Ryan Waggoner
Contributing Writer
Butler University had a legitimate opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice to speak at the 2010 commencement. However, the Faculty Senate decided that he is not qualified for such a task.
Butler Senior Class President Lindsay Rump and Vice President Brian Zahn worked with Student Affairs staff, the president’s office and Chief Justice Roberts’ niece, a Butler senior, in drafting a proposal to send to Roberts’ Washington office to request his attendance at commencement.
But before sending the request, the class officers had to get approval from Faculty Senate—a group of elected faculty members that decides who is eligible to receive the honorary degree given to all commencement speakers. With the stars aligned as they were and the opportunity of a lifetime on the horizon, the Senate should have swiftly approved Roberts’ candidacy.
But the Senate did just the opposite. They decided he was not worthy of an honorary degree.
Meeting minutes are hard to find, and the vote was done through a secret ballot. But through conversations with faculty members, I have come to understand that faculty members spoke out against Roberts’ candidacy for several weak reasons.
Primarily, some senators had issues with Roberts’ anti-abortion beliefs and conservative values. His views are in contrast with many of the left-leaning faculty members who preach openmindedness and acceptance. But instead of looking past differences, like what these faculty members teach, the group decided to shut down someone who may not have voted for President Obama.
Additionally, faculty senators felt that having two conservative commencement speakers back to back (Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels spoke last year) would be unwise and would go against Butler's commitment to providing its students with exposure to diverse ideas.
On the surface, this argument looks valid. Indeed, it is important for the commencement speakers, and all speakers invited to campus, to represent the differing viewpoints and beliefs of the faculty and student body. If this same commitment of having one conservative for every liberal was consistent throughout the honorary degree process, this argument would be solid.
However, like with many things on this campus, consistency is nonexistent. A simple look at the 2007 and 2008 commencement speakers proves this argument is shaky. In 2007, the campus welcomed Eugene White, superintendent of Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS), to speak at graduation. White is an accomplished administrator who has done many things for Butler and the Indianapolis community.
While he did not refer to it in his speech, White’s policies as an administrator align with the Democratic Party. Then the very next year, Susan Solomon, a scientist who had worked on climate change issues alongside former Vice President Al Gore, was brought to campus.
Solomon is brilliant, successful and an avid Democrat. Yet, having two Democrats speak back to back seemed to be anything but alarming to the Senate. Both speakers were confirmed with ease. This inconsistency is hypocritical and evident of a double standard. But in the case of White and Solomon, the Senate did the right thing.
To not invite Solomon to campus, an incredibly successful and well-known scientist, because she shared the same political views as the person who spoke before her would be a mistake. Doing the same with Roberts is a mistake as well.
I find it ridiculously pompous and closedminded of Senate members to ruin this great opportunity for students because of political ideology. In terms of a commencement speech, Robert’s stance on abortion and same-sex marriage is no more significant than his stance on the bailouts, or even if Peyton Manning is better than Brett Favre at throwing a football.
These beliefs would play absolutely no role in his speech. Commencement speeches are, at best, generic. The speaker praises the class for their work during the past years and inspires the graduates to make a difference in the world. It is a fairly rigid formula that leaves very little room for political or social indoctrination. Roberts would not have mentioned his thoughts on Roe v. Wade, as it would have been inappropriate and incredibly awkward.
However, Roberts would have been the most high profile commencement speaker in Butler history. His attendance here would have reflected incredibly well on the senior class, the university and the Indianapolis community.
But Roberts is indeed not coming. The Senate decided that his Hoosier heritage and Harvard Law Degree were of less importance than his stance on stem cell research. They told him he was not invited. However, the blame does not rest on every member of the Senate. Nor does it rest on Faculty Senate Chair Jeanne Van Tyle. In my four years, Van Tyle has been nothing but an advocate for students.
As a former Student Government Association president, I can attest to the fact that a chairperson's job is to facilitate discussion, not to influence the vote. Van Tyle should be praised for her work with the Senate, along with those members of the committee who were reasonable enough to see how important Roberts’ attendance would be.
But those members who let their political beliefs blind them into telling the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice that he is not good enough to get a degree from Butler should be ashamed and embarrassed for what they destroyed for me and my classmates who have worked incredibly hard to get to graduation.
| Comments |
|
