A problem undoubtedly exists when the Secretary of the Board of Visitors has to assure students that the commencement speaker for the 2009 graduation ceremony is in no way “a racist or an ideologue.” Yet Secretary Alexander Gilliam and other members of the administration responsible for the selection of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III as this year’s speaker seem to have missed that point. Wilkinson is a conservative judge who ruled in a landmark court case that United States citizens could be detained indefinitely without trial if suspected of terrorist activities, who has spoken out against gay marriage, and who has also been accused of being a racist both for his court rulings and for the ideas present in his publications. His selection as commencement speaker is highly symbolic of the distance that exists between a dynamic student body and an out-of-touch administration too ensconced in its good ol’ boy traditions to understand — or even to consider — the pulse of the student community.
In a phone interview last week, Secretary Gilliam characterized the opposition students and others have expressed to the choice of Wilkinson with two words: “Pure crap.”
His words, not mine. Such was the response to members of the student community whom he and other members of the Board of Visitors purport to represent.
My fellow fourth-years and I have anxiously awaited the announcement of the person who will deliver our 2009 commencement address. Though I had prepared myself for the possibility of disappointment, the release of Wilkinson’s name last week was much more than that.
Wilkinson has been a friend of the University for decades. He graduated from the law school in the early 1970s and later returned there to teach. According to Gilliam, he was the first student member of the Board of Visitors and a “boy wonder” in his time as a student here.
Yet Wilkinson’s conservative rulings as a federal judge the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, his position against affirmative action, and his insider status as a beloved member of a stagnant University administration call into question his relevance to the graduating class of 2009. His selection also calls into question the process by which the University chooses its speakers. It is not that Wilkinson is a conservative. It is that his political biases will alienate a large number of students when a commencement speaker should bring students together. Graduation is should not be about political ideology.
According to Gilliam, who chairs the subcommittee in charge of developing a list of graduation speakers, the committee that develops a list of potential speakers is made up of both students and faculty members who generate ideas for speakers and eventually rank their top ten before giving the list to President Casteen. Students on the committee are “encouraged” to talk to their peers about what speakers they would like to see. Ultimately, according to Gilliam, President Casteen can pick any name from the ten as his choice for commencement speaker.
The process clearly possesses a number of flaws. President Casteen’s power as sole selector at the end of the committee’s deliberation leaves open the all-too-likely possibility that he’ll opt for one of his BFFs over other potentially more appropriate speakers. Moreover, the lack of transparency that characterizes the entire process and the lack of a large amount of student input widens the already present disconnect between students and administrators. Did they really think a speaker like Wilkinson is what we wanted, or what we deserved?
The selection of Wilkinson in particular has angered many students, leaving them wondering why he was the University’s choice. Yet I suppose in the end it’s not a surprise that this is the outcome of a bureaucratic decision focused more on granting favors than on providing students with a relevant, thought-provoking end to the four years they have spent at the University.
Wilkinson will in all likelihood remain our commencement speaker; there is little we can do to change that. He is a man beloved by an administration too out of touch with the students it represents, and he is immune to criticism from members of the law school because of his influence as a judge on Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (after all, a clerkship at such an institution is a coveted opportunity).
What we can do is make sure that everyone who attends graduation and who asks about our commencement speaker knows exactly who he is and how he was selected. Do your research, disseminate the information, hand out leaflets at graduation describing the implications of Wilkinson’s court decisions, his position that affirmative action leads to ethnic separatism, and what it means that the University chose him anyway. It is not about attacking the man, but instead about challenging his positions and questioning the University’s decision-making process.
Instead of celebrating graduation by honoring the selection of Wilkinson, we can celebrate graduation by coming together against it.
Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: The truth about nuclear power in Northern Virginia
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoYoungkin is trying to entice data centers to move to Northern Virginia for his own political gain, and presenting this to the taxpayer as a service to the citizen is deceiving.
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 6 days agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | November 20, 2024We need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
