There are reliable rhythms to the academic year: New and returning students energize the campus every fall, winter (at least in Minnesota!) finds everyone sleeping on the floor with a slog, and, as the trees bloom and the days grow longer, we rush to an end full of senior deals and paper deadlines. It’s predictable and comforting.
Of course, there is another annual spring ritual to be observed: the highly avoidable arguments about invitations to commencement speakers and the conferring of honorary degrees, often spiced with self-righteous words and gestures by individuals who have been given a few minutes at the podium for very different purposes.
As the expected series of outrage begins again, one must ask: Why do we make the same mistakes year after year and open ourselves to the same political controversy? Are there no lessons to be learned to avoid falling into this obvious pile of dung? In fact, such studies exist and should be followed.
The first such lesson is that the award of an honorary degree is tantamount to an express endorsement of the university or endorsement of the recipient. The same can be said for giving a principal’s speech platform at an academic event that marks and celebrates the achievements of students at school. Granting a university’s imprimatur in these ways is one form of institutional “status”—no different from taking an official position on a political, economic, moral or social issue. And taking center stage is a very tricky business.
The second lesson—and the best way to navigate those tricky numbers—is to remember that a university must stay true to its highest values by staying focused on its core mission. It should also be consistent with its side of a mutually beneficial community agreement with the larger host community. If we combine these principles, the educational institution should generally refuse to take decisions in public disputes that are not necessary to pursue its goal. I consider this to be neutral rather than neutral, because universities are neutral in terms of their core goals and needs.
The third lesson—perhaps controversial and disturbing—follows directly from its predecessors. Awarding degrees is intended to ensure learning and other forms of intellectual attainment. It depends on the core purpose of the institution. A direct examination of the reasons for awarding honorary degrees should lead us to a new direction. If an honorary degree is awarded to a school, this is a clear academic decision—and an appropriate institutional action.
But if instead the degree is awarded for non-academic distinction (eg, record-breaking athlete), for government or humanitarian work, or for humanitarian service (including support of the provider’s institution), then the honor is not necessarily academic and, at best, only related to the institution’s work. We must stop the act of recognizing and/or showing gratitude for the award of a degree. The practice of using honorary degrees as a carrot to attract first-time speakers is particularly problematic. A more established position would be to award honorary degrees only for academic and academic merit, as is the practice at the University of Chicago.
The fourth lesson raises the question: Is it wrong to invite a prominent person to speak at the commencement without giving him a title? No. But it may not be wise, as it diverts attention from the real purpose and meaning of the academic ceremony and those graduates and their loved ones who should be in the middle of the day.
Indeed, giving a distinguished guest a non-academic honorary degree or speaking at a commencement can promote the institution’s interests. It can generate community and excitement by linking the institution to the accomplishments and fame of the honoree. Seeing them on stage and hearing them speak adds color to the show at the beginning and can entertain the audience.
Likewise, honoring the honoree’s past gift is a powerful way to encourage continued giving—both to the recipient and to others who are inspired by their example. These are legitimate goals for the institution to pursue. But universities can easily honor distinguished individuals and valued friends of the institution in other ways, such as by presenting an honorary medal or award. Better not at first, though.
Lessons five and six both deal with acceptable legal and academic protections against negative speakers—perhaps faculty or students who cannot resist the temptation to take full advantage of the virtual platform the institution has provided to advance their preferred cause.
A fifth lesson, particularly interesting in higher education, is that both the First Amendment’s mandate (which applies to public colleges and universities) and the actual institutional obligations of academic freedom (which apply to many private institutions—and are consistent with but not inconsistent with constitutional freedom of speech) generally provide a great deal of freedom for that speech. Protest is a form of protected speech. And from a practical standpoint, there is little to be gained on many campuses by making anyone a free martyr for academic freedom.
While I appreciate the increasing pressure on university leaders to impose consequential penalties on unruly protesters, the long-term interests of higher education are better served—and institutions will come closer to their highest standards—by absorbing the pain. Perhaps some comfort may be found in the fact that most listeners will never hear, care, or remember for long what seemed to some listeners to be serious disrespect. Therefore, it is best to keep the embarrassing talk in the center in check. The actual disruption of the graduation ceremony protest, is a different story.
That said, the sixth and final lesson is that all speakers should understand—or be taught!—that their time at the lectern is a privilege and that their comments and behavior, even if intended to be personal, may nevertheless be attributed to the university sponsoring the event and giving them the microphone. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for the institution to insist on the prevention of any comment and compliance with what was promised to be said. Honesty and honor—qualities we must instill in our students and expect from our faculty—demand more than that. And most of the speakers will be up at the event. In the worst case, disciplinary sanctions may be pursued. But it is wiser for university leaders to use the institution’s voice to isolate, challenge and criticize speech or actions that are truly uncaring or hurtful.
Institutions that learn and stick to these lessons will keep their attention on the right audience of graduates, their families and friends, and thus will be more likely to produce a happy and meaningful—albeit less well-known!—end of the year.
