BY STEVEN LUBET
Steven Lubet is Williams Memorial Professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.
University graduation addresses are famously bland, featuring acknowledgements and congratulations, perhaps leavened with benign humor, balanced with vague calls to public service, and rounded off with sunny assurances of a bright future. If not exactly an art form, it is certainly a formula that graduates and their parents have come to expect and appreciate. Even political figures avoid controversy during their twenty minutes of podium time, recognizing that the assembled guests are of many minds and persuasions, and no one has come other than to celebrate the conclusion of studies and commencement of the next chapter in life. That is why Steven Thrasher, a newly minted PhD, drew both gasps and a smattering of applause when he used his graduation address at New York University to endorse marching against “that Fascist in the White House” and to praise the anti-Israel boycott movement:
I am so proud, so proud of NYU’s chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voices for Peace and of [Graduate Student Organizing Committee] and of the NYU student government and of my colleagues in the department of social and cultural analysis for supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against the apartheid state government in Israel.
Thrasher’s closing call for affirmation – “Am I right?” – was met with near silence. There were no doubt many Jews and Republicans, and probably some Israelis, in the room who were offended by Thrasher’s politicization of the event, and nearly everyone else in the audience evidently recognized what was at best an egregious discourtesy.
Official criticism followed. NYU President Andrew Hamilton and Dean Philip Brian Harper posted statements calling out Thrasher for his “one-sided and tendentious address” that “indefensibly made some in the audience feel unwelcome and excluded,” and noting that he had “omitted the remarks in question from the speech [he had] submitted for prior review.”
Thrasher’s defenders include John K. Wilson, whose recent column in this space accused the NYU administrators of “appalling violations of the principles of academic freedom.” Wilson reached this conclusion only by ignoring the special nature of a commencement address, generalizing the reaction to Thrasher as though it applied to all campus speech, and assuming that any criticism of one speaker’s comments will chill all other scholars. (Wilson is right, however, that nothing in Thrasher’s comments could reasonably be considered anti-Semitic.)
According to Wilson, President Hamilton “confessed” that “NYU compels prior review of speeches on campus.” Wilson then assumed, without a shred of evidence, that Hamilton would extend prior review to “many aspects of NYU’s education” that are deemed “inclusive,” and “not just commencement ceremonies.”
Here we have both faulty logic and denial of reality. Commencement ceremonies are unique events at universities. They are not held for educational purposes, much less to inspire controversy or debate, but rather to celebrate the success of the graduates. It is perhaps the one time each year when invited guests – who are entitled to traditional courtesy and respect – greatly outnumber students and faculty. The attendees have not come for enlightenment or provocation, but only to cheer their friends and relatives. Need it be said that guests should not be made to feel unwelcome?
Commencement speakers carry the imprimatur of the university, and it is not wholly unreasonable for the administration to request their remarks in advance, in order to assure that they are suitable to the unique demands of the occasion. To be sure, that is not a practice that most universities follow, and I would not adopt it if I were running the show. But commencement is much more akin to a recital (or party) than it is to a symposium, so a claim of absolute free speech is at its weakest on the graduation stage.
“If the principle of inclusion demands censorship at a commencement,” Wilson asked, “why doesn’t the principle apply to every other decision made on campus?” Well, to paraphrase the prominent educator Big Bird, it is because one of these things is not like the others. Pre-screening commencement remarks is a bad idea, but it will not lead to “severe censorship on campus,” any more than we need fear a requirement of caps and gowns for classes.
In any case, different events call for different sorts of speeches. Thrasher’s self-indulgent political harangue was simply rude to his captive audience, assembled on a singular occasion for a completely different purpose, just as a call to arms would be out of place in a wedding toast (unless the bride and groom had agreed to it in advance).
Wilson opined that the administrators’ responses to Thrasher were “scandalous,” “chilling,” and “appalling violations of the principles of academic freedom,” when in fact they were only criticisms of his choice of platforms. No one has ever suggested that Thrasher should be punished or prevented from advocating his political views, regarding President Trump, Israel, or anything else, in any other setting.
The NYU chapter of the AAUP has also issued a statement in support of Thrasher. “We believe that any official rebuke of speech on campus is a grave threat to fundamental tenets of academic freedom,” it reads, adding, without explanation, “there is no reason why commencement addresses should be considered a ‘special’ category of speech.” But as Hank Reichman observed three years ago on the Academe Blog, a graduation address, unlike a lecture or seminar, allows no opportunity for questioning, rejoinder, or response.
Writers in this space have not always asserted that criticism is an assault on academic freedom. Earlier this year, DePaul students demanded the censure of Philosophy Professor Jason Hill for publishing an article in The Federalist that was hostile and demeaning toward Palestinians. Hill’s essay was also decried by Acting Provost Salma Ghanem, and the DePaul Faculty Council thereafter voted to “condemn[] in the strongest possible terms both the tone and content of Professor Hill’s article.”
According to the Academe Blog, however, there was nothing chilling about DePaul’s condemnation of Hill’s essay: “There is no call for censorship here. The petition asks for the university to censure Hill, which means criticizing him, not silencing anyone.”
I agree with the blog writer, who happens to have been John K. Wilson himself. Regrettably, however, Wilson’s views appear to be highly selective. He disdains Hill’s deeply offensive essay (as do I), and then concludes that DePaul’s official condemnation did not threaten academic freedom. But criticism of Thrasher, who shares Wilson’s antipathy toward Israel’s government, turns out to be a campus-shattering scandal. I would prefer to see academic freedom standards applied equally, without regard to Middle East politics or other contentious issues. Criticism is not censorship and it therefore did not violate the academic freedom of either Jason Hill or Steven Thrasher, chillingly or otherwise.
Steven Lubet wrongly accuses me of hypocrisy. I do praise student protesters who call for official condemnation of offensive professors rather than censorship, because condemnation is a much, much less severe threat to free speech. But that doesn’t mean I think top administrators should agree to denounce faculty (or even the lesser danger of condemnation by a faculty council, as happened at DePaul after my blog post was written). Top administrators should be reluctant to denounce faculty or students for their political views, because of the chilling effect it can have on the campus. Nevertheless, I believe that academic freedom also protects the right of administrators to speak.
What NYU did, however, goes far beyond “official criticism” and into censorship. When a university demands prior approval of speeches, that is a form of censorship. When a university announces that if it had known what Thrasher was going to say, he would have been banned from speaking, that is a form of censorship. When a university declares that Thrasher would have been banned from speaking if they had read his tweets, that is a form of censorship.
Commencement ceremonies may be unique events, but they are still held by universities, and they should still meet the basic standards for intellectual activity and free expression that universities are supposed to uphold. We should reject Lubet’s naive belief that administrators freely allowed to censor a commencement speech would never consider engaging in repression at another time when the spotlight is off them. You may agree with Lubet that commencement addresses should be bland or you may agree with me that they should be provocative. But we should all agree that it’s wrong for universities to censor speakers, even (and especially) at commencement.
It is good to learn that Wilson believes that “that academic freedom also protects the right of administrators to speak,” which was not evident from his original post. I trust he also therefore rejects the NYU AAUP chapter’s objection to all “official rebukes.”
In the Hill case, Wilson approved the call for official censure of a professor’s writing– eventually carried out by both the acting provost and the faculty council — which he somehow distinguishes as less chilling than ex post criticism of a commencement address. But seriously, nearly all academics publish essays, while only a handful ever deliver graduation speeches. I believe that ex post criticism does not violate academic freedom in either case, but surely the condemnation of published writing is more likely to chill others than is criticism of a commencement speech, simply as a matter of numbers.
If Wilson’s essay had been limited to his concern about advance screening, of which I also disapprove, I probably wouldn’t have replied. But Wilson is wrong to claim there is no role for appropriateness — perhaps based on tweets — in selecting a graduation speaker. No university should extend an invitation to, say, Congressman Steve King, precisely because of his offensive extra-mural statements (though I don’t follow his tweets).
Wilson calls me naive for questioning his assertion that rules for graduation speeches will spill over into “repression.” But he has the burden of proof on such a connection, which requires him to tell us when and where it has happened. I know of an occasion when it did not. In 2014, Brandeis University withdrew an invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who had been scheduled to receive an honorary degree and give the commencement address. Whether that was right or wrong, it did not lead to “repression at another time when the spotlight” was off the administration. I have searched the Academe Blog, btw, and found nothing on the Brandeis disinvitation.
I think it was wrong of Brandeis to withdraw the honorary degree for Ali and disinvite her from speaking at a diploma ceremony (she was not the commencement speaker). https://thinkprogress.org/why-brandeis-revoked-its-invitation-for-ayaan-hirsi-ali-to-receive-an-honorary-degree-a222e488622f/
I think the act itself was repressive, and I think it probably did lead to repression at Brandeis. It’s hard to know if anyone at Brandeis may have decided not to invite a controversial speaker, hire a controversial professor, or express a controversial idea. But we don’t need proof of further repression in order to condemn one act of repression and also hold a rational fear that it encourages more repression.
I do disagree with the NYU AAUP’s condemnation of all official rebukes (but I would oppose most official rebukes). At DePaul, I was encouraged by the fact that protesters merely wanted a rebuke, not censorship, and the administration rejected even that step.
I also disagree with “appropriateness” as a valid academic standard. Speakers should be chosen on their merits, not on the popularity of their political views. (Steve King, for example, has no merit based on his professional work.) I know that in the real world, speakers with controversial views are routinely excluded from being honored at commencements. But it does make a difference when an administration openly announces this fact and establishes censorship as the ideal standard for a university, and when experts like Lubet endorse this as proper behavior.
Wilson believes that graduation speakers should be chosen on unspecified “merits” without regard to appropriateness, and then dismisses the possibility of Steve King because, in Wilson’s view, he has no merits. But King is a a nine-term congressman. That may not be a sufficient accomplishment for NYU, but plenty of relatively undistinguished congresspeople speak at small college and community college graduations every year. Wilson’s answer simply evades the Steve King problem without answering it.
In any case, the idea of “merit” is actually indistinguishable from appropriateness, as it nonetheless depends on a value judgment. Instead of the Steve King example, substitute Stephen Miller, Louis Farrakhan, or Rodrigo Duterte. Each of them has “merit” by somebody’s metric, but few would want them to speak at commencement — and for good reason.
An appropriateness test cannot be avoided by changing the word to merit.
Writer Lubet may be mixing several issues that are not necessarily mutually inclusive, while framing his protest carefully in such a way as to manage his motivations which appear similar to those of NYU’s president. Otherwise, may I “unpack” a bit, some of his co-mingled statements, beginning with his assertion that “criticism is not censorship.” That may be true in principle, but not constructively in an obvious labor market hierarchy of university administration and (especially perhaps) newly credentialed PhD graduates seeking or solidifying, employment. In this case, such public, official criticism (versus private direct comment) is effectively tortious interference in contractual labor relations, and here I’m thinking of the notorious case of Steven Salaita and the decision by the University of Illinois Board of Trustees to rescind, ex post facto, his employment offer (and even contract) due to their interpretation of his public comments concerning the Israel government bombing of Gaza, merely as “anti-semitic” (but who then ran into the “blacklist” academic labor buzzsaw: https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-steven-salaita-israel-university-illinois-tenure-0308-20190306-story.html; https://electronicintifada.net/tags/steven-salaita; https://canarymission.org/individual/Steven_Salaita). Mr. Lubet also opines on what he apparently regards as acceptable decorum at a university commencement, and sanctions the privilege (thereby) of administrative editorial fiat. Commencements otherwise are not ipso facto celebrations of student achievement, but signal by a particular graduating class, any number of philosophies, principles, morals, criticisms, or practical or absolute ambition. The value of contention, probity, provocation, enlightenment or the polemical, are not suddenly deferred to the sensibilities of convention, diplomacy or deference. Mr. Lubit makes a fair point about an audience not necessarily assembled for a lecture per se; on the other hand, a commencement is more a sampling and demonstration of that very enlightenment the university, by its very nature, is specifically organized to produce. Otherwise, if a public relations and marketing function is inherent to commencement as Mr. Lubit asserts, then a commencement speaker (if any) should be chosen explicitly (or additionally, better yet) for that specific purpose. Mr. Lubit also charges Mr. Wilson with unequal application of free speech principles. That may be as selective as the charge he makes: in both cases, but from fuller perspectives, his inherent focus is the speech act itself and its ability to survive censorship, real or implied. There are many grave and merely unnecessary intrusions into the free speech construct, and universities, as I argued in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, are probably best served (and students best educated) by complete restraint from speech policy, but for administrative obsequiousness over ideologically charged interpretations (and enforcements) of various of the Civil Rights Act. In NYU’s case, its effectively self-ascribed liberty to engage in speech interpretation, criticism or effective civil law (tort) or even eventual constitutional law (ex post facto) violations is not without obvious difficulties. Otherwise may I end with what, surely, I thought writer Lubet was referring to, when he broadcast his complaint of “inappropriate haranguing of a captive audience:” the presence of the ubiquitous and unfortunate special interest commencement political messenger (I’m sorry, “speaker.”), the one and only, and otherwise every university president’s unblemished, universally appropriate, shameless, but ideologically loyal Middle East partisan (and financial beneficiary), Hillary Rodham Clinton (who apparently owns a permanent wardrobe of caps, gowns and tassels) . Thank you and regards.
Most of the commencement addresses I have heard have fallen somewhere between bland and provocative, or, rather, included a bit of each. Prominent people, including politicians, are asked to speak to the graduates even though some in the audience are in disagreement with their political opinions. Was McGeorge Bundy invited to speak at the CUNY Grad Center years ago to utter bland nothingnesses? We objected at the choice and picketed the event, but we never asked the administration to censor his speech. At one of my graduations, we were honored to hear Coretta Scott King. I no longer remember what she said, but the audience would have been very disappointed if she had said only the usual bland things and hadn’t also encouraged us to work for a change in America. And probably there were white supremacists in the audience who felt “harangued.” The difference with this case at NYU is that if the administration had known he would talk about BDS they wouldn’t have let him speak. Is that OK? And if a commencement speaker had spoken against the Palestinian cause, would that have been labelled a “harangue”? I’m pretty sure the NYU audience survived Thrasher’s speech and quite a few were even heartened by the open call to think about BDS.
Had Thrasher praised the Israeli State in equally impassioned ways, there would have been much discomfort in the audience but ZERO pushback from Admin or others. This is known as the Palestinian exception: free speech prevails until one supports Palestinians and criticizes Israeli State policies.
Commencements are political: choices of speakers are political. It is ridiculous to claim they are a special form in which the educated denizens who are their audience need to be shielded.