Readings: Who Should Speak? 'Snooki' or Kermit?

It is graduation time again and both The New York Times and The Washington Post have surveyed the campuses, and their pundits have deplored the controversies in which the famous are invited to address graduates only to be forced to withdraw because various student or faculty groups object. In “The Commencement Bigots,” (N.Y. Times, 5/16) columnist Timothy Egan blames bigotry for the withdrawal of Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers; Christine Lagarde, chief of the International Monetary Fund, following a protest with 500 signers, at Smith College; and Robert J. Birgeneau, former chancellor of the University of California, Berekely, whose brief approval of police roughness on Occupy demonstrators disqualified him at Haverford College.

The Washington Post reports that at least 145 commencement speakers have withdrawn since 1987; 100 of those withdrawals occured in the last five years.

Advertisement

But is Egan correct in attributing all protests against certain speakers to “bigotry”? Let’s first make some basic distinctions between the categories of speakers and the standards that should govern their invitation.

Speakers invited by a small group (e.g., political or religious clubs) for events other than graduation: In most circumstances, they should be allowed to speak even though they are bound to say controversial things and make some authorities angry. Those opposed should invite another speaker with another point of view.

Recipients of honorary degrees: These, presumably, by their lives and public careers, represent the ideals of the university so clearly that the university identifies with and seeks to recognize their contributions to society. The trustees, who make these decisions, should ask themselves: Do we endorse what this person has done with his/her life?

Graduation speakers: This should be a wise and learned person who, in his/her intellectual life represents the ideals of the university. At Jesuit universities, for example, the talk would challenge the graduates and touch on moral questions raised during their four years, particularly those which link faith and justice.

This final category would exclude “celebrities,” defined by Gertrude Stein as “persons well known for being well known.” The Washington Post named recent “star” speakers James Franco, Sean “Diddy” Combs, reality TV star Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi and Kermit the Frog. Add to that TV anchors who collect huge stipends for a bland canned talk delivered at five other schools the same year. These names cater to the student who says, “I want somebody who will make me remember my graduation.”

I disagree with Timothy Egan who condemns the objections raised against certain political figures—like Condoleezza Rice—as “bigotry.” Ms. Rice is not merely a “scholar who overcame segregation to become secretary of state”; she gave her heart and soul to the most unnecessary and obviously immoral war in American history, a war St. John Paul II pleaded with President Bush not to start, was deemed unjust by moral theologians and which killed millions of innocent people. She can certainly be welcomed to a campus as a speaker, preferably at an open forum where faculty and students could question her. But Rutgers students were not “bigoted” in objecting to giving such a controversial figure the honor of speaking at their graduation.

This would apply even more to someone like Henry Kissinger, who recently spoke at a "secret" talk at Yale University. Today’s students, unless they have taken the right history elective, know little about the Vietnam War. If Kissigner visits a university campus, students should be required to Google “Henry Kissinger war criminal,” and inform themselves about his role in the assassination of Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, in 1973; his role from 1969 to 1973 with Richard Nixon in the slaughter in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos of an estimated 4 million Indochinese, mostly noncombatants, plus the brutal Christmas bombing of Hanoi. Let him talk, but answer him.

The graduation address should be given by the university president, a faculty member or a renowned scholar whose books we might read and who would bring the four years into context and focus. In my 43 graduations at five Jesuit colleges and universities, I have witnessed some fine graduation addresses, including those by Richard Ford and Tom Fox, but perhaps the ideal speach was at Rockhurst College in Kansas City in 1980 by then elderly Jesuit and historian of philosophy Frederick Copleston. He announced that he was simply going to tell us “what philosophy is.” So he did; and if graduates had not known the answer before, they certainly did on graduation day. 

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Joshua DeCuir
3 years 5 months ago
"Ms. Rice is not merely a “scholar who overcame segregation to become secretary of state”; she gave her heart and soul to the most unnecessary and obviously immoral war in American history, a war St. John Paul II pleaded with President Bush not to start, was deemed unjust by moral theologians and which killed millions of innocent people. She can certainly be welcomed to a campus as a speaker, preferably at an open forum where faculty and students could question her." So I take it you would justify & defend the right of other students in objecting to a politician who in the judgment of some is committed 'heart & soul' to, say, legalized abortion - a position Pope St. John Paul II (among others) & moral theologians also condemn & which also takes millions of lives? The fact that you don't bother to discuss the Christine Lagarde situation lays bare that your judgment is simply based on your own political conclusions (just as the "offended" students). If you don't think Condi Rice (I think it's "Doctor", too; she was provost of Stanford University) merits honoring on the basis of her accomplishments (regardless of her politics), then I'm afraid your position is no less justified than those who assert the current President should not be honored for his life's accomplishment simply on the basis of his politics. Regardless, it's a flimsy position for one committed to open dialogue. All the careful nuance & distinctions you seek to draw here are undone by the brazen position you hold: no person who offends you firmly held political positions ought to be worthy of honoring, no matter how disadvantage their background, & no matter how accomplished they otherwise are.

Advertisement

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

It is astonishing to think that God would choose to enter the world this way: as a fragile newborn who could not even hold up his own head without help.
Ginny Kubitz MoyerOctober 20, 2017
Protestors rally to support Temporary Protected Status near the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Sept. 26. (CNS photo/Tyler Orsburn)
Around 200,000 Salvadorans and 57,000 Hondurans have been residing in the United States for more than 15 years under Temporary Protected Status. But that status is set to expire in early 2018.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 20, 2017
At the heart of Anne Frank’s life and witness is a hopeful faith in humanity.
Leo J. O'Donovan, S.J.October 20, 2017
Forensic police work on the main road in Bidnija, Malta, which leads to Daphne Caruana Galizias house, looking for evidence on the blast that killed the journalist as she was leaving her home, Thursday, Oct. 19, 2017. Caruana Galizia, a harsh critic of Maltese Premier Joseph Muscat, and who reported extensively on corruption on Malta, was killed by a car bomb on Monday. (AP Photo/Rene Rossignaud)
Rarely does the death of a private citizen elicit a formal letter of condolence from the Pope.