It’s that time of year again where college students object to the speakers at their graduation. I share their distaste with some of the prospective speakers such as Condoleezza Rice for example. However the choice of speaker is not what I opened this thread to discuss, it is instead about who gets to do the choosing.
I propose that schools should listen to the opinions of some about who the speaker would be, but I’d limit those opinions to those who have paid their college tuition in full. So those students who have paid their tuition can have a voice in that choice, or their parents or someone else who may have paid those bills. But if like many students they haven’t paid a penny of their tuition, or only done so through public loans (as horrible as that system may be), then they ought to have no say. They can voice their opinions all they like, but I find it annoying to hear about speakers bowing out of these pointless, boring, and easily forgotten speeches, or being turned away by the schools themselves on occasion just because a bunch of ingrates don’t like them for some reason.
Sincerely,
Someone who is paying off 3 sets of student loans
(feel free to attack my grumpy get-off-my-lawn propostion, I would if I were you)
So basically the goal is to take a step toward limiting public discourse to only those opinions approved by the children of the very very rich?
I assume we would also ban faculty from sharing their opinion, since those moochers actually TAKE money from the universities.
And graduate students, who generally have much more interest in academia than undergrads would be quieted, since they’re always paying for school with teaching fellowships or research fellowships instead of cash.
Just in case I wasn’t clear, this is easily the dumbest idea I’ve heard all year.
Lot’s of people pointed out that they had no problem with Rice speaking at their school, but that allowing her to be a commencement speaker and receive an honorary degree implied an endorsement of her violence filled legacy. I happen to agree, so of course I agree it doesn’t allow the wealthy to limit ALL discourse.
But complaining about commencement speakers is a way to express ones opinion, and for some bizarre reason you want to take it away from people who pay for college over 15-30 years instead of up front.
Because in this case I’m the guy paying. You do get it’s just a rant, right? I’m actually kind of happy to hear about college kids getting more politically active.
Just out of curiosity, has there ever in the history of commencements been a speaker who didn’t utter the words “Webster defines <xxx> as…” Or is that limited to valedictorians?
I didn’t say it in either of the two high school commencement speeches I’ve given so far. But I did quote Shakespeare and an “ancient Chinese curse,” so mea culpa there.
Here in Topeka we were supposed to have Michelle Obama speak at a joint high school graduation ceremony. There are three public high schools in the district, and this would have entailed limited seating, as the venue, while large, isn’t large enough to seat all the friends and relatives of the graduates. There was to be a limited ticket system, and folks went ballistic.
So yesterday there were three separate graduations, as usual, and the night before, Friday, the First Lady spoke to graduates at a different gathering. The occasion was a commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka case.
Only people who pay in cash without getting a loan should be able to exorcize their free range right to whine like a wet cat about anything in life at all. If the increasing disparity in wealth in this country is indicative of anything, it is that this is a country of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy.
You do realize that not all students get scholarship money from the school, right? A good deal of them are funded through outside scholarships and are thus effectively paying their own way.
And what about graduate students, who got their tuition waved by the school in exchange for years of teaching and research? How do you classify them?
I attended two ceremonies when I graduated from my second alma mater (I went to the main campus commencement and then my own “satellite” school’s). Both of the speakers were crazy and said some inappropriate things. But they were memorable. I’m guessing that’s the whole point.
Why do we even have commencement speeches? Isn’t the whole point of college supposed to be to prepare you for life after college? How the fuck is another speech supposed to help?
Why wouldn’t we? Speeches are often used to mark important moments in time- inaugurations, memorials, religious ceremonies, toasts at parties etc etc. It’s a nice way to be reflective and wring some meaning from the event. This years validictorian’s speech at my college was fantastic and really set the celebratory mood.
Sure, and let’s also limit voting rights to those who actually PAY taxes. I’m talking net pay. If you get a refund for the entire amount you put in (or more) you’re not a taxpayer - screw your opinion. :rolleyes:
[sub]Yes, I know the OP was a rant, but I have never been able to post the liberal view in a TriPolar thread. I was not about to pass that up! 31.5 degrees F. That must be the temp in hell right now[/sub]
It’s been over two decades since the last time I’ve been to a HS or college graduation, so damned if I can remember what anyone said, other than my friend Carol who was one of our HS valedictorians. She made an Archy and Mehitabel reference, and that’s all I remember of her speech.
The only 3 things I can remember clearly about my undergrad commencement (I had my grad school diploma mailed to me) are the kid who turned around and took a picture of the audience as he crossed the stage, that someone who hadn’t been present at rehearsal that afternoon paid a library fine or something and wound up sitting between me and my then-fiancee, and that I shook speech-giver Pat Conroy’s hand as I crossed the stage.