Amid the pomp and circumstance of college graduation ceremonies, students have to sit through a speech. These days, the person giving that speech is often a political activist with no connection to the school itself, or to education at all. It’s one last chance to make the students listen to “progressive” propaganda.
In today’s Martin Center article, Russell Warne laments that college leaders do that.
He writes:
This year, Utah Valley University invited Sharon McMahon to speak at commencement. Self-described as “America’s government teacher,” McMahon was a controversial choice for Utah Valley University — the site of Charlie Kirk’s assassination in front of 3,000 people last September. Two days after Kirk’s murder, McMahon stated on social media that Kirk had ‘bigoted ideas’ and that ‘a public assassination does not erase the harm many experienced from his words.’ Needless to say, the university community did not react well to her selection as a commencement speaker. (Her speech was later canceled due to supposed security concerns, a claim which has not been verified.)
Not only do schools make bad choices for speakers, they often shell out hefty amounts of money to get them.
Warne has this advice for college leaders: “A typical university community is full of potential speakers: administrators, faculty, alumni, and trustees all understand the university and can give an uncontroversial message tailored to its audience. Depending on how broad the university defines its community, this list can include people with a cultural or identity tie to the university (e.g., at an HBCU or a religious university). Moreover, these people rarely charge a speaker’s fee (and if they do, there are plenty of other speakers that can take their place for free).”
That’s good. Will anyone listen?