In Jan Clausen's killer post on
HuffPo today, I find a resonant parallel between New School President Kerrey and someone we know. Can you spot it?
Given the political agenda framing McCain's string of commencement appearances, it's disingenuous for President Kerrey to write "I believed our students would benefit from hearing his message." The actual speech was, predictably, so lacking in analytic rigor that it would have gotten poor marks from any composition teacher for its weak argumentation, though not its rhetoric[...]
President Kerrey answers the criticism that his unilateral selection of McCain was undemocratic by saying that longstanding university policy allows the president to choose the commencement speaker.
That may be true, but it casts a harsh light on the state of governance in our legendarily progressive institution. The fact that despotism tends to go unchallenged so long as it remains more or less benevolent is not an argument in favor of one-man rule.
So in other words, when faced with overwhelming opposition to his choice for commencement speaker, Kerrey throws out the old, "I'm the President, and I'm the decider."
Some of the more outrageous yet more little known details of the New School commencement:
Outside Madison Square Garden on the day of commencement, heavily armed and helmeted guards, some with German shepherds, stood watch in front of a security checkpoint. Many students had their orange protest fliers confiscated; one was threatened with arrest for trying to enter the building with his fliers.
I read these in Clausen's post then went back and read Jean Rohe's Speech again, and not before was Rohe's statement so appropriate and important:
The senator [McCain] does not reflect the ideals upon which this university was founded. Not only this, but his invitation was a top-down decision that did not take into account the desires and interests of the student body on an occasion that is supposed to honor us above all, and to commemorate our achievements.
It rather haunts me how easily one could take Rohe's bolded lines above, swap out four words, and make her disdain and concern for McCain misrepresenting her University reflect the American majority's concern for President Bush misrepresenting our country.
At how many international podiums ought our representatives stand now, to say, (in mostly Rohe's words)
President Bush's war does not reflect the ideals upon which this country was founded. Not only this, but his invasion was a top-down decision that did not take into account the desires and interests of the American people.
?
I am especially irked at the guard's taking away of posters and threatening protesters with arrest for having them, because it's such an obvious microcosm of the misrepresentation involved in McCain's entire visit. It's outrageous, and so goddamned commonplace at bigwig Republican speaking venues that I caught myself reading over it as par for the course, then became outraged at myself. It's this tiny action, of each sign taken away, in an attempt to turn the audience of a progressive, liberal institution into a non "free-speech zone" that represents the bigger problem, the stripping of voice, of vote, and of freedom from the people of this country, by those who claim it to be the most free in the world.
At the above link for Jean Rohe's speech at HuffPo, you can also read her narration through her decision to write and deliver it. How easy it was to predict McCain, the "maverick"s remarks, and how Rohe struggled to put those words together.
Thank you again, Jean Rohe. Seriously.