The freedom of speakers on university campuses has been a bit of a hot topic recently. Controversies have erupted at Notre Dame over President Obama’s invitation to deliver its commencement address, at Boston College over a student group’s invitation to ex-Weather Underground leader William Ayers, and of course here at the University over a disappointing commencement speaker of our own. The controversial political views of these speakers have led to protests against their appearances, but a review of the three controversies shows that although it’s only natural to oppose speakers whose point of view is offensive to you, when the shoe’s on the other foot it’s clear that universities should not screen their speakers based on their political views.
The controversy at Boston College arose after William Ayers was invited to speak on education reform, a topic on which he is now a leading scholar. According to the college’s student newspaper, The Heights, the event was to be co-sponsored by a number of student groups as well as an associate dean and a professor.
Ayers, of course, is a controversial figure due to his admitted involvement in the Weather Underground, a radical student group that orchestrated several bombings in protest against the Vietnam War. In Boston, this group is especially hated due to the 1970 murder of police officer Walter Schroeder. The murder has been blamed on the Weather Underground in popular memory, although experts argue the group was likely not involved. After Ayers’s appearance was announced, local conservative talk show host Michael Graham began urging his listeners to demand the Boston College administration cancel the event.
The college seemed only too happy to oblige, stating “The emotional scars of the murder of Boston Police Sergeant Walter Schroeder, allegedly at the hands of the Weather Underground, which left nine children fatherless in the shadows of this campus, was an issue that we could not ignore.” By canceling the event, the college allowed Ayers to be convicted of murder without a trial or evidence.
Obama’s selection as commencement speaker at Notre Dame has received more press. Several professors have opposed the president’s appearance because of his policy changes regarding international aid for fertility clinics that counsel women about abortion and funding for embryonic stem cell research, both of which go against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The press has mostly ridiculed these objectors, and with good reason. Notre Dame is a university, not a church enclave, and speakers should be allowed to contradict the Vatican’s point of view. Besides, nearly every political speaker at the university likely holds some view that is in conflict with church doctrine. Notre Dame has a tradition of inviting newly elected presidents to speak, so when George W. Bush spoke in 2001, he did so in spite of his staunch support for the death penalty, which the Vatican opposes. Objecting to either speaker does not show a commitment to Catholic principles, but signals one’s own political biases. Nearly everyone can agree that denying the president a speaking engagement despite Notre Dame’s traditions would be, frankly, silly.
This brings us to our own commencement speaker, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, III. Some students have objected to his appearance based on his own controversial views. Especially upsetting is his decision from the bench that allowed the Bush administration to hold a United States citizen indefinitely without ever going to court or providing access to counsel.
Obviously, I do find Wilkinson’s positions outrageous. He is not so extreme, however, that one cannot argue with his positions rationally — as indeed the U.S. Supreme Court did. Moreover, if I were going to argue that both Ayers and Obama should not be denied their engagements on ideological grounds, it would be inconsistent to object to Wilkinson for that reason. Students who do so are showing their own biases.
However, there is a key difference between Wilkinson and the other speakers that makes it inappropriate for him to speak: Students don’t want him to. Students invited Ayers to Boston College. Students at Notre Dame will always remember the experience of having the president as their commencement speaker.
I, however, will probably forget my commencement speaker’s name by July. It is incredible that here, at a university that claims to allow something called “student self-governance,” students not only do not get a say in the final choice of a commencement speaker, but the decision seems to be made without students’ desires in mind (the most popular student choice, Stephen Colbert, was not even asked). University President John T. Casteen, III chose Wilkinson thinking he would deliver an enriching speech, and perhaps he will, but it is unimaginable that Casteen thought students would be excited about him.
The only reason I can think of to invite Wilkinson is to flatter an alumnus, perhaps hoping he would return to teach here again. In the process, the University administration has paid one more insult to graduating fourth years — one more clear statement that we do not matter to them.
It’s unlikely the administration would withdraw its invitation to Wilkinson, but if Wilkinson values student self-governance more than Casteen does, he should bow to student wishes and decline it.
Daniel Colbert’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at d.colbert@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
