The South Asian American doctoral student at MIT who was effectively banned from the university’s campus over an essay he wrote related to Palestinian activism has been suspended until January 2026, according to the student.
But Prahlad Iyengar, a second-year electrical engineering PhD. student, was not suspended for his essay that drew media attention over the past month. Instead, he told the Sampan in an interview this week, that while he is still “banned” from the university because of his article, his suspension was for an unrelated charge leveled by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that pertained another time he protested the massive death toll in Gaza. Iyengar said he learned on Dec. 4 that he was suspended because of an incident during an MIT-sponsored career fair in which Iyengar and several other students questioned representatives of the military contractor Lockheed Martin about the use of its weapons by the Israeli military. He said the university accused him of “harassing” recruiters, disorderly conduct and other behaviors, and suspended him based on those charges. Iyengar, however, disputes the accusations, and maintains that campus police were present, but claims they never told him to leave, even after he asked several times whether he was allowed to stay in the area. He said he filed a formal appeal with the chancellor on Dec. 11 and is pursuing legal options.
MIT told the Sampan it can not comment on individual matters per university policy. Lockheed Martin did not respond to an email seeking comment.
Earlier this fall, MIT banned Iyengar from campus over an academic essay he wrote in “Written Revolution,” a student publication of which he’s also a chief editor. The essay, “On Pacifism,” examines historic examples of pacifism, and includes examples of the self-immolation of a Buddhist monk in Vietnam, the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa and pro-Palestinian protests. But the article came under fire by MIT administration because it includes reproduced imagery from the Popular Front for the Liberation for Palestine, a U.S.-listed terror group, and a declaration that it’s time for the Pro-Palestinian movement “to begin wreaking havoc.”
The university was originally going to bundle several complaints together, including the magazine article, the incident at the career fair and Iyenger’s email objecting to work at an MIT lab that he says is associated with drone technology used by the Israeli military. But instead – after several stories came out about MIT’s banning of the student for the article and its free speech implications – the university only focused on the first complaint, he said.
Iyengar said he rejects the accusations of harassment.
“There were several people – not just me – who stood in line at the Lockheed Martin booth at the career fair and spoke to the recruiters. We talked about some of the ongoing projects of Lockheed Martin and then toward the end I made some commentary about how I don’t really feel like defense work is really justified, especially because of the ongoing genocide in Gaza.”
After that, he said, the recruiters decided to talk to students one at a time in a private room, and he was led to believe he was to be called in to talk with a second recruiter. So, he waited around at the event and then no one offered him a chance to talk. He said he asked MIT police, who were present at the booth, several times whether he was allowed to be there and was given no clear answer, so he said he waited. He said they never told him to leave, despite MIT’s later claim that he was harassing the career fair staff.
“I was not disorderly in any way, I was just waiting … in line,” he said.
The Sampan was unable to verify his depiction of the event.
The student said that he feels he’s now in limbo at the university, because though his suspension is not effective while it awaits appeal his ban from the university is.
Still, Iyengar said he stands by his essay and that while it was provocative, he rejects the idea it was in support of terrorist activity, as he said MIT officials had charged. He said his wording was deliberately abstract and part of his larger analysis of the limits of pacifism in protesting the violence in Palestine.
“I’m not making any specific call to do anything; I’m not in charge of any movement. I’m not somebody who (has the power) to direct other people to do things.”