They booed him. Not because of what he said, but because of who he is.
It’s a modern-day draft of moral conscience. As Sundar Pichai took the stage at Stanford University this season, more than a hundred students simply stood up and left. It wasn’t a tantrum. It wasn’t about Artificial Intelligence, despite what the headlines might suggest. The anger bubbling up among Gen Z is real, but it’s deeper than just job security.
A Gallup poll shows only 22 percent of young people are excited about AI. Forty-two percent are anxious. They see the tech looming over their futures, yes. But at Stanford? A hub for Silicon Valley’s elite, the protest was aimed at something far more specific and severe.
Google’s contracts with the US military, with ICE, and with the Israeli government were the target. Pichai, Google’s CEO, didn’t even mention AI in his speech. He didn’t need to. His presence was the provocation.
Two organizers, Eva Jones and Amanda Campos, sat down to explain what actually happened. Their story isn’t just about graduation day. It’s about who gets to define the future.
The Root of the Resistance
Amanda Campos studied environmental policy. She came from Brazil with a singular goal: to stop the climate crisis. She thought Stanford would help. She was wrong.
“[The school] just had so much fossil fuel Money and bias,” Campos says. The moment she realized the university’s funding sources, she stopped being just a student. She became an organizer. By sophomore year, she saw the link between environmental destruction and the fight for Palestinian liberation. It wasn’t abstract. It was corporate ties. And choosing a Google CEO to speak? That was the final straw.
Eva Jones had a different path. A master’s in hydrology, a background in feminist philosophy. She arrived from rural Oregon five years ago, believing universities could pool resources to save humanity.
“I believed that a place like Stanford was… looking to build the kind of world I always envisioned,” Jones says.
She arrived ready to work. Anti-sexual violence organizing. Climate justice. Anti-gun violence. She clashed with the administration quickly. Then came the 2023 encampments. That’s when the opposition turned into creation.
“Students got involved… to define why we came to university for themselves,” Jones says.
Campos agrees, though her view on power shifted. She used to think power was something you got through a degree. Now she sees it as something you build through voices.
“Getting involved in SJP [Students for Justice in Palestine] organizing… has been extremely liberating,” Campos says. “I have a lot of hope.”
Beyond the Hype
Theo Baker recently released a book called How to Rule the World. It paints Stanford as a elitist funnel into tech jobs, a place of VC scouts and ethical lapses. The organizers weren’t impressed by the narrative. They wanted action.
Jones pushed back hard on the idea of just watching or writing about it.
“I have concerns about someone defining their career by participating in the… cultural fascination with what’s going on,” she says. It distracts from the real issue: “Defense-propelled career pipelines… fueling really violent technologies and systems of control.”
She challenges readers—and writers—to stop being spectators. Join an anti-war movement. Join the student movement. Look beyond the “country club for 20-year-old seeking fame.”
The walkout wasn’t just a rejection. It was a reclamation.
The Walkout Was Not About AI
Media outlets rushed to cover the “AI walkout.” It’s a clean, simple headline. But Campos and Jones insist it’s misleading.
The press release they issued named targets clearly.
- Google’s contracts with the US government.
- Specifically, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
- Technological aid to Israel, including Project Nimbus.
“Google was… providing the technological backbone for what the UN has found to be a genocide,” Campos says. Surveillance. Apartheid. These aren’t abstract fears. They are current realities.
And AI? It’s causing job losses. But it’s also “quite literally killing people” through targeted surveillance and automated systems. The students felt a duty to hold a $4 trillion CEO accountable.
“It was the walkout to the People’s Commencement,” Jones corrects.
While Pichai spoke inside a stadium, students gathered elsewhere. Families, mentors, friends. A ceremony built on conviction. They celebrated an education forged in opposition to the very corporate sponsors funding their degrees.
“We fundamentally believe [the university] is in service of… a corporate buyout,” Campos says. So they refused to celebrate it.
The Personal Cost
Graduating isn’t easy when you’re making a stand. Jones’s parents weren’t thrilled initially.
She didn’t even get a high school diploma due to the pandemic. Missing her college graduation felt like a double loss.
“They were like, ‘We wanna celebrate you,’ ” Jones recalls. “But after attending the People’s Commencement, they were blown away.”
Her parents thanked her. They understood that this community was more meaningful than a speech by a CEO in a stadium. “This means something to you. This means something in the world.”
Campos had her dad and younger sibling in attendance. She told her dad upfront: “You will hear from organizers who have much better messages.”
For her, the highlight was her younger sibling. Being a role model. Showing that a different world is possible. One where students actually have a voice.
The Aftermath
Did they expect the explosion of media attention? CNN? BBC? Millions of views online?
“Honestly, we were just focused on organizing,” Campos admits. They didn’t plan for the global spotlight. They just knew what had to be done.
Jones worries about how the media frames these protests. Often, student activists against military tech are labeled reactionary. Focus only on their careers. The walkout was about showing depth. A global movement.
“Students across the globe know… that’s why students are booing [AI] speakers,” Jones says.
They see the corporations for what they are. And they are done pretending otherwise.
The stadium is quiet now. The videos remain. The question of what the kids are all right with? It’s a matter of perspective. If you value clean tech, they’re confused. If you value accountability, they’re leading.
Stanford gave them a degree. They gave it back, in spirit.
Is that smart? Maybe not.
Is it necessary? That depends on who you ask.
But for those walking out? It was the only option left.
