It's not a question of free speech or even academic freedom, or "Commencement Bigots," as The New York Times op/ed headline put it last week.
The question is, What are commencement speeches for?
Are they for intellectual inquiry and the spurring of social dialogue? If so, it's of course unforgivable for Rutgers to have accepted Condoleeza Rice's decision to not to come. (And cowardly, not "classy," of Rice to bag out just because a group of students objected to her invitation.)
But I think commencement speeches aren't for those rigorous and constructive purposes. Commencement speeches, like many speeches, are essentially ceremonial and symbolic events, rather than communication opportunities. They are form, not substance.
They say: We invited This Important Person to bless Our Graduating Class and Honor Our Institution with a few words the nature of which don't matter all that much. And This Important Person said yes!
Choose Condoleeza Rice as your Important Person and get her to accept, and you've already said 90 percent of what will be said. Choose Ellen Degeneres, and you've said something else. Lady Gaga, something different still.
Some choices make stronger statements than others. Sitting administration officials, for instance, may simply be seen as good gets, while cherrypicking former political officials might be perceived as more of a political statement—even if the reason is, "We asked Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell too, but Rice was the only one who said yes."
But nevertheless, commencement speeches are ceremonial events rather than substantive summits, and college administrators or the invitees who helped build the polarized society we live in shouldn't be surprised or outraged when students at the universities object to the message the invitation has sent. Because the invitation is the communication.
Does that mean the speaker shouldn't go ahead and deliver a commencement speech in the face of broad or pitched opposition? Yeah, I think it kind of does mean that.
We mustn't tolerate intolerance in this country. We ought to embrace dialogue and debate.
But that doesn't mean we should invite people we think are assholes to give long speeches at our graduation parties.
Does it?
Mark Ragan says
Dave,
You know I love you. I do.
(“The bow is bent and drawn, make from the shaft.”)
I am surprised that the editor of Vital Speeches would make the following statement:
“But I think commencement speeches aren’t for those rigorous and constructive purposes. Commencement speeches, like many speeches, are essentially ceremonial and symbolic events, rather than communication opportunities. They are form, not substance.”
What?!
I don’t have the time to list all of the examples that refute this misguided argument, so I’ll choose one from my generation: Kennedy’s 1963 commencement address at American University.
This speech, delivered shortly after the terrors of the Cuban Missile crisis, signaled a fundamental shift in Kennedy’s view of the Cold War. Historians mark it as the beginning of a rapprochement with the Soviet Union.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/BWC7I4C9QUmLG9J6I8oy8w.aspx
Start at 2:20.
When I was a political reporter in the 1980s and 1990s, presidential candidates almost always used the commencement speech to make substantive policy announcements.
So ubiquitous was this use of the speech that their advisors would tell us beforehand, to “expect a major policy statement.”
My two cents.
David Murray says
Mark, I love you too. I also love me, and would never take the chance of enraging all the supporters of Vital Speeches of the Day, or members of our Professional Speechwriters Association, by saying that no weighty commencement speech has ever been given. The example you cite is significant. The experience you had is valid.
But both are decades old.
Could a modern leader use a commencement speech as a platform to make a major argument or an important policy proposal? Yes, and it would be awesomely cool if one did. But I read 100 of these speeches a year, and I don’t come across anything like that. (And I’m quite sure Condi Rice had no intention of giving a speech like that at Rutgers, and she didn’t give one at University of Minnesota.)
I do come across some nice speeches, in my search for the best 10 for our annual Commencement issue. Funny ones, personal ones, inspiring ones. But they are the exception and not the rule—and whatever they are, they are very rarely intellectually or academically or politically rigorous or challenging.
The whole society has become less serious over the last few decades, and I guess commencement speeches have become less serious along with it.
Let’s both keep our eye out for commencement speeches that are sufficiently substantive to merit a REAL controversy … rather than a phony one, like this Rutgers nonsense, that really doesn’t leave us with anything but hard feelings and grumbling about those closed-minded kids these days.
Mark Ragan says
You want recent? I’ll give you recent. How about next week?
The groundwork is now being laid by the White House to announce a new foreign policy vision and strategy. And where will he do this?
Like Colin Powell, who used another commencement speech to announce the now-famous Powell Doctrine, Obama will deliver his new vision to graduates of West Point.
Here you go:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/president-obama-west-point-commencement-speech-107075.html
Now, I will concede that most commencement speeches are not substantive, but you raised the issue of policy, politics and government, so I thought you needed a little correction.
You’re welcome.
Mark
David murray says
Thank you.