Graduation season is upon us, but before the class of 2014 turns its tassels, speakers from Madeleine Albright to Peyton Manning will have imparted their wisdom to the newest high school and college graduates. One of my favorite parts of the end of spring is turning on the radio or television and hearing snippets of great graduation speeches.
You’ve probably heard, however, that this year, multiple colleges won’t be hearing from the speakers they initially invited.
Condoleezza Rice cancelled her commencement speech at Rutgers University amid protests surrounding her role in the Iraq War. Then Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, backed out of her address at Smith College, after a petition asking trustees to reconsider her role as speaker garnered almost 500 signatures. Lagarde’s protesters pointed to the alleged role of the IMF in perpetuating female inequality around the world.
Former UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau canceled his Haverford address when students sent him a list of demands concerning Berkeley police response to the Occupy protests at the university in 2011.
This year’s “disinvitation season,” as some are calling it, has recalled discussions about would-be speakers and raised debates about today’s college students. These figure’s lives and work are topics for a different blog. But the controversy raises a simpler question about graduation speakers: What purpose should they serve?
Many colleges invite big-name speakers to bring in alumni donations, but I’d like to think that there’s at least something in it for the graduates on their big day. And there is. Speakers offer inspiration, advice and messages for graduates to carry into their lives.
But should their messages align with the beliefs of students, or the larger mission of the host institution? Should they be role models for graduates? Protesters at Rutgers, Smith and Haverford obviously believed that the invited speakers wouldn’t suffice.
In the news release announcing Christine Lagarde’s withdrawal, however, Smith President Kathleen McCartney reminded readers, “An invitation to speak at a commencement is not an endorsement of all views or policies of an individual or the institution she or he leads. Such a test would preclude virtually anyone in public office or position of influence.”
While Birgeneau didn’t speak at Haverford, former Princeton President William Bowen did, and he used the occasion to criticize Birgeneau’s protesters, calling them “arrogant” and “immature.” But he didn’t let the former Berkeley chancellor off the hook for backing down in the face of protest. All parties involved were at fault in this case, and at Rutgers and Smith.
By commencement, graduates don’t need a role model. What they need, and inevitably get regardless of the commencement speaker, is one last push. Graduates who identify with the speaker or agree with his or her message will take it to heart; those who don’t, will not.
Recent controversy has blown the role of graduation speakers out of proportion, and withdrawals made to avoid “distracting” from the graduates have done the opposite.
Clare Lombardo of Decatur is a rising sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania.
About the Author
Featured
