<p>I love what he said.</p>
<p>IMO he had no right to drag down the graduation ceremony at Haverfrod with those comments. If he didn’t like the situation, he shouldn’t have agreed to speak at commencement.</p>
<p>A few years ago my S’s graduation speaker at Fordham was John Brennan (CIA Director now). A number of students protested based on his possible role in the “War on Terror policies” including the use of torture in ways that clearly violate the teachings of the church and the values of a Jesuit institution. When he started to speak a handful to students actually stood up and turned their backs to him. Yet, he used his speech as a real teachable moment. Brennan met with a group of students who protested his appearance prior to the ceremony, he addressed the accusations in a forthright manner during his speech, and he agreed to return to campus the next year to continue the discussion. He spoke about honesty and integrity and said to "never judge your actions according to what those around you do – judge yourself against the high standards you set for yourself, "He also spoke of his love for Fordham (his alma mater) and how the school impacted his life and his career. All in all, if you approved of him as a speaker or not, I think almost everyone walked away satisfied.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So true! You should never speak about important issues related to a University while at the University</p>
<p>Here is what he should have said instead:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-15/dear-class-of-2014-thanks-for-not-disinviting-me”>http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-15/dear-class-of-2014-thanks-for-not-disinviting-me</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The chancellor is on record as indicating that the students were not “non-violent” and <em>seems</em> to be indicating that they got what they deserved. I think that is relevant. </p>
<p>I do not think that it is reason to make the demands that were made, as I said above. Reason to ask for a discussion, yes.</p>
<p>I disagree with @gouf78 and find myself in full agreement with @xiggi.</p>
<p>Bowen is a deeply thoughtful person who has spent the last many years thinking about higher education. I think his main point was that if you screen all speakers so that they don’t offend anyone or any vocal groups in the audience, you are going to get people who a) probably are pretty bland; or b) at a painfully politically correct institution (like most colleges these days and certainly like Haverford), you will merely get people who hold the same opinions as you do. You never learn anything. And his main complaint was that the student group demanded that before Birgeneau could speak at Haverford, Birgeneau apologize, support reparations for the victims of the beatings and arrests that took place when police broke up an Occupy Cal protest, admit police used unjustifiable excessive force, and write an open letter to Haverford students explaining his position on the incident, what he learned from it, and how he’s put what he learned into practice. [Apparently there were nine demands in total]. In effect, they asked to him to genuflect to their political beliefs before they would agree that he should be honored by Haverford.</p>
<p>If you are going to have speakers at commencement, they might as well be people who have done something and might not be fully in tune with every segment of the audience on every issue. Birgeneau has actually been out front in a positive way (from the liberal point of view) advocating for the rights of undocumented immigrants to get a college education – which could have offended right-wingers (not clear if there are any at Haverford).</p>
<p>If the administration chooses a speaker of substance and a subset of students want to make their graduation into political theater and the administration kowtows to them, the students shouldn’t then be upset if someone doesn’t actually tell them that their behavior is wonderful and deserves a gold star. The only question I have is whether folks who are unhappy with Bowen’s speaking out think that a) the administration should self-censor in anticipation of potential student unhappiness by picking only speakers to whom all relevant groups of students will have no objections, b) the students should self-censor by not sending a list of demands, or c) the speakers should self-censor. The argument for speaker self-censorship is, I guess, that they are in someone else’s house, they should abide by the other person’s rules, but I think if you want to give honorary degrees to consequential people, you should expect them to say consequential things, which I think Bowen did.</p>
<p>Incidentally, Yale Law professor Stephen Carter wrote a facetious essay that is rather critical of the students’ approach at Haverford, Smith and elsewhere: <a href=“http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-15/dear-class-of-2014-thanks-for-not-disinviting-me”>http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-15/dear-class-of-2014-thanks-for-not-disinviting-me</a>. They probably won’t invite him to speak at Haverford next year.</p>
<p>That list of demands sounds like something you ask of a 3rd grader who misbehaved on the playground. Good grief.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well that “seems” certainly is a huge leap and “seems” to read a lot more into this than is warranted. </p>
<p>Secondly, he was accused by the protesters of having a role in the police violence. Expressing a viewpoint after the fact about what he thought about the bounds of non-violent protest were is not even close to having a role in the specific activities of the police the day before.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just announce, Casey Kasem has been found alive and has been selected as next year’s speaker at Haverford. HIs pre-approved speech to the graduates is provided below:</p>
<p>“Congratulations for being among the 93% who complete their degree at Haverford within 6 years…
You are special.
Remember, to reach for the stars, but keep your feet on the ground.
Go Black Squirrels!”</p>
<p>p.s. there is another thread about Carter’s graduation speech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To reiterate, I think that asking him to have a discussion about the bounds on non-violent protest would be perfectly reasonable, but to present him with that list of demands was not reasonable. What exactly his role in the events surrounding the protest was, I have no idea. Did he call the police onto the campus? Is his agreement to their presence required? Is there any degree to which he is consulted on their course of action in a situation like this? I take no position on the subject because I do not have the facts.</p>
<p>“And his main complaint was that the student group demanded that before Birgeneau could speak at Haverford, Birgeneau apologize, support reparations for the victims of the beatings and arrests that took place when police broke up an Occupy Cal protest, admit police used unjustifiable excessive force, and write an open letter to Haverford students explaining his position on the incident, what he learned from it, and how he’s put what he learned into practice. [Apparently there were nine demands in total]. In effect, they asked to him to genuflect to their political beliefs before they would agree that he should be honored by Haverford.”</p>
<p>I have no position on Birgeneau one way or the other, but this whole “student demands” thing is getting very out of hand. Who are they to “make demands”? God, for the liberal that I am, I’m getting awfully sick and tired of entitled students at elite colleges who think they have a right to “demand things.” </p>
<p>fyi, those are campus police, not from the city or state.</p>
<p>I agree with your comments. I was objecting to the protestors statement that he had a role in the violence. There has been no evidence that that was the case. It was a bit of “even though their are no facts supporting us, you have been found guilty in the court of public opinion”. </p>
<p>Yes, as chancellor, the police ultimately reported to him (not sure how many levels)…but you can take that a step further and say that since he eventually reports to the Governor, then the police ultimately reported to the Gov.</p>
<p>As others pointed out, he was a good person who not only campaigned for equitable treatment of illegal immigrants but he was also very active and supportive for the LGBT community. There was nothing in his background that would indicate he would condone violent action or that he would think that these protesters deserve what they got.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Technically, police departments at California public universities are branches of the state police.</p>
<p>I don’t really blame the kids because they’re still young enough not to know any better, but I definitely have no tolerance for the faculty and administration that either encourages this behavior or quietly tolerates it. </p>
<p>@ucbalumnus are you sure? (based on your name I shouldn’t doubt it). The head of the department reports up through the state police, not the university? I checked out the website and couldn’t quite figure it out.</p>
<p>only thing I found was: “The Regents established the University of California Police Department in its own right as a fully constituted police agency with authority based on Sections 20221 and 20222 of the State Education Code.”</p>
<p>It is state police, although its reporting goes through the university campus and system, which is a part of the state.</p>
<p>A few points:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Birgeneau wasn’tt invited to give a major commencement address at Haverford. He was one of 4 people invited to receive honorary degrees, along with Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp, poet Elizabeth Alexander, and Princeton President Emeritus William Bowen. (Contrary to much misreporting, Bowen was not a “substitute” for Birgeneau). Each had 5 minutes to speak. Birgeneau declined Haverford’s invitation after receiving a strongly worded letter from 50 people, mostly Haverford students. Krupp and Alexander respected their 5 minute limit and spoke on themes resonating with Haverford College values–public service, social justice, a passion for lifelong learning, the power to use our gifts to make a difference in the world. Bowen spoke for double the allotted time, assuming Birgeneau’s vacated slot. The first half of Bowen’s talk was what you’d expect in that time slot. He used the second half to lambaste the Haverford protesters, and by implication the entire student body and administration. Some in the audience applauded enthusiastically; from my vantage point they appeared to be a distinct minority. Many of us were mortified at the inappropriateness of Bowen’s comments, and their condescending tone and content.</p></li>
<li><p>The Haverford protestors did not seek to “silence” Birgeneau. Their leaders clearly said they would welcome him on campus at any time to engage in a substantive dialog. They objected to the decision of their college–a historically Quaker institution committed to Quaker principles including non-violence and a right of non-violent protest–to award Birgeneau an honorary degree, given the violent police response to non-violent student protests that occurred during Birgeneau’s watch at Berkeley, and subsequent statements that appeared to condone the police response. They viewed this as a betrayal of Haverford’s most deeply held values, and an inappropriate use of the institution’s power to confer honorary degrees. Others in the Haverford community disagreed. You and I may agree or disagree, but frankly, our opinions are irrelevant. That was a debate internal to the Haverford community, and no one else’s da*ned business. </p></li>
<li><p>Had he accepted Haverford’s invitation, Birgeneau wouldn’t have had much opportunity in his 5 minutes to address substantive issues troubling the protesters, or anything else. It wasn’t that kind of speech. Consequently, I don’t view this as a free speech or academic freedom issue, contrary to much editorial blathering. Nor was this a “lost opportunity for learning,” as the the pontificators would have it. The “speech opportunity” was the academic equivalent of an Oscar acceptance speech. Efforts to make this out out to be a major free speech or academic freedom issue are either highly contrived, disingenuous, or simply misinformed.</p></li>
<li><p>What was the offense for which Bowen felt compelled to publicly call out the Haverford protesters as “arrogant” and “immature”? They had the temerity to send Birgeneau a strongly worded letter in which they “urged” and “requested” (they never said “demand,” that was Bowen’s term) that Birgeneau make a “full apology” for the violence at Berkeley and commit to becoming a national leader in rethinking how college and university administrations respond to non-violent student protests. Just the sort of thing you’d expect from a Quaker college. And if Birgeneau didn’t agree to their “urgings” and “requests” they threatened to . . . try to reopen discussion at Haverford as to the appropriateness of awarding him an honorary degree. Oh, heavenly days! Students speaking out on their most deeply held values! Values they expect their college to share because it has marketed and sold itself to them as, and in its better moments actually believes it is, just that kind of college! Excuse me, this is hardly the Reign of Terror, and it’s not a matter of anyone serving as “judge, jury, and executioner.” Acting on deeply held values and the information available to them, the protesters raised questions that invited a response from Birgeneau. A less arrogant and more mature response from Birgeneau might have led to constructive dialog. Instead a miffed Birgeneau turned down the college’s invitation, based on a single strongly worded letter from a distinct minority of students and faculty. I view the rejection of Haverford’s invitation as Birgeneau’s issue. His rejection strikes me as an act of cowardice, reflecting an unwillingness to stand up to controversy and protest and to engage in dialog. The protesters did succeed in reopening discussion at Haverford about whether to award the degree. The college’s decision to award an honorary degree was reaffirmed, but Birgeneau declined anyway.</p></li>
<li><p>I don’t care whether Birgeneau got an honorary degree from Haverford or not. I do think there’s an opportunity going forward to have an honest, give-and-take dialog on the issues raised by the Haverford protesters concerning the appropriate response by colleges and universities to (admittedly disruptive) non-violent student protests. Bowen, in his own condescending way, said such a dialog is needed. But it is NOT a dialog that would have occurred in a 5-minute acceptance speech for an honorary degree. That’s why Bowen’s remarks and so much of the editorializing labeling this a “free speech” or “academic freedom” issue are way off base. Based on his petulant rejection of Haverford’s invitation, I doubt Birgeneau actually wants that dialog. But I could be wrong; he seems in many ways la thoughtful and decent man who cares deeply about higher education. </p></li>
<li><p>As for Bowen, I thought his behavior at Haverford disgraceful and inexcusable. He was everything he accused the Haverford students of being: arrogant, condescending, too quick to judge, setting himself up as “judge, jury, and executioner” by publicly condemning and attempting to shame the students without full knowledge of the facts, and abusing the power of the podium by launching into a one-way diatribe before a captive audience without any opportunity for the accused to respond. Also hypocritical, practicing exactly what he condemned. Hypocritical, too, in stating he was in no position to judge Birgenau’s actions at Berkeley because he didn’t have all the facts or the institutional context, yet reflexively presuming a right to judge Haverford students without having all the facts or the institutional context. This I find reprehensible. Bowen’s comments brought shame on Haverford, but not in the way he intended. Bowen’s comments were shameful. </p></li>
<li><p>If there is a free speech issue here, it lies in the efforts of Bowen and some editorial writers to silence student protest. The Haverford protesters wrote a letter. That was a quintessential exercise of their free speech rights. It was strongly worded, to the point that many in the Haverford community who shared the underlying concerns were unwilling to sign on. But hey, that’s free speech. If someone’s offended, so be it. An informed dialog doesn’t occur if people squelch their most deeply held values and sincere beliefs for fear of offending the powers that be. It does require openness to opposing views and to new information, but it doesn’t require the least powerful to refrain from “speaking truth to power” for fear of offending, which seems to be Bowen was demanding. That was the most disturbing and hypocritical aspect of Bowen’s remarks: in the name of defending free speech and full dialog, he demanded that students silence themselves and be subservient to a “person of substance” like Birgeneau–thereby implying, on commencement day, that students were persons of no consequence who had no right to speak if it might offend their betters. Frankly, I can’t imagine a worse thought on which to send college graduates off into the world. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>@bclintonk you said all the points I’ve been thinking. Students express their opinions on a deeply held beliefs, speaker withdraws, students condemned by the world. I would far rather the speaker stayed, and engaged the students.</p>
<p>Engaged? Several commencement speakers cancelled this year because of arrogant, disgruntled student protests. They did not desire engagement nor did they fully understand what they were upset about in the first place. Seems to me these students are the ones trying to shut down speech. What they requested from him was not engagement. They’re behavior is embarrassing but sadly they are unable to see how spoiled and silly they appear.</p>
<p>“Some in the audience applauded enthusiastically; from my vantage point they appeared to be a distinct minority. Many of us were mortified at the inappropriateness of Bowen’s comments, and their condescending tone and content.”</p>
<p>It’s very hard to tell from the differing accounts what really happened here. He stated his opinion on a controversy. I don’t necessarily think commencement is the best place for controversy but if some activist students are going to go digging through the background of every invited speaker looking for something to be outraged about it’s a safe bet they will find it. The students are not being condemned by the world. Actually, it sounds like the reaction was mixed with most probably uninvolved, which is usually the case in these things. Most students are not all that worried about every word said from the podium and if they didn’t protest they were not being admonished. </p>
<p>If I were a successful individual deemed worthy of receiving honorary degrees and being invited to speak at commencements, I would have no interest in coming to a school if it meant subjecting myself to heckling, protests against me, or disruptions in a graduation ceremony which is supposed to celebrate my and the students’ achievements. “Come and let us honor you by allowing a bunch of twenty-one year olds to insult you and accuse you of moral failures.” Who needs that?</p>