A canceled commencement speech & the risks of an outspoken CEO

Note: Transcripts are automatically generated from episode audio, and are not fully corrected for spelling, grammar, and formatting.

BOB SAFIAN: Today’s Rapid Response is quite memorable. I’m joined by Rami Elghandour, CEO of biotech company Arcellx, also an Oscar-nominated documentary film producer. Rami was scheduled to deliver the commencement address to engineering graduates at Rutgers University today. The university abruptly canceled his appearance after some students objected to his social media posts expressing support for Palestinians. Rami talks candidly with me about this experience, about cancel culture, the cost of conviction—particularly when you’re a public company CEO—and about the fraught, often polarizing ways we discuss Israel and Palestine in the United States. He also explains why the recent $8 billion acquisition of Arcellx by Gilead Sciences, which he engineered, brought him no joy, why he sees kindness as a superpower, and whether he’d consider giving an address at Rutgers University in the future. I’m Bob Safian, and this is Rapid Response.

[THEME MUSIC]

I’m Bob Safian. I’m here with Rami Elghandour, CEO of biotech firm Arcellx. Rami, thanks for being here.

RAMI ELGHANDOUR: Thanks for having me, Bob. Excited to be here.

Copy LinkWhy Rutgers reversed course on its commencement invitation

SAFIAN: I wanted to talk with you today because of some controversy you’ve had with your alma mater, Rutgers University. You were invited to deliver the commencement speech for engineering grads, and then the school abruptly canceled your appearance. This is not the way things usually work for a successful alumnus. You just orchestrated the sale of Arcellx to Gilead Sciences for almost $8 billion. Take us back to when you were first invited to speak, how it came about, and how you responded at that point.

ELGHANDOUR: I was invited in December of 2025, a little over five months ago. The reason I was invited is primarily because of my student engagement. A lot of alumni get invited to give these talks because they donate buildings or there’s some financial reason, but in my case, it was really because I spent so much time with the students. I engaged with them a lot, and to be invited to give this kind of talk really meant a lot to me.

I was on revision 20 of the speech. I’ve been writing it for almost six months. What happened was about two weeks ago, the dean reached out to me and said, “We’ve had a few students complain about you being the speaker, and I’ve decided that you should not be the speaker.” He initially tried to offer me an alternative. He asked, “What if we have you come in and just speak at a different time?” Obviously, that’s not the same as giving the convocation address. I declined, and I challenged him. I asked, “What does ‘a few’ mean? Are we talking about five students out of a thousand? It seems like a bizarre decision. People get upset all the time. We don’t change big decisions like inviting speakers because of a couple of people who are upset.” So I pushed back.

And he initially seemed to take my pushback to heart and he said, “Okay, let me work on it. Let me figure out some other solutions.” That was on a Thursday. He came back on Saturday with a definitive, “You’re no longer going to be the speaker.”

SAFIAN: These complaints were about your support for Palestinians, particularly on social media. You’ve been part of a couple of high-profile documentaries about the plight of Palestinians, so the university knew your position before you were invited. Had you gotten more aggressive in your comments since the invitation was issued in December?

ELGHANDOUR: I’m from New Jersey. I have one level of intensity all the time. There is no variance in that intensity. It is just what it is all the time, so the answer to that part is no. It is bizarre to me. They invited me and championed me because of all of my humanitarian work, and then they canceled me for the very thing they championed me for. I’m not hiding anything. I’ve been very consistent on this topic for a long time. In fact, I was quoted at Rutgers back in 2000 or 2001 at a rally for Palestine.

I have no ill will with the students. They’re 20-something-year-olds. And they’re welcome to believe whatever they want to believe anyhow. What I have a problem with is the administrators. They’re on the wrong side of academia. They’re on the wrong side of democracy. They’re on the wrong side of human rights. And I just don’t know how they come back from this, honestly.

Copy LinkWhy the language around Gaza has become a flashpoint

BOB SAFIAN: What I’ve seen that agitated the university and others was you describing what’s taken place in Gaza for Palestinians as genocide. That term has strong connotations. In full disclosure, I’m Jewish, though not all Jews agree with the government of Israel — not even all Israelis do. But the idea that using the word genocide crosses a line — what do you think about that? Is that exactly why you use the word?

ELGHANDOUR: Let’s take two things. First, I’m glad you said that because I was interviewed by a journalist the other day, and he said to me, “Rami, you’re a boss. Let’s say we put you in charge of commencement. You’re going to have Jewish people on one side and pro-Palestinian people on the other.” I said, “Wait a second. Why are we suggesting that Jewish people are monolithic and that they all support the state of Israel or what it’s doing? I personally believe it’s antisemitic to suggest that.” So I appreciate the way you phrased that question.

The genocide accusation to me is based on evidence. I’m a healthcare professional, so I’m a very fact-based person. I had a conversation with someone yesterday who was telling me about medical things she’s trying and suggested I should try them too. I told her that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So, let’s look at who refers to what has happened in Gaza as genocide. B’Tselem, the leading Israeli human rights organization, calls it genocide. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, and Doctors Without Borders all use that term. The idea that I am going to be canceled because I use the word that all of these institutions use is farcical.

I believe Israel has committed genocide. It is striking that the people who support these actions are going after those of us on the moral side of history, and we’re the ones being canceled. What kind of world do we live in?

BOB SAFIAN: I’m not sure everyone who objects to the use of the word genocide is in support of the killing. Those things don’t have to go together.

ELGHANDOUR: I agree with that. To be clear, that’s not what I meant. I’m not being judgmental of those people. I can understand that if you were raised a certain way or have family and cultural ties, it might be hard to adopt a position. My struggle is how, given this mountain of evidence, some have the audacity to judge me when I’m not judging them.

Copy LinkWhat public conviction can cost a CEO

BOB SAFIAN: Yeah. And in terms of judgment, for Rutgers, for other universities all purportedly committed to free speech, but the topics around Israel and Palestine, they’re so fraught, and it can be hard for them to parse between free speech and incitement, especially given the way the Trump administration seems willing to jump in. Do you have any sympathy for those challenges that folks in academic administrations might have?

ELGHANDOUR: As a leader who stands behind the things I believe, I don’t have a lot of sympathy. This isn’t the only topic I discuss. I’ve spoken about abortion. You can find my posts about Black lives and the murder of George Floyd. It was the first time I had ever seen a human being killed; I couldn’t sleep for days, and I wrote a very strong-worded post. Honestly, the things I write about Palestine are just reiterating things I read in reputable reports. I don’t have unique insight into this. I’ve written about many controversial topics. We need to stop dancing around this issue in this country.

There is something called the “Palestine exception” that was established by the Center for Constitutional Rights about 11 years ago. The reality is there is a cancel culture particularly for this topic, and that is antithetical to American democracy. The idea that we can’t talk about controversial topics in this country is not true; there’s only one topic we’re not allowed to discuss.

BOB SAFIAN: I mean, you have a platform as a prominent CEO, and so when you weigh in on geopolitical issues like Palestine, abortion, other things, how much do you think about the professional risk, the businesses you’re connected with that might be impacted? I mean, have you ever been admonished by a board or colleagues about some of your public expressions?

ELGHANDOUR: Neither a board nor a colleague has admonished me. Being vocal is why people in my world want to work with me. Most people in my position are plastic figures who just toe the line. When people encounter someone in my position who is authentic and honest with their feelings and perspective — it’s refreshing. I always joke, “You guys can ask me anything; just be careful because you might not like my answer.” Did you watch Ted Lasso, Bob?

BOB SAFIAN: Yes.

ELGHANDOUR: I love Ted Lasso and the Walt Whitman quote, “Be curious, not judgmental.” I’m not a judgmental person. We have people at Arcellx who are pro-Israel. We have people who have the Israeli flag up. We have people who post things that are the polar opposite of what I post, and I respect those people. I don’t have any problem with them. This is why I struggle with this situation. The people on the other side who are trying to get me canceled don’t respect my rights. In business terms, it’s a false equivalency. One side is for the First Amendment, and the other side is not.

BOB SAFIAN: I appreciate you having this candid conversation with me because these are tough topics, and most people are afraid to dig into them.

ELGHANDOUR: It’s very difficult. We live in a law-abiding, structured society. I don’t agree with any form of collective punishment or violence. The details matter. There are high-level arguments that try to create an equivalence, but they’re not equivalent. The actions of the Israelis are not the same as the actions of the Palestinians. Even regarding violence — yes, both committed violence; I’m not going to dispute that. Clearly, there was violence and innocent people were hurt by Palestinians on that day. However, there is an occupier and an occupied, and people refuse to use that lens in discussing this conversation. I want only peace for everyone. This current situation is not helping anyone.

Copy LinkHow storytelling can humanize people reduced to headlines

BOB SAFIAN: Part of the reason I’m pushing you is that you’ve been the executive producer for several films, including one nominated for an Oscar that documents the killing of a Palestinian family and the paramedics who tried to rescue them. The newest one is called “American Doctor,” about three doctors who go to Gaza to volunteer. The stories we tell matter. How do you think about storytelling in addressing these big issues?

ELGHANDOUR: It’s super important because representation of the Palestinian narrative and the broader Middle Eastern narrative has not been consistent in American discourse.

Consider Hind Rajab, the five-year-old girl killed in Gaza. It is a horrific tragedy. In the film, they use her actual voice. The people in the Red Cross are arguing about how to deal with the situation. That is the tension in the movie: some people want to break all the rules to go rescue her, and others are worried about getting the rescuers killed too.

I think that humanizes Palestinians in a way that most people miss. In American discourse, Palestinians are often portrayed as binary: either victims or perpetrators of violence. People don’t know who they are, what their culture is like, or their food, dancing, and music. Showing that friction and argument between them actually shows that these people are just like us, stuck in an impossible situation. That’s very powerful.

“American Doctor” is different because I am in healthcare. Statistics show that Israel has destroyed roughly 95% of all hospitals in Gaza, which is unconscionable. This is why getting into details is important; it’s hard to have this conversation in the abstract. To my knowledge, Palestinians have not destroyed any hospitals in Israel. As someone who has spent his entire professional life trying to save lives, that fact is staggering.

BOB SAFIAN: Yeah. No, I know.

ELGHANDOUR: That movie hits me hard. Seeing physicians risking their lives in a world where hospitals are being targeted gives me a knot in my stomach.

BOB SAFIAN: Not all listeners may agree with everything Rami says, but his feelings are heartfelt. Meanwhile, the situation with Rutgers remains taut. The engineering dean who rescinded Rami’s speaking invitation has been censured by the Rutgers University Senate, an advisory group that includes students, faculty, administrators, and alumni. At the same time, a statement by a university spokesperson said the dean made the right decision to disinvite Rami, according to the periodical Inside Higher Ed, “Our concerns about the speaker were valid.”

After the break, Rami and I dig in more. We talk about kindness as a superpower, fighting cancer, and whether he’d consider speaking at Rutgers in the future. Stay with us.

[AD BREAK]

Before the break, Arcellx CEO, Rami Elghandour, talked about having his commencement speech at Rutgers University abruptly canceled. Now he shares his emotional response to Gilead Sciences acquiring Arcellx for $8 billion, why he sees candor as a superpower, and what he calls one of Elon Musk’s, quote, craziest statements. Let’s get back to it.

Copy LinkWhy a multibillion dollar exit can feel more sad than triumphant

I mentioned earlier that you recently sold the biotech company, Arcellx, to Gilead. So we’ve talked about a lot of feelings so far, but what does the morning after an $8 billion exit feel like?

ELGHANDOUR: Honestly—

BOB SAFIAN: I mean, is that just celebration, or are there mixed feelings too?

ELGHANDOUR: Are you trying to get me to jump out the window? As hard as this conversation was, this is even harder for me. It felt awful. I would always see these—

BOB SAFIAN: It felt awful? But I thought it’s—

ELGHANDOUR: Bob, I always see CEOs who are beaming after they sell a company, but I felt awful. At the end of the Super Bowl or the NBA Championships, you see players overcome with emotion. Part of it is the weight of doing something rare and incredible, but most of it is knowing that the journey with that special group of people is over. Interactions with them are not going to be the same. I’ve derived no joy from this acquisition; it’s been a lot of sadness and a little bit of meaning, reflecting on how special it was. I’m in a good place now. At least I didn’t burst out crying when you asked the question.

BOB SAFIAN: But you still feel like the deal is good for patients. I mean, if I understand this right—

ELGHANDOUR: 100%.

BOB SAFIAN: … Arcellx focus is on cancer therapies built around CAR T-cell technology… I hope I have that right.

ELGHANDOUR: Yes.

BOB SAFIAN: And it sounds a little bit like science fiction, right? A patient’s own immune cells are reprogrammed to attack cancer? Have I got that right?

Copy LinkHow Arcellx is using immune cells to fight cancer

ELGHANDOUR: Yes, you got that right. If you zoom out for a second, cancer is essentially a copy-paste error. We have cancer in our bodies all the time, but usually our immune cells can clear it. Cancerous cells have two unique errors: they get stuck in auto-replication mode and they evade the immune system. In cancer biology, seeing is binding. Our immune cells bump into them and bump off. Carl June at Penn had the idea 15 years ago that if we can fix the binding, we can use our own immune cells to cure cancer. He did that in lymphoma, and our claim to fame is developing what we believe is the best CAR-T program for multiple myeloma.

BOB SAFIAN: I haven’t done that one, but—

ELGHANDOUR: Okay. The spider bots get stuck in auto-replication mode and they take over Avengers’ campus. So that’s kind of what cancer cells do. And then the other thing is that they evade the immune system, so our immune cells can’t see them. And in cancer biology, seeing is binding. Our immune cells kind of bump into them and bump off. And so this researcher, Carl June, at Penn, I think now maybe over 15 years ago, had this idea that if we can fix the binding, we can actually use our own immune cells to cure cancer, and it’s amazing. So he did that in lymphoma. There’s now multiple drugs, one of which is owned by Gilead, that does that in lymphoma. And our claim to fame is we develop what we believe is the best CAR-T program, which is using your own cells to fight cancer and multiple myeloma.

BOB SAFIAN: And part of what Gilead is paying for is that your technology can deliver it at scale and cost that has better impact than what’s currently in the market, what’s currently available for patients.

ELGHANDOUR: That’s an insightful point. There are a few things that differentiate us. We’re actually going to be the third to market, so you might wonder why Gilead would pay $8 billion for that. First is safety. Everyone told me not to take this job because the field was too crowded and another company partnered with J&J was too far ahead. But I noticed their Achilles heel: that drug causes Parkinson’s and other neurological conditions 10% of the time. We don’t have that. Fixing that is huge.

The second thing is manufacturing. Our technology makes our drug more repeatably manufacturable. Combining our manufacturing strength with Gilead’s commercial organization—the best in the world in CAR-T—is a powerful combination.

Copy LinkWhy AI may reshape biotech and destabilize the broader economy

BOB SAFIAN: How important was AI to the research and outcomes for Arcellx and your CAR-T therapy? Are the advances actual yet?

ELGHANDOUR: Yes, in terms of the pipeline. One of the first things I did when I joined Arcellx was looking at AI companies. I knew we had to have an AI program. We developed one, and it works wonders on the pipeline. Our ability to find drugs in areas we couldn’t before or accelerate development is incredible. I feel like AI is one of those things where — wrapping back to the beginning — as a country, we’re too focused on international affairs. I want us to focus on our own problems. Let them sort out their issues. I don’t know why we keep getting involved.

Regarding AI, I think it’s going to be a double whammy. The amount of spending we’re putting into AI is massive, yet many companies might not be as profitable as they have been. There is no moat. OpenAI had a lead for maybe two years before Google caught up, and now Claude is arguably better. I would not invest this much money in a business where I have no moat. It’s crazy. That’s the simplest way I can put it.

It’s a little like the early internet. People were trying to monetize the internet itself, but it turned out the application layer was really valuable. Apple became the most valuable company in the world, not those making browsers. I think that will be true in AI, and many of these current companies will not be as valuable as people think. That will likely impact the market adversely.

The sad thing is it’s good enough to drive unemployment to 20% or 30% because AI is excellent at reading and summarizing. I did all of my taxes on this transaction using Claude, and they came out within 0.0001% of what my accountants produced. There is going to be enough disruption to hurt employment. If you have high unemployment, you’ll crush demand, and these companies won’t be valuable anyway.

I come back to this: we’ve spent a lot of time talking about Israel and Palestine. It’s a difficult conversation. In retrospect, I should have said it doesn’t matter and we should talk about AI because it’s going to be far more destructive. We spend way too much time on foreign policy. Imperialism is not working. We need to focus on ourselves.

I was just in Japan. We seem like a developing country compared to Japan regarding cleanliness, trains, wages, and healthcare. Why can’t we do that? We can, but we cannot have a trillion-dollar military budget, which is a waste of money. We can’t even resolve conflicts effectively with that budget. It’s embarrassing.

I’m an American first and foremost. I love this country. It’s changed my life. I hate that we’re spending so much time on foreign affairs. Can we focus here for a minute? We have problems, but I believe in this country and its people. If we just focus, we can fix them. We’re spread too thin. I’d rather talk about AI, providing universal healthcare, raising the minimum wage, and investing in infrastructure. It’s not valuable to have another trillion-dollar company if we have 20% unemployment and a crashing stock market.

Copy LinkWhy kindness and empathy still matter in leadership

BOB SAFIAN: In your speech that you posted that you weren’t able to deliver, you talk about kindness as a superpower, and I noticed that you’re wearing a Superman T-shirt as we talk today.

ELGHANDOUR: I am. We can tilt the camera a little bit.

BOB SAFIAN: What do leaders misunderstand or underestimate about kindness?

ELGHANDOUR: We’re taught from a male perspective that it’s a weakness, and for women — as I say in the speech — it’s often viewed as making you unsuitable for leadership. Elon Musk made a sociopathic statement that empathy is a weakness. Empathy is the bedrock of humanity. Without empathy, what are we? I attribute a lot of my success to kindness. I can be passionate, but I’m not going to dislike you personally. I will always treat you with kindness and respect, even if we disagree on the things I care about most.

BOB SAFIAN: And so if Rutgers asked you to come back and speak another time, would you do it, or are you like, “I’m done with the school. I’m done”?

ELGHANDOUR: I would do it because I’m not going to punish the students for something these callous people have done. In leadership, a lot is expected of me. You have to make tough and sometimes unpopular decisions, and I don’t see that from these administrators. I wouldn’t punish the students, but I certainly won’t lift a finger to help the administration.

BOB SAFIAN: Well, Rami, thanks for your candor. I really appreciate it.

ELGHANDOUR: It was a great conversation. I would love to do it again. Let’s grab a bite sometime.

BOB SAFIAN: I want to thank Rami again for being willing to talk with me. Not every business leader is willing to be as candid publicly about their personal views and experiences. It’s instructive that Rami believes such openness helps him in business, that it attracts colleagues and investors and partners. Meanwhile, his clash with Rutgers University continues to echo outward. He’s posted a video of the speech he would have given on YouTube, which is quite benign, although an intro and reflections that he added post-cancellation have more edge. The lessons from all this aren’t simple, and the emotional context is heated. I find myself coming back to Rami’s focus on the tough decisions in leadership. We all encounter them, whether in public view or in the privacy of our hearts. When we have to make trade-offs between principles that matter, the struggle can be acute. All we can do is be true to ourselves and be prepared to accept the consequences. Not everyone will cheer, but that is what being a leader is all about. I’m Bob Safian. Thanks for listening.