It wasn’t that long ago that Rutgers was in the news because a portion of its student body and facility wanted former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to be removed as its 2014 commencement speaker. The argument was that her involvement in the Iraq war should have disqualified her from speaking, that the lies and distortions proffered to get us into that war showed that she exhibited questionable character and would be a poor representative of the university’s values and a terrible example for students.
In the end, Rice pulled out, saying she did not want to be the focus of graduation, that the focus should be on students. It was a classy move, but really didn’t address the larger issue — who should pick commencement speakers, what does their appearance mean, and should we be inviting outside speakers to speak in the first place? My take last year was that a) the university was right not to rescind the invitation, but that the students not only were right but should have been applauded for engaging in protests and participating in the political discourse; and that b) we should reconsider whether outside commencement speakers makes sense or is necessary.
Rutgers approach this year has been to withhold its announcement, a move that seems foolish in the wake of a debate that was as much about transparency as it was about Rice.
The Rutgers-Rice debate was portrayed as political correctness run amok — especially on the right. Fox News ran with it, as did many other conservative media outlets (Rush Limbaugh mischaracterized what happened on campus as being about “Fifty organized young malcontents”). And perhaps there is some truth to the charge, though it is overly reductive. As I’ve written before, the Rice kerfuffle may have been driven by the left, but attacks on commencement speakers are not solely the province of the left.
Consider what is unfolding at Kean University. As reported by NJ.com (via Northjersey.com), Common is out at Kean thanks to “an outcry from law enforcement, who say that the lyrics of a 15-year-old song paint a sympathetic portrait of a notorious cop-killer.”
Here is what NJ.com said:
Just one day after announcing that the “Glory” composer would speak at the May commencement in Newark the university decided to pursue “other speaker options,” a spokeswoman told the site.
Common, 43, who was born Lonnie Rashid Lynn, has previously drawn the ire of the State Police over 2000’s “A Song for Assata,” about Joanne Chesimard, who was convicted of the 1973 killing of Trooper Werner Foerster. Chesimard was formerly known as Assata Shakur.
In the song, Common describes Shakur’s “power and pride” as “beautiful”, followed by the line “May God bless your soul.”
Police called Kean’s invitation to Common “a slap in the face.” The unions weighed in via Northjersey.com:
Chris Burgos, president of the State Troopers Fraternal Association of New Jersey, called the choice of the rapper as Kean’s commencement speaker a “slap in the face” to those who serve and protect.
“What is troubling here is that a state university that is subsidized with state taxpayer funds, is once again being questioned on their decision-making at the highest levels,” Burgos said in an emailed statement.
I don’t want to weigh in on the Chesimard/Shakur aspect of this story, except to say that Kean didn’t invite Chesimard/Shakur. It invited Common, a rapper with a huge following, a songwriter who recently won an Oscar for best song for “Glory,” who has not been ashamed to discuss his politics or use them in his work. The question here is whether his politics should rule him out as a commencement speaker — which is the same question the supporters of Rice asked during the Rutgers controversy. Or, to put it another way: Should any particular group have veto power over who speaks at a commencement?
It is too early to know whether there will be an outcry in response to Kean’s decision to rescind its invite to Common — this is based on news reports, which also have university spokeswoman Susan Kayne saying the Monday announcement of the rapper’s selection was issued “prematurely.”
I’d like to think there will be, that the same commitment to free speech and vibrant debate that supporters of Rice showed last April will be shown here. We need a vibrant debate about artistic freedom, about Chesimard/Shakur, about the need for outside commencement speakers.
I’m not banking on this happening — our hyper-partisan times mean that those criticizing Rutgers students in the spring are likely to praise police and Kean this time around, and that many who called for rescinding the Rice invite will be defending Common. I truly hope I am wrong about this.
Send me an e-mail.
Hank Kalet 