commencement speeches

I have to disagree with Karen Stohr about her take on commencement speeches. She contends that rescinding an invitation means that the school is saying that the speaker can't make a contribution to the communal project of pursuing the truth. I don't think that is what is going on here at all. I think honorary degrees and commencement speeches (usually the speaker is also receiving an honorary degree, at least where we are talking about higher education) send a message about the school's identity. The honor is being bestowed on someone the school thinks it ought to honor. While the honor doesn't necessarily mean that the school endorses everything the person has ever said or done, the choice to honor someone who disagrees with Church teaching on very important issues has the potential to interfere with the clarity of the message that the school ought to be trying to communicate.

The school might think the person had something to contribute to a a discussion of an issue and it might be appropriate to have a debate between Mario Cuomo and Henry Hyde or Judge James Buckley about the role of a public servant. It would be perfectly appropriate for the school to have a debate on infanticide featuring Peter Singer and Robby George or a discussion on liberation theology involving Father Sobrino and Pope Benedict.

But a commencement speech is not a debate. The school is defining itself through these selections and the selection (the honoring) of someone who is in favor of abortion rights communicates either that the school doesn't think there is anything wrong with the person's views or that the error in the person's views isn't terribly important. With regard to the issue of abortion, I think those are the wrong messages to be sending.

Richard M.