The Michigan Review

Speaker Choice Uninspired

The University has had a very exciting and pride­inspiring year. In 1997­1998 the U­M has seen two national championships and other major successes in athletics, a championship in college bowl, a Rhodes Scholar, a successful Year of the Arts and Humanities, the successful completion of a one billion dollar fundraising campaign, and the usual academic success that the University is accustomed to, with its fine faculty and researchers.

In addition, the University has always had a tremendous reputation as one of the finest universities in the nation, a leader in scientific and academic achievements, its graduate schools consistently ranking among the best in the country. Yet for commencement, the most important day for our university's graduates, the school books a little­known speaker whose name and words are as unfamiliar to U students as are those of a Daily editorialist.

This year's choice for spring commencement speaker, Mamphela Ramphele, is a disappointment for many U­M graduates and their families. The announcement of last year's speaker, newly appointed U­M president Lee Bollinger, was unsurprising and unexciting; the University and its seniors were hoping that the following year's speaker would be a more well­known and popular national figure. Graduation is a time not only of solemn reflection and celebration, but a final chance for seniors to take advantage of the prestige of the University and take pride that their school can present them with a final parting gift of sorts the opportunity to see an important, widely­known figure speak for their own benefit.

Although she is prestigious in her own right, the speaker's reach is limited and few U­M students recognize her name or importance. Her chioce as speaker celebrates not the University's prestige and pride, nor its recent successes and popularity. Instead, this year's commencement speaker seems to call out toward an audience whose worries over recent affirmative action lawsuits must be appeased. This year's speaker speaks not to the graduates who do not know her, but to an administration that needs to show the world a sign of its mindless commitment to what it calls "diversity."

It has been a long while since the University has booked a spring commencement speaker who sparked any excitement among graduates and their families. During the past four years (excluding last year's Bollinger), University spring commencement speakers have looked quite similar: this year, an African woman educator; in 1996, an African­American woman president of Spelman College, and in 1995 an African­American woman, head of the Children's Defense Fund. We must question whether the U­M is selecting speakers who will impress the audience, or sending a message that the U­M wants everyone else to hear.

Looking at other schools around the country, we should follow their lead and invite speakers whose are renowned and recognized by students. The University of Pennsylvania has had speakers like Bill Cosby, Tom Brokaw, Jane Alexandar, Henry Cisneros, Hillary Clinton and Barbara Bush since 1990. Last year, the College of William and Mary had the honor of hosting Margaret Thatcher, and MIT had an amusing address from Kurt Vonnegut. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will address this year's graduates at Northwestern. Our own Schools of Medicine and Engineering have the opportunity this spring to listen to the Surgeon General and head of NASA. Yet, the U­M as a whole has failed in recent years to supply its graduates with speakers worthy of their time and investment in their school. Why should we, students of one of the greatest collegiate traditions in the U.S., look with envy upon any other school?

Granted, the U­M's policy regarding speakers seems to be this: to chose not a general speaker, but to ask one of the already­selected honorary degree recipients to speak. This has led to virtually unknown speakers and graduation ceremonies that many graduates are reluctant to attend. This is an obvious problem: graduates know that individual recognition is impossible at the large­scale event. The day that is supposed to be about them and their accomplishments has become instead a day for the University to again bombard us with its unceasing ideals and messages. If our graduates are unable to receive the special recognition that they deserve, the school at least owes them a memorable commencement with a renowned, recognizable speaker. A change of policy might be necessary; a change in ideas and dogmas might be necessary, too. As 1996 MSA President Flint Wainess said two years ago to the Daily, the commencement speech "should both draw attention to the University of Michigan and serve as food for thought f or graduates. [This year's speaker] might meet one of those stipulations, but she doesn't meet both." The same holds true this year. Hopefully, next year both stipulations will be met. MR

This article was published in the 22 April 1998 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 16, Number 10).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.