<p>Maybe we should thank the conservative talk show host for bringing the issue of inappropriate language to the political discourse, for when the left engages in the “war on women,” their supporters seem to be silent. Also, I’m not sure if trying to respond the despicable anonymous blog posts will be effective, it will only draw attention to them and emboldens them. In that I fully agree with President Spar.</p>
<p>My D has only been at Barnard for a year, and she has not met anyone that would spew the kind of nonsense you read on the CU’s blogs either.</p>
<p>I talked to my D this morning about all the nonsense on BWOG. She was horrified by the fact that it’s now gotten PR in the NYT and some other publication that I cannot recall. She took issue with President Spar’s statement…really HOW she worded it…of the obnoxious posts being just something a “nineteen year old writes at 4:30 am”, or something to that effect. Thing is, that is 1/4 of Barnard’s population! You cannot just dismiss across the board the validity of at least a quarter of your own student body, for if you do that for the CC student body, it must apply to all of them. My D does think that both administrations need to come out and publicly condemn all the nonsense being said. </p>
<p>I also get the notion of saying nothing in the hopes that things will just die out. Not sure this will, though, by graduation. We will see!</p>
<p>The point is, to the extent that Obama’s decision was motivated by current events (of which I am somewhat skeptical), then it would have have been a response to statements made by a right-wing radio personality which are of the same ilk as the stuff being posted on the Bwog. I think the Bwog stuff is even worse, actually. Jezebel has a good summary of the worst of the Bwog- I won’t cross post, I’m sure anyone can find it by Googling.</p>
<p>My skepticism comes from the fact that I don’t think the decision as to where the President will speak is a last-minute decision. My guess is that there is someone within the White House who is tasked with drawing up a short list-- and probably even a day when it is on the routine agenda to pick among those colleges. So its possible that political events of that week may impact the decision among the few colleges on the short list, but I’m guessing Barnard was already under consideration. </p>
<p>The irony is that Barnard might have been chosen over Wellesley or Bryn Mawr precisely because of the Columbia connection. If the embittered CC students had a better understanding and appreciation for the history of the Barnard/Columbia relationship, they might recognize that the President has chosen to speak to one of the four undergraduate colleges at Columbia, just not the one he personally attended. Given that Columbia was male-only when he attended, it’s likely that his view of the Columbia/Barnard relationship is the one formed during those years. I would guess that single young men attending Columbia in the early 80’s had a quite different and far more positive view of Barnard.</p>
<p>The last time Obama was on the Columbia campus (in 1988, for a candidate’s forum), the events were broadcast live at multiple locations on campus. Barnard’s commencement is live-streamed so it will be available to anyone with an internet connection, on or off campus. When my d. graduated, at least two of her tickets went to CC friends – so I am assuming there will be many CC students in the audience. So one way or another, Obama will be at Columbia on May 14.</p>
<p>churchmusicmom, I was more or less referring to the replies by some (on the BWOG) that attempted to explain or reason with the nasty posts of those “19-year-olds.” You cannot reason with the people that post such comments for their only goal is to get under your skin. Dragging it to the attention of local or national media may make these girls look like they’re running to the authorities when a wrong has been done to them. After reading some of the posts, I really felt the same way as Spar. I think I still do, at this point. It will be interesting to see if it does boil over.
I asked my D, but she’s studying for her midterm tests so this excitement out in the BWOG-a-land is passing just by her:)</p>
<p>Sarah Palin is a public figure. She’s run for office and has been pretty flamboyant both in campaigning and in speaking. Sandra Fluke, by contrast, is a private citizen who testified before Congress on a specific issue about which she has particular knowledge. She did not sign up for the name calling that (sadly) goes with political campaigning in this country and which Sarah Palin entered into with open eyes. I admit, I also do think that calling this young woman a slut and prostitute and asking her to post sexual videos is a new low that any public figure should want to condemn. </p>
<p>I’d be surprised if President Obama delivered anything less than a brilliant speech. He’s incredibly articulate and even if he does have a political message he wants to deliver, I am sure it will be compelling. I don’t expect to hear demonizing and if I do, I’ll be sadly disappointed and quite surprised. My dd (who graduated last year) was most unhappy at the choice of commencement speaker last year and is incredulous that she missed out on both Meryl Streep (the year before) and President Obama.</p>
<p>Not to belabor things, but she was not testifying before Congress. It was a House DEMOCRATIC Steering and Policy Committee. She is hardly a neophyte who had no idea what she was getting into. She is a 30 year old Georgetown law student and much of what she had to say before that group is, or should be up for debate.</p>
<p>Instead the media has focused solely on Rush Limbaugh’s admittedly harsh and inappropriate language. Limbaugh is not, or should not be the issue. And the Republican party is not about waging some kind of war on women…they are, however, about trying to raise questions about how all of this “free” stuff is going to get financed. Or whether it is appropriate to use taxpayer funds to pay for something that is against the deeply held beliefs of some. </p>
<p>The timing of President Obama’s announcement that he would be speaking at Barnard just raised a red flag to me, as it was right in the middle of the uproar of Ms. Fluke’s testimony and Rush Limbaugh’s comments about it (why is he even an issue? Again, he is NOT running for office!). It just fits in so very nicely with the Democrat’s eagerness to paint the Republican party with a broad “women hater” brush. I do hope that Mr. Obama’s speech will be inspirational and appropriate.</p>
<p>If you want a clue about how Obama will cast his speech, you can find the text of the commencement speech he gave at Notre Dame a couple of years ago. There were a lot of people bent out of shape that he was speaking at a Catholic university, but what he actually said was measured and respectful of opposing views. He’ll most likely do the same thing at Barnard.</p>
<p>I couldn’t disagree with you more, shoshi, when you say that it is somehow excusable to use derogatory language against a person only because that person chose to become a public servant. But if that’s your gauge, I’d like to point out that Sandra Fluke is hardly an innocent bystander. She is an activist. Palin’s kids, on the other hand, are not. Words mean things.</p>
<p>I’m sorry to hear, that your D found Sheryl Sandberg, one of the few very successful business women in a man’s world, disappointing. Anyway, I think, we all agree that Obama can be a charismatic speaker.</p>
<p>Again, as to the timing of the announcement, I don’t believe that the selection of colleges is a last minute thing. There is too much that can go wrong with last-minute impulse decisions – and graduations are events that can be anticipated far in advance, so no reason to rush on the decision. So the White House probably had a short list developed, with perhaps 6-10 possibilities. Valerie Jarrett’s visit to Barnard in February probably included some “vetting”, though Barnard may not have been aware of the dual purpose of the visit. </p>
<p>The current political winds certainly may have influenced a decision among the schools on the short list. Perhaps Barnard was the #5 choice, and the focus on women’s issues led the White House to bump it up ahead of the others. Maybe the original 1st choice was a public university in a swing state. We really can’t know.</p>
<p>The other thing to keep in mind is that the White House did not formally announce the Barnard commencement ahead of others (Obama will also speak to USAF grads & Joplin high school). Rather, the information was leaked, and confirmed by the NY Times. If Barnard’s previously arranged speaker had been anyone other than a New York Times executive editor, the news probably wouldn’t have come out ahead of the general announcement/ press release. </p>
<p>But there was no way that Deborah Spar could have told Jill Abramson of the change in plans without telling her of the reason. (My daughter taught me years ago that there is a “Barnard way” of communicating one’s needs, which is discreet and genteel. At the time my daughter was irritated with the tone I took in an email to financial aid, and told me that my brusqueness was not the “Barnard way”. So I am going to guess that Deborah Spar didn’t quite “disinvite” Jill Abramson, but more likely was very gracious, giving Ms. Abramson the opportunity to politely bow out of her own accord, after being informed of the President’s offer). </p>
<p>Just a note: Preventive care, including contraception, is revenue neutral. It doesn’t cost more simply because the cost to an insurer of providing contraception is far less than the costs incurred in providing maternity care. The best way the government can cut health costs overall is to make sure that all policies include preventive care for everyone. Given the ongoing attacks on Planned Parenthood (which is where uninsured people often go for their contraceptive needs), the issue isn’t about money.</p>
<p>I agree with you 100%. Also, now that I look at it, there have been people bent out of shape no matter where Obama has chosen to speak. There are people currently upset about his decision to talk to Joplin high school grads as well.</p>
<p>That seems to be a favorite gambit of the right: to attack Obama & feign outrage for what he doesn’t say. Similarly… to attack various proposals/programs/agendas for things that aren’t actually part of the proposal – example: “death panels” with the affordable care act. I guess its easier to generate anger with a straw man argument. </p>
<p>I think the complaints about the teleprompter use stem from a similar underlying frustration: Obama rarely actually says anything that can be characterized as objectionable. So his critics have to either attack him for what he leaves out or come up with some sort of odd twist in interpreting his words. (For example, Obama says that he wants all Americans to have the opportunity to continue their education beyond high school; the highly educated Santorum calls Obama a “snob” for wanting everyone to go to college.) So I guess in that vein if Obama suggests that the 2012 Barnard grads might go on to pursue higher education and/or meaningful careers, someone will find a way to characterize that as an attack on marriage, motherhood and family values. </p>
<p>I think that one of his very talented speechwriters will compose a suitably appropriate commencement speech for Barnard, and Obama will pretty much stay on script. The speech will be probably be appropriately inspirational and avoid direct references to any current political controversy. He is fully aware that he is not making a campaign speech or addressing an audience composed entirely of his supporters.</p>
<p>President Obama speaking at Barnard – a woman’s LAC is wonderful. I
expect a fine, middle of the road speech-- nothing ground breaking but
reinforcing strong woman in our Society. I suspect Michelle may proof
the speech to get it just right.</p>
<p>It seems to me that a nationally covered speech at a major womens LAC
would “lift all boats” at these fine schools. Barnard should be proud.</p>
<p>Just my .02 David </p>
<p>ps-- I’d run the rough draft by Hillary just to make certain the punch lines
are clear!</p>
<p>er… I don’t believe Obama will be writing his own speech. I certainly hope not – I can’t imagine anything more inefficient given his much more important job responsibilities. The task will be assigned to one of his speechwriters-- and its as likely as not that Obama will see the speech for the first time aboard Air Force 1 on the way to New York. </p>
<p>Note that particular speechwriter said he worked on many education speeches – my guess is that there is a small team of speechwriters, each with expertise or knack developed for certain topics or audiences. </p>
<p>I’m having a hard time figuring out who is currently on the current White House speechwriting staff, though Jon Favreau is the director of speechwriting (but I am assuming that his talents are reserved for more important venues & circumstances than a college commencement).</p>
<p>Here’s a list of some people who have been employed as speech writers in past administrations - its fun to go through the list and see how many names you recognize:
[White</a> House Speechwriter](<a href=“http://www.nndb.com/gov/509/000213867/]White”>White House Speechwriter)</p>
<p>OK, found it: [2011</a> Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff | The White House](<a href=“http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2011]2011”>http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2011) – you have to do a search of the table for “speechwriter” and that pulls up the names of 8 staffers at various levels of responsibilities. Among that list, if the task of the Barnard speech is assigned to a woman, it will likely go to Sarah Hurwitz - whose previous job was working as Hilary Clinton’s head speechwriter during the primary campaign in 2008.</p>
<p>Obviously the President of the United States does not write all of
his speeches-- employing a team of speech writers-- this is a long known
fact. Given the audience (WLAC grads) I simply felt that he’d really, really,
REALLY want to get every word perfect, especially running the wording
by Michelle and Hillary. I trust the President takes a peak at text before
it is placed in a teleprompter and he utters it.</p>
<p>I’m sure he does. I’m just thinking that there’s probably a staff meeting about a week ahead where it is decided what points he wants to highlight in whatever is scheduled for the following week – and then her probably has a chance to go over the speech perhaps the day before it is given, perhaps in transit on the plane. Hillary has much more important job responsibilities right now than vetting Obama’s speeches, and Michelle also has a set of responsibilities of her own. </p>
<p>I know it is fun to imagine them all sitting around planning the Barnard commencement speech… but I figure that its actually pretty low on all of their priority lists. </p>
<p>I mean… I would hope that both Obama & Hillary Clinton are spending their nights worrying about Iran… and not what is going to be said in some college commencement speech.</p>
<p>Argh, I don’t understand all the agita about the President of the United States speaking at a college that is a significant component of the university of which he is an alumnus. Yes, for all of you whom forgot, Barnard College is a unit of Columbia University.</p>
I don’t believe Obama will be writing his own speech. I certainly hope not – I can’t imagine anything more inefficient given his much more important job responsibilities. The task will be assigned to one of his speechwriters-- and its as likely as not that Obama will see the speech for the first time aboard Air Force 1 on the way to New York. </p>