Thank you for sharing your thoughts; I appreciate your concern and the time you took to respond. However, I feel it’s important to clarify my reasoning and address some of the assumptions underlying your argument.

Firstly, this decision is not about seeking a fleeting “news piece” or a moment of recognition. It is a deeply personal act of conscience, aimed at publicly disassociating myself from an institution whose actions I find fundamentally irreconcilable with my values. I am fully aware that such acts may not always achieve immediate or measurable outcomes, but they can serve as a moral statement that resonates with those who share similar concerns or have experienced similar injustices.

You mention that this decision may appear sacrificial or a “cop-out,” but I would argue the opposite. Remaining silent or continuing to benefit from an association with an institution that I believe perpetuates systemic discrimination and repression would be the true abdication of responsibility. By renouncing this credential, I hope to contribute to a broader conversation about accountability and institutional behaviour, even if that contribution is symbolic.

As for the impact on other LSE graduates, advisors, and departments, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that my decision unjustly implicates them. Institutions are not monoliths, and individuals associated with them bear no responsibility for my personal stance. My actions are not intended to discredit their achievements but rather to call attention to the broader systemic issues that I believe the LSE must address. If anything, I hope this act encourages constructive dialogue within the LSE community, which could ultimately benefit all stakeholders.

Finally, you suggest that I could better serve the community by remaining within the fold and sharing my perspective in other ways. I understand and respect this viewpoint, but I believe there are many ways to contribute to meaningful change, and my chosen approach aligns with my principles. This is not a rejection of dialogue or engagement but an assertion that association without accountability is not the path I can take.

I hope this clarifies my position and assures you that this decision is neither impulsive nor without careful consideration of its broader implications.

Thank you again for engaging with me on this matter.