release issued by the organizers meticulously detailed their grievances, highlighting Google’s contracts with the U.S. government, particularly ICE, and its technological support for Israel through initiatives like Project Nimbus.
"As soon as we heard that Stanford chose Sundar Pichai to be our commencement speaker we knew we had to speak out," Campos asserted. She elaborated on years of organizing through "Tech for Liberation" and "Palestinian liberation organizing," which had exposed Google’s role in providing the "technological backbone" for what the UN Commission has found to be a genocide, and for the "continued surveillance and apartheid that Israel imposes on the Palestinian people." Furthermore, the organizers pointed to Google’s technological support for ICE’s "surveillance, targeting, and quite literally killing operations."
While acknowledging the widespread anxiety among recent graduates about AI-driven job losses, Campos emphasized that the issue transcended economic concerns. "AI is not only causing job losses, it’s quite literally killing people, and that is something that we knew we just had to call out," she stated. The students saw an opportunity, and a duty, to hold the CEO of a multi-trillion-dollar company accountable.
Eva Jones further contextualized the walkout as more than just a protest against a speaker. It was a deliberate act to launch "the walkout to the People’s Commencement." This parallel event served as a space for students of conviction, their families, and mentors to celebrate an education forged "in opposition to the university and its corporate sponsors." The People’s Commencement offered an alternative to a corporate-endorsed ceremony, providing a platform to celebrate the students’ commitment to using their education for a better world, even when it meant challenging the dominant narratives and career pipelines promoted by institutions like Stanford.
The "People’s Commencement": An Alternative Celebration of Values
The decision to organize a parallel "People’s Commencement" offered a powerful counter-narrative to the traditional graduation ceremony. This alternative event provided a space for graduates and their supporters to celebrate their achievements and, more importantly, their values. "Many of us, including myself and Amanda, were not excited to go celebrate an education that we fundamentally believe to be in service of the liberated world that we want to see at some corporate buyout, [an] advertisement for the likes of Google or whoever Stanford had decided that was going to be," Jones explained.
The People’s Commencement was envisioned as a space to honor the conviction with which graduates intended to apply their educations, and to celebrate those who had "gone up against the dominant narrative and career pipelines at a university like Stanford." For Jones, it was "the best way to have celebrated my graduation."
The emotional impact of this alternative celebration was profound, even for the graduates’ families. Jones recounted her parents’ initial apprehension about her walking out of the official ceremony, particularly as she had missed her high school graduation due to the pandemic. However, after attending the People’s Commencement, they were deeply moved. "They thanked me, and they were like, ‘Thank you for bringing us into this community that you’ve created, and we understand why this means so much to you, because this is more meaningful than anything that could’ve been told to us in some hot stadium by some CEO or whatever. This clearly means something to you. This means something to the world.’"
Amanda Campos also shared a touching account of her father and sibling attending the People’s Commencement. Having been an organizer for years, she encouraged her father to attend, assuring him that the alternative event would feature speakers with "much better messages to tell than the Google CEO." For Campos, having her younger sibling present was particularly significant. "For me, through my organizing, but really through my entire life, it’s been really important to me to be a good role model, but also someone that they can look up to. So for me it was just absolutely beautiful having them there." The experience allowed her to demonstrate to her sibling "that there is a different world that we’re building for them… one that we can actually have a voice in and celebrate."
Navigating the Media Landscape and Student Resistance
The Stanford walkout generated significant media attention, a testament to the organizers’ strategic communication and the resonance of their message. While the students focused heavily on organizing, they were undoubtedly pleased with the widespread coverage. "Honestly, we were just so focused on organizing. We definitely wanted to have good media and such, but we definitely did not see the widespread media attention coming," Campos admitted.
Jones emphasized the importance of framing the student movement beyond narrow concerns. "I think that, very often, student organizers against tech and against military tech in particular are shoehorned by media outlets to be sort of reactionary and focused on their own career opportunities. So what was really important to us was to show the depth of the student movement here." She highlighted the global nature of these issues, connecting corporate extraction, worker exploitation, data center proliferation, and the mechanization of warfare. The students’ message was clear: their concerns were not merely about AI taking jobs but about the "ethical future of humanity" and the "environmental future that we are going to inherit."
Despite the international attention, the student community itself presented a complex landscape of reactions. While there was significant support for the protest, the pervasive career pipeline at Stanford, funneling students into Big Tech, also created a degree of polarization. "I would say that among students there’s definitely popular opposition against inviting the Google CEO as the commencement speaker," Campos noted. She pointed out that students had submitted a list of preferred speakers, but the final selection was made by the administration.
The narrative that questioned the appropriateness of walking out of commencement was countered by the students’ fundamental objection to the choice of speaker. "We found it pretty insulting to have the Google CEO as a commencement speaker because the Google Cloud and the Google Gemini technologies that Google is providing to ICE and CBP through pretty expensive contracts, that’s impacting our communities too," Campos stated, drawing a direct line from corporate contracts to the persecution of immigrant communities. She poignantly noted the precariousness of her own position, stating, "The only thing separating me from someone whose parent was kidnapped is luck. The only thing separating me from a student in Gaza whose university has been bombed is luck, and we understand that as the student movement."
Eva Jones further elaborated on the experience of organizing within Stanford, particularly through "Tech for Liberation." She described flyering at career fairs, educating students about the implications of working for defense contractors like Raytheon or even companies like Google that support military endeavors. "I think that there’s a lot of students who, like Amanda is saying, are enticed by these Big Tech jobs, but they don’t really understand the world they’re trying to build," Jones observed. She perceived a significant number of students as being unaware of the extent to which their intellectual labor was being "drafted" to fuel "massive exploits of military violence." Her conclusion was that "most students don’t want to be drafted."
Reimagining Stanford and Demanding Corporate Accountability
The aspirations of the Stanford walkout organizers extend to a fundamental reimagining of the university’s mission and a clear demand for corporate accountability. Eva Jones articulated a vision of Stanford as a place dedicated to understanding and problem-solving, rather than solely prioritizing profit for its shareholders. "I want to see Stanford become the place of learning that I thought it would be," she stated, emphasizing a need to "put together the resources that it has to make the world a better place and really take on the challenges that face us instead of securing a never-ending bottom line for its corporate shareholders."
Amanda Campos recalled a statement by Stanford President Jonathan Levin, who allegedly said, "The mission of the university is not social justice." This sentiment, along with restrictive protest policies and conversations with the provost about "learning too much social justice activism," underscored a perceived institutional resistance to activist pursuits. Campos advocated for a university that serves as "a place for learning for the sake of justice," where the goal is to "better the lives of people."
To achieve this, Campos called for Stanford to strengthen alternative spaces for students and faculty and to "definitely end corporate ties with so many of these Big Tech AI military companies who are actively funneling us into this AI dystopia, and are actively contributing to its creation." Jones echoed this sentiment, calling for "divestment from companies who are fueling violence abroad and at home," arguing that "those investments… do control our education."
The demands directed at Big Tech, particularly Google, were unequivocal. Campos urged Google to "Drop Project Nimbus and terminate the contracts with ICE and the CBP." She referenced the precedent set by Google’s withdrawal from Project Maven following internal and external pressure, illustrating that such actions are possible. She highlighted Project Nimbus, a "$1.2 billion contract" with the Israeli government since 2021, and called for accountability.
The intersection of Google and ICE was further detailed by Campos, who explained that Google Gemini is utilized by CBP, and Google Cloud serves as a platform for storing "massive amounts of surveillance data." Jones added that without the "informatics tools, the data collection and aggregation tools that Google and other companies are creating, ICE would not be able to surveil organizers, immigrants, and create the lethal system of control that they have in our own communities." The stark reality for Campos was that "companies like Google providing the technological backbone for this, this entire campaign of persecution wouldn’t be possible, or would be a lot weaker."
Both organizers implored Google to return to its original slogan, "Don’t be evil," urging the company to cease its involvement with defense contractors and its exploitation of resources. Jones stated, "Your employees don’t wanna be a part of that. The consumers that use your products every day don’t want to be searching on a weapons manufacturer’s platform every single day."
The Path Forward: Organizing and Advocating for Change
As they graduate, Campos and Jones are already engaged in their next steps, continuing their work in advocacy and organizing. Campos is working with a nonprofit in Richmond, California, focusing on environmental justice and advocating for communities impacted by the Chevron oil refinery. She sees her role as a "troublemaker," continuing to organize and advocate for communities in the environmental space, defying the institutional preference for roles like "head of corporate sustainability."
Jones is engaged in water quality monitoring and communications for a water justice organization in East Palo Alto. Both graduates expressed a desire to build a better world, one where their voices are heard and their values are celebrated.
Their advice to incoming Stanford students is clear and resonant: "organize." Campos stated, "It quite literally saved me in my Stanford experiences. I found so many friends in the organizing space… to not let yourself get lost in that." She urged new students to resist the pressure to "stay in your lane, don’t cause trouble, be a good student" and instead to "find your own path, and I highly encourage you to organize, to actually fight for the standard that you want to have and that you deserve."
Jones encouraged students to find people of conviction and to "devote yourself to that," emphasizing that while it may not be the easiest path, it will be "worth it" if it is their own. Their actions at Stanford, and their continued commitment to activism, underscore a powerful message: the next generation is not passively accepting a future dictated by corporate interests and technological advancement without ethical consideration. They are actively shaping a new narrative, one that prioritizes justice, accountability, and a more equitable world.
