On Saturday, former Sec. of State and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice announced she will no longer offer the commencement address for Rutgers University. In a letter to the university’s president, Rice wrote:
“Commencement should be a time of joyous celebration for the graduates and their families. Rutgers’ invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time.
I am honored to have served my country. I have defended America’s belief in free speech and the exchange of ideas. These values are essential to the health of our democracy. But that is not what is at issue here. As a Professor for thirty years at Stanford University and as it’s former Provost and Chief academic officer, I understand and embrace the purpose of the commencement ceremony and I am simply unwilling to detract from it in any way.”
After the school’s Board of Governors invited Rice to speak and award her an honorary degree, several faculty members and students protested, wanting the invitation rescinded because of Rice’s role in the Iraq War. Signs at last week’s student-staged sit-in included: “No honors for war criminals”… “War criminals out”… and “RU 4 Humanity?”
Once again members of a place that considers itself an institution of higher learning and academic excellence choose to learn by drowning out contrary opinion. My sense is that these students and faculty believe they are wise and smart and keenly intellectual. They understandably disagree with any involvement in the Iraq War. But let the Intramuralist be clear… agree or disagree; agree or disagree on the legitimacy of America’s stated purpose in Iraq. Such is the valid prerogative for each of us. Saying, however, that a person should be silenced because we passionately disagree with their point of view is an exercise in foolishness… no matter the supposed excellence of any institution.
Friends, I speak not about the validity of passions regarding the Iraq War; there exist wise people from all parties who feel strongly on all sides of that issue. What concerns me is the growing number of people who feel justified in silencing those they disagree with — and in the case of Condoleezza Rice, acting as if this remarkably accomplished African-American woman is somehow unqualified to speak.
Note that…
Rapper Sean “Puff Daddy” Combs will speak at Howard University on May 10th.
Former MLB manager Tony LaRussa will speak at Washington University on May 16th.
PBS’s Gwen Ifill will speak at St. Mary’s College on the 17th.
Bill Nye, the Science Guy, will speak at Umass Lowell.
Forest Whitaker will speak at Miami University.
World-renowned chef, Jose Andres, will speak at George Washington University.
Katie Couric will speak at Trinity College…
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards is scheduled at Barnard College…
John Legend, Joe Biden, Barack & Michelle Obama, Bill Gates, Brandi Chastains, Diana Nyad… even Peyton Manning and the founder of Chobani Yogurt will be speaking at a college commencement this spring.
Each of the above has been deemed “qualified,” even though some also have made some very controversial comments and decisions.
Rutgers’ students and faculty most likely wish to believe they qualify as members of an institution of higher learning and academic excellence. Remember again, though, that wisdom and intelligence are not synonymous, and by drowning out opposing opinion, what they are learning remains in question.
Respectfully…
AR
There are few more intelligent people on the planet than Condi Rice. The intellectual dishonesty here comes as no surprise, but is no less alarming. Hillary voted for the war. Would they have protested her as a “war criminal”? P.S. What a class act on her part.
The question is asked, did politics impact what we were told about four dead Americans?
Perhaps so. But what’s new about this? Nothing whatsoever! ABSOLUTELTY NOTHING!!
It is naive to believe that members of the WH staff would NOT be involved in forming talking points, taking potential classified information into account as well as taking care to not inflame other potential dangerous situations into account.
Why wouldn’t the CIA, the State Dept. AND the WH not collaborate?
For that matter, there are 535 members of Congress. Each of them have publicity staff members. Aren’t they all faced with the task of making sure that items released to the press are crafted to cause no damage to the politics of their leader/employer? Why would WH staff members be any different?
That’s a red herring. Of course they would be expected to develop talking points. The issue is that the talking points were lies.