“Awkward, inappropriate, and horrifically timed” describes many Bucknellians’ favorite memories of their time here in Lewisburg. It is fitting then, that our last memory of Bucknell will embody all of these characteristics.
Of course, in this memory the cheap futon and beer-drenched stranger will be replaced by a podium and a Pulitzer Prize-winner. I am speaking of course, about Commencement 2007.
Since I’ve been at Bucknell, students have been subjected to a series of notable – albeit inappropriate – commencement speakers. In the past four years, the senior class has been stuck shifting awkwardly in their seats as they listened to Ralph Nader, Tom Ridge, and Ed Rendell. This year, the class of 2007 will have the opportunity to experience that joy with Bob Woodward.
These men are all distinguished – or at least famous (we’re looking at you Ralph). But they are also incredibly divisive.
Ralph Nader made his name by irrationally screeching about the evils of capitalism and big business and running for president on the Green Party line.
Tom Ridge and Ed Rendell were both governors and were also prominent partisans that elicited disappointment from either end of the political spectrum when they came to Bucknell.
And my commencement speaker rose to prominence bringing down one president and has just finished State of Denial, a book smearing the current one.
One would expect a commencement ceremony to be an uplifting, unifying experience for the graduating seniors. By inserting these partisans into this event, our administration has guaranteed our last moments as Bucknellians will be marked by polarization.
Had Bucknell’s administration brought such speakers during the school year, their actions would have deserved praise. These newsmakers would have provided the University with a genuine learning opportunity. Hundreds of students could have benefited from their insight, discussed their respective speeches, and asked tough questions of these men.
However, in a futile attempt to appear non-partisan, these partisan speakers awkwardly (and appropriately) attempt to wash their speech of anything approaching substantive discourse, while still trying to remain vaguely relevant.
Of course, no matter how skillfully they stumble through this minefield, half the students ready to receive their diplomas will inevitably be left wondering why their graduation ceremony was invaded by a political hack.
For the fourth year in a row, the efforts and work of Bucknell’s students will be obscured by partisanship, and in return the graduates will have the privilege of listening to a few vapid, unmemorable remarks.
These four invitations are at best ill-conceived and at worst demonstrate a lack of interest in celebrating the graduates.
More appropriate commencement speakers are not difficult to identify. Bucknell folk-hero Pat Flannery, for example, is one of the most beloved members of the Bucknell community and embodies the best of what the Bison can achieve through hard work, decency, and passion.
If the University’s leaders would prefer an academic to give the speech, Professor John Kirkland would have fit the bill. This professor, who is retiring along with the class of 2007, is – as anyone who has ever met him can attest – one of the smartest men to have ever graced Bucknell’s hallowed halls. He is loved by his students and admired by his peers.
Such choices would demonstrate the confidence of a university that lets its graduates speak for themselves, while the Class of 2007 would be treated to a speaker who actually recognizes the people who matter at the ceremony.
Instead, we have been stuck with speakers who evidence a profound insecurity about the stature of the University. This timidity was given voice by President Mitchell when he announced Mr. Woodward by noting his speech would serve to “enhance the prestige and excitement of this year’s commencement.” Apparently, the graduates can’t do this alone.
Of course, if we are forced to embrace this feeling of inadequacy, one would at least hope our emotional security blanket might be provided by an individual who does not divide the graduating class by political affiliation. Names like David McCullough or Lance Armstrong spring to mind.
More importantly, the graduating seniors ought to have had some say in their speaker beyond a “wish list” submitted by a handful of Class Officers whom the average senior couldn’t identify in a lineup. At a school where students are surveyed nearly daily by half-drunk Management 101 students performing market research, certainly the senior class could have been asked if they wanted their graduation to be interrupted by a speech from a political figure or if they would have preferred an author, actor, or member of the Bucknell community.
On May 20, I’ll have the privilege of sitting in the quad staring at the cardboard cap in front of me as a partisan disrupts a day supposedly dedicated to the Class of 2007. I hope future graduates will receive better. If the past four years are any indication, I won’t hold my breath.