Commencement Speaker Controversies:
We are now into the annual rite of spring of commencement speaker controversies: Jerry Springer at Northwestern Law School and Justice Clarence Thomas at the University of Georgia.
If you ask me, they oughta try to switch 'em around because it seems to me that based on their low-class behavior, the protesting UGA faculty deserves to have Jerry Springer as their Commencement speaker.
But does Northwestern deserve Thomas?
Ask anyone here which comes first: academics or athletics. Hence, it's no surprise that moonbat faculty members don't like the guy.
Doh! (Insert sound of Zywicki slapping forehead)
If this rumor is true, the Furman faculty will merely display, for all to see, what passes for "sophisticated intellectual discourse" in its self-selected, navel-gazing plane of existence.
Q: What's the definition of a Ph.D.?
A: Someone who is educated far and above their actual level of intelligence.
What's wrong with that? It's not like engineers go to class to learn about the Holocaust. While Holocaust denial is more out there than pretty much anything else, I would hate to think that anyone on a conservative blog, in a post about how universities are applying ideological tests to commencement speakers, would even think to apply an ideological test to the hiring of professors.
Dang, somebody got there first. I do have to ask, did Ayers's father get Butz his job too?
You might want to look into the Clemson U soccer camp instead. They do a great job, beautiful campus, nice dining facility that the campers enjoy.
I wonder if the same protests would apply to a visit by Bill Clinton, whose philandering has been proven.
Furman probably has one of the most politically diverse faculties for such a high ranking liberal arts schools. I can think of several professors who flat out to me they were Republicans, and a few others I had suspicions about. However, there is a very vocal liberal group of professors there. I imagine this is the group that is spearheading this protest effort.
The latest on the rumor mill is that the President of Furman threatened some form of retaliation to any professors who "disrupted" the ceremony. Now these professors are apparently just choosing not to attend.
What was so disturbing was the lack of context, nuance, or analysis in their comments. Just pathetic diatribes.
(And, for the record, I opposed the war.)
Well... it turns out that had been holding a 30-some year grudge against the school based on some perceived slight he received from a now long-retired dean. Anyhow, he decided that our graduation ceremony was the perfect forum to air all of this dirty laundry. Of course his "message" was he was learning to forgive and be the bigger man (gag). (Never mind that he just ran some poor guy through the mud in an effort to be the "bigger man.")
Worst. Address. Ever.
Looking back at it, the look on the faculties' faces were priceless. And its not too often that a graduation address ends with one of the deans having to race to microphone to defend the reputation of a former colleague.
My two points:
(1) Harry Reid really is a shameless, petty jackass.
(2) Graduation speakers get a whole lot worse than Jerry Springer.
Oh no . . .
That NEVER makes for a good commencement speech.
As Churchill wrote to a (former) rival upon returning to power in a time of national crisis:
"As far as I am concerned, the past is dead."
Best to take inspiration from the great men instead of the petty.
During my second year of law school, Springer came and spoke to the school at a lunchtime event that packed the largest room on campus. He was engaging, articulate, and intelligent, and spent his time addressing the First Amendment and public policy. While many of the questions were focused on his show (which he referred to as a ridiculous show), Springer himself attempted to keep his comments on loftier fare.
I suspect that his graduation address will be substantive and will surprise most in attendance. And it will certainly be more interesting than my NU Law graduation speaker - Dale Bumpers, Class of 1952.
I'm also in favor of Springer. This may look silly, but graduations are about the students. If Springer will keep them entertained and say something lighthearted that the students might enjoy, what's the problem?
My alma mater (undergrad) invited Bush '41 to speak around the time of the start of the Iraq war. The super-intellectual students decided to protest... in a manner than made national news. Because, ya know, it's offensive to bring in a former President when his son is, in their opinion, leading us into an unjust war. We had police in riot gear, snipers on the roof, and, of course, the disruptions during the speech... all in the name of the First Amendment (which, apparently, is enforceable against private universities who use money donated from a trustee for one particular event?). When Bill Clinton came in the year before, the lefty campus fawned all over him. When Colin Powell came in '01, they screamed during his speech and called him a murderer. Really charming folks.
I sincerely hope that the law students at UGA have the class to not disrupt the commencement. Their peers spent several years of hell to get their diplomas; there is no need to ruin the occasion.
Our graduation speaker this year is a professor of tax law. He's supposed to be a great prof, but this is still a man who's spent his life contemplating the tax code. I am not optimistic.
Heh, my thoughts exactly. You beat me to it.
They're just looking for a more (dare I say it?) politically correct excuse to protest, since even on college campuses, "conservative race traitor" isn't a phrase you can bandy about in polite company.
Exactly. If memory serves, Anita Hill was once asked whether Bill Clinton deserved to be condemned by feminists for the way he treats women. She said no. because you have to look at the 'totality' of his presidency, which was generally good on women's issues, or something like that. That is to say, "but he's a Democrat. They're for women. I don't understand what confuses you."
Robert Bork would be even better, even though I'm relieved he failed to make the Supreme Court.
I listened to Sandra Day O'Connor once. She's very good.
But it may be worse. The faculty don't want Thomas there because UGA just went through a couple of high-profile sexual harassment cases and the connection "Sexual harassment"-->"Thomas" bothers them. Never mind that the connection never went beyond allegations--even if the allegations had been made on the floor of the Senate.
I am not saying that the actual opposition is more or less rational than one based on ideology--I just don't want the criticism to be misguided. It's loony of an entirely different color!
As for Jerry Springer, the case is a bit more interesting. Certainly it would not be the first time that an admitted law-breaker has been a commencement speaker. And the event in question occurred quite some time ago. The greater problem is that the invitation is based on events that took place even earlier--in fact, directly leading up to his "encounter".
But if your complaint about Springer (as is the case with some of the protesters at NU) is based on his TV and radio shows, just think of all the other clowns that have been invited to speak at commencements (a certain sitting President comes to mind, or, better yet, a certain former AG or two). No word if Neo-Nazi plan to march in Evanston with folding chairs in hand.
neurodoc, every major university has at least one Holocaust denier and one 9-11 Truther on its faculty. Some invite former dictators as visiting faculty or commencement speakers. So Jerry is a mild choice by comparison.
In general, I don't like the idea of removing invited speakers unless there is a genuine current controversy. Neither Thomas nor Springer qualify on that count.
Can you can march us through those major universities calling out for us the Holocaust deniers they have among their faculty? I am genuinely interested to know who they are and where they are, since I didn't think very many of them were to be found in American academia, notwithstanding the plethora of "anti-Zionists" among the faculty of so many schools. (Must go pull Deborah Lipstadt's book off my shelf to see if she names many beside Northwestern's Butz.) Maybe others here can identify out and out Holocaust deniers like Butz at other schools
To really shaft a college or university, send them Judge John E. "Jackass" Jones III as a commencement speaker. He showed extreme prejudice against Intelligent Design and the Dover defendants -- regardless of whether or not ID is a religious concept -- by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the Constitution's establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions.
</blockquote>
No need to give Jerry an honorary degree. He's already got a JD from Northwestern, class of 1968.
I mean, just to be funny.
But we took the practice from the Brits. It's hard to say when it began, aside from 'the Middle Ages'. But taking a degree then was different than it is now.
So it would be tough to say if degrees given to men who hadn't been in residence, taken exams, etc., were "honorary" in the anything like the sense we use the term now. An honorary degree form Oxford in the Middle ages conferred the rights of membership in the Corporation. So the degree was at least viewed as having been earned, say by the quality of one's scholarly work before arrival at the U.
In the late Middle Ages they started conferring what were clearly unearned degrees 'honoris causa' ('for the sake of honor'). By early-modern times, the Brits were giving them out like they were going out of style, largely to curry favor at court.
We brought over this ancient tradition (using a piece of sheepskin to get stuff) and most institutions do it at commencement time. (Some universities don't. Hooray for UVa!)
The Pope also has the power to dispense degrees (which, strictly speaking, are not "honorary'), and for a time Bishops in the US were usually "D.D."s. Some Protestant denominations in the US now tend to do something similar, and thus the proliferation of ministers who are called "Dr." Jerry Falwell is a well-known example.
The whole thing is icky to me, as an academic. It's not that I'm a snob: Everyone and his brother can call themselves "Dr." for all I care. As long as an earned PhD is required for academic employment in my field, they aren't competition on the job market.
But it seems fishy to be handing out alumnus/a status to people who are very wealthy, but who forgot to attend this particular institution. And the fact that this is done at the same ceremony where earned degrees are conferred on people who actually paid the tuition and stayed awake in the lectures is bad form.
Last points: German academics have traditionally insisted on being addressed based upon the number of their doctoral degrees. And they would list, before their name, the honorary degrees. Thus "Dr.habil, Dr.(h.c.) Wilhelm-Peter Grossausbildung."
And he might well insist on you calling him "Herr Dr. Dr. Prof. Grossausbildung."
So we Americans are not so bad, as far as this academic title-stuff goes.
A good example is Prof. Dr. Ing h.c. Ferdinand Porsche, the designer of the original Volkswagen Beetle. He had almost no formal engineering education -- his doctorates were honorary. Ing is for "engineer" -- I don't know what the h.c. stands for. In US states, you can't market yourself as an engineer unless you have a state license (professional registration).
The Univ. of Calif. - San Francisco grants a UCSF Medal in lieu of honorary degrees.
Speaking of MIT, neurodoc perhaps is not aware of a number of Pakistanis and Malaysians on MIT faculty and in post-doc positions. Quite a few of them qualify on the Holocaust-denier scale. The confusion is that, I suspect, neurodoc thinks I meant tenured faculty, but I made no such claim. I referred to academic employees, in general. As for tenured faculty, as far as I know, each Big Ten school and Berkeley has one. I believe, so does Maryland. It is really not a stretch to say that it is highly likely that every major university has one on the faculty, although not all of them are tenured.
Similarly, most major universities have racial theorists on the faculty. The most celebrated ones are probably at Berkeley, Delaware, Penn, Johns Hopkins and Maryland, but there are plenty to go around. Of course, the reason for attention being paid to the ones I mentioned is that they are tenured and are unapologetic for their view. Berkeley, in particular goes through a minor scandal on this account every couple of years, because they have to investigate the complaints that the guy fails to separate his views from the subject matter of his anthropology course (but he does, so he stays on the faculty).
In general, I believe that decisions on commencement speakers should be left to graduating classes, decision on h.c. degrees left to appropriate committees and should not be overturned. BUT, there is also no reason why these should not be protested. If, for example, Rick Santorum were invited as a speaker, I would love to see man-on-dog banners (with graphic photos) in protest. It's a little more difficult to make a "pubic hair in my Coke" display, but I'm sure UGA students can manage. Let them protest--we've been teaching them for many years to think for themselves, why not let them display their learning/ignorance in full view?
As for alumni, their "protests" should be limited to donation threats. Other than that, it's really not their place to whine about choices made by students and faculty--of which they are neither. If they want to say that they are ashamed of their school and don't want to give money, that's fine. Let the administration and faculty then decide what is more important for them. But don't meddle in university affairs directly.
Not arguing with you. This just makes me curious, especially due to the large-ish number of Jewish kids from my area--North Suburban Chicago public high schools--would go there every year. A perfectly good alternative for bright kids who wanted to go "out of state" for college, but didn't get into Ann Arbor.
Thanks for pointing out what "h.c." means in Prof. Dr. Ing. h.c. Ferdinand Porsche.
Regarding the holocaust -- I am not a denier but I am a revisionist. I assert that a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews. So yes, I think that there are good reasons for doubting official holocaust history.
How is that?
How many times have you said, "I didn't know (s)he was Jewish"? Or, "I thought (s)he was Jewish"?