 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
"We'd like to think that doctors are somehow immune to the influence of advertising, but turns out they're human after all.
— Debbie C
Drug-Company Association Bans Freebies for Doctors
Education Department's 'Emergency' Request for Pell Grant Survey Is Denied
Several associations representing traditional colleges opposed the request and questioned the department’s motive.
Accreditor Can Certify New Institutions Once Again, Education Dept. Says
The department restored the American Academy for Liberal Education’s ability to accredit new institutions.
NYU's President to Teach at Incipient Campus in United Arab Emirates
John E. Sexton, a lawyer with a Ph.D. in comparative American religion, will lead a course on religion and government.
Judge Rules That UC-Berkeley May Build Controversial Athletics Center
The building has drawn nearly two years of protests and lawsuits from tree-sitters, neighborhood groups, and the City of Berkeley.
Student-Aid Administrators Worry About Access to Loans, Survey Finds
Less than half of respondents believe recent federal legislation does enough to ensure that aid will be available to students.
Closed Out? Norman Finkelstein, Controversial Scholar Denied Tenure, Can't Find a Job. | 104
Group Argues That Out-of-Class Learning Is Domain of Faculty, Not Student Affairs | 92
Is There a 'Growing Backlash' Against the SAT? | 59
College Settles With Instructor Fired for Teaching Adam and Eve as Myth | 54
Fresh Artistic Controversy Hits Yale U. | 52
Athletics
Community Colleges
Government & Politics
Information Technology
International
Money & Management
Northern Illinois
Research & Books
Short Subjects
Students
The Faculty
Prior days' news: By date | Search
This week's print issue
Back issues: By date | Search
May 20, 2008
Should Furman U. Professors Be Forced to Attend Bush's Commencement Speech?
Furman University’s commencement speaker, President Bush, is drawing protests from faculty, student, and other critics who say he should not have been invited, and in response a group calling itself Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow is urging the university to force faculty members to attend the ceremony, even if they would prefer to skip it.
More than 200 critics, including students and faculty and staff members, have signed a “we object” letter in response to the announcement that Mr. Bush would address the graduating class on May 31, according to The Greenville News.
On Monday the conservative-student group issued its own letter, signed by 500 people. The letter calls on Furman to “hold professors to their contractual agreement to attend commencement exercises” and to either remove the “we object” letter from its Web site or post the conservative response in an equally visible spot on the Web site.
The senior-class leadership unanimously approved the invitation to Mr. Bush, the News reported. Furman is one of two commencement speeches the president is delivering this spring. The other, at the U.S. Air Force Academy, is scheduled for May 28. —Beckie Supiano
Posted on Tuesday May 20, 2008 | Permalink |
No one should EVER be forced to listen that colossal blundering sociopath who has brought so much utter ruin to this country and the rest of the world.
— ArchiesBoy May 20, 12:17 PM #
As a Furman alum, I am horrified that he was invited and am likely to withhold my annual contribution. I also emphatically reject that the faculty is contractually bound to attend any graduation. If the individuals involved are forced to go then they should be allowed, without being criticized for it, to stand with their backs to that idiot. This is, in fact what I secretly hope for, for the faculty, staff and students to turn their backs on him.
— John May 20, 12:30 PM #
Frog marching the faculty to the equivalent of study hall detention for just some odd reason strikes me as providing a most active and hostile audience.
— Liam O'Brien May 20, 12:31 PM #
I just re-read the classic study by William Maher IV, George W. Bush and the Origins of Arab Democracy (first published in 2063), and still find it amazing that so many Americans at the turn of the century couldn’t grasp the situation in the Middle East. For example, many claimed at the time that Bush had lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, when President Bill Clinton (who was elected immediately before Bush) had made the same statements to justify his Congressionally approved bombing of Iraq in 1998.
I do agree that the Professionalization of Journalism Act of 2037, which set IQ standards for the various journalistic subfields and required a modern education in economics, history, and empirical science for all media writers, has gone a long way towards minimizing the kinds of deceptive journalistic practices that once misled the country and created a smugly uninformed citizenry. However, in my opinion, the election last year of Dorothy Chelsea Clinton-Thatcher as the first woman president was due, at least in part, to her family’s ability to manipulate and confuse political reporters and pundits, so we haven’t completely solved the problem of the naive and the biased reporting to the gullibly mental.
— S. Britchky May 20, 12:34 PM #
Clinton never said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Clinton never said that there would be mushroom clouds over Manhattan. Clinton never said that we would be welcomed with flowers and open arms. Clinton tried to get Osama bin Laden in 1998 but was roundly accused by the right wingers of “wagging the dog”. GWB has acknowledge that he’s not really interested in OBL and his whereabouts. OBL killed more than 3000 people on 9/11. Bush was more interested in Iraqi oil. Bush lied.Cheney lied. This is what Cheney had to say about invading Iraq in 1994 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
— John May 20, 12:51 PM #
As a Furman Alum, I recognize that it is an honor for the President of the United States to come to campus, whoever he/she might be. I think we should also recognize the right of the faculty and students to object. Faculty should attend graduation as a part of their job (we do many things we disagree with at some level in the name of a job) as usual, but they should not be forced to attend in any coercive way…as usual. The situation should be treated as is typical of any graduation.
Moreover, if you disagree with the President (as many of us certainly do!), then you should view this as a liberal arts opportunity to hear an opposing view. Part of being at a university is hearing opposing views. Indeed, that is a critical point of liberal education. Discussion groups and reading groups that follow up the speech with debate would certainly be appropriate and useful!
— K May 20, 12:56 PM #
Of course faculty should attend the address of the Leader to the Politburo, and applaud at appropriate times. Furthermore, faculty should submit syllabi to the administration and to the Conservative Komsomol for a Better Tomorrow, to insure that all faculty are teaching how the Leader’s principles of dialectical materialism relate to and inform the subject matter of their fields.
— Ben May 20, 01:08 PM #
One doesn’t attend commencement to hear the speaker; one attends commencement in order to recognize the accomplishments of the new graduates, and to bid them farewell on their new journeys. (And, sometimes, to heave a great sigh of relief at the departure of one or two!) If the Furman faculty feel the need to make a statement, perhaps they could rise in a body and take an extended restroom break while the president is speaking — or they could set an example for their students by listening politely and demonstrating courtesy. I do not believe that hearing a speaker implies agreement or consent, and faculty certainly have experience in listening to a wide variety of student ideas and opinions.
— Robin S. May 20, 01:17 PM #
Why do some faculty think the whole world revolves around them and what they think? Your students have paid their fees and suffered througth what you think for long enough. You should be there for them, regardless of who is speaking. The self centered thinking of many academics is very disturbing to me.
— Mark Arroyo May 20, 01:27 PM #
No way would I subject my son or daughter to that graduation, and what a shame that Bush has been invited by anyone to do anything involving words.
— Eric May 20, 01:36 PM #
I agree that this is an opportunity for faculty to set a great example for students in this very divisive country and to remember the PRIMARY reason for a graduation ceremony. It’s also an opportunity for faculty to show they too are tolerant of the majority opinion to invite the President and that they support their senior class student leadership. Of course, they shouldn’t be forced to do anything. Given that they are professionals, faculty fulfill their professional obligations because they want to do the most honorable thing for their students’ sake.
It’s a shame that even on this forum among those blessed with an education that the discourse and word choices in some cases were so abraisive and personal.
I am sure that President Bush has something positive to offer the Furman students. He IS a human being, a father, and an achiever.
— Tonya May 20, 01:39 PM #
Tonya, so what if Bush is a father, human being, and achiever? His speaking at Furman is an insult to these kids, NOT an honor, and he should rightly be booed. The kids will join in I’m sure.
— Eric May 20, 01:44 PM #
Sit on your hands till he makes a political point—and he will, whether it’s pro-McCain, anti-Obama, or pro-war—then boo lustily while C-SPAN’s cameras capture it all.
— JimmyLuck May 20, 02:35 PM #
I have been teaching for almost thirty years at three very different research universities and was told only once that I had to attend a graduation ceremony.
The request by the conservative student group is one more instance of spoiled kids treating their teachers as if they were their servants.
— Texas Guy May 20, 02:36 PM #
If faculty contracts call for attendance at graduation, then the faculty members either show up or they are in breach of their contracts and can be fired.
Hooray! Let us hope all these Liberal dweebs refuse to go so we can have their asses fied – no more pension problems, no more health care for doddering old fools, and no more perks for doddering young fools.
Go ahead, faculty – make our day!!!
— Muap Conners May 20, 02:58 PM #
I agree K. I do not think faculty should be required to attend graduation in a coercive manner. If they want to protest, then let them. The students will suffer, not George W. Bush. I am not sure why we are becoming so afraid to discuss opposing points of view; it seems to be bringing the downfall of liberal education.
— David May 20, 03:26 PM #
What would some of these professor’s think of their student’s leaving the classroom or not attending because they objected to a particular postion or statement made by said professor? Yet they feel have the liberty to not attend the commencement of their former students.
— Draat May 20, 03:45 PM #
wow, you folks have some serious anger issues. What is passing for dialogue here reminds me more of a high school pep rally before the football game with our big rivals. We hate that other school! Why? Because…they are that other school! Muap is correct asserting that the faculty should go if their contract requires it; however, to go, then childishly ruin commencement for the students because of a political disagreement is unconscionable. We (faculty) are adults, we are intelligent and conduct ourselves with decorum and dignity. Remember kiddies, a sign of maturity is being comfortable in the company of those who are not like us, who believe differently than us, or, in this case, stand on the opposite side of the political isle from many of us. Think about it and then do the right thing. Peace out.
— MikeyD May 20, 03:58 PM #
#15 faculty can use personal leave or sick leave and still be paid for not attending.
#17 Who says they don’t?
— Jay May 20, 03:58 PM #
Honorable men honor their contracts, and if the contract says they must show up, they should show up. This isn’t about the speaker, it’s about showing up to commence your students.
— marcii May 20, 04:00 PM #
Commencement is to honor the graduates. It behooves all—graduates,faculty, etc.,— to attend and to behave in a polite, civilized manner. As a nation, we have become far too accepting of crass behavior; surely the educated “elite” should be able to bear the standard of proper etiquette.
— lareine May 20, 04:03 PM #
Shouldn’t everyone respect the position of the President of the United States regardless of who is in the position? Higher Ed fosters the ability to debate issues and should embrace the opportunity regardless of which side they sit on – quit whining!
— Wendy May 20, 04:03 PM #
I think they should all attend – wearing black arm bands.
— Carl May 20, 04:06 PM #
Faculty are not contractually obligated to attend commencement. But the attempt by radical conservatives to force them to go shows how empty the conservative position is. Faculty are intellectually curious; if Bush could be counted on to say anything even vaguely interesting, they might go. But most faculty have heard enough dumb blather from “C” students by this point in the semester.
— Bro May 20, 04:09 PM #
As Furman alum,I may actually START giving an annual contribution.
To the faculty – graduation is about the students. The senior class leadership approved this speaker unanimously. Get over it. I recall my graduation from FU rather vaguely, but the thing that I recall the most is the faculty who were in attendance – not the speaker. If you don’t want to listen to him then take your iPod and listen to your music – but go and show support for the students who have worked so hard. They deserve it.
— M May 20, 04:12 PM #
For decades now, ideology and opinion have been taught as fact and “theory” in an atmosphere of absolute moral superiority. Much is unquestioned. Even more is never to be discussed. Absolute moral certainty is the standard. Is there anything you would not do to defend or advance the absolutely-correct moral position? NO!, the student body roars in chilling unison.
They will shout down or turn their backs. Of course they will. They are the Choir and will only be preached to.
Civilized behavior is the last thing one should expect to see at an American university.— T Paine May 20, 04:18 PM #
Bill Clinton’s our speaker. I’ll be on the lookout for a semen-stained gown.
— Monk May 20, 04:19 PM #
Graduation is FOR STUDENTS!
This sort of behavior by faculty and staff in regards to graduation is strange. Isn’t graduation about the students and NOT whether faculty, staff or administrators LIKE the graduation speaker? A few years ago we had the Governor Arnold Schwarzenagger speak at graduation and the faculty and staff acted like unprofessional and immature children, on stage shouting and demonstrating. It ruined graduation for many students and we lost significant donors. Those who do not wish to attend should not be forced however they SHOULD remember why the ceremony is held in the first place. Remember it’s not YOUR day! It’s for the STUDENTS!
— Tony May 20, 04:19 PM #
It never occurred to me that I had a contractual obligation to attend graduation.
I have listened to speakers I did not wish to hear, sweat profusely in regalia, and by this point in my career expended cumulatively something on the order of a several weeks of my life at graduation ceremonies. I have done so in the belief that by participating I recognized my students’ achievements and supported a celebration of value to them.
If it were about a contractual obligation, I would have checked the fine print for an escape clause long ago!
— Martin. May 20, 04:19 PM #
Faculty should attend to honor their students, but those who disagree with the war, loss of civil liberties, etc. should view this as a great opportunity to protest in a way that teaches those same students to have opinions and act on them: Do not stand, wear armbands, hold up the peace sign…anything that gets your message across without disrupting the ceremony. Personally, I do not and will not stand for the National Anthem at graduations or anything else as my form of protest: Do not STAND for the war. It is amazing how much attention that little statement of personal freedom gets. For those who will label me unpatriotic, remember that dissent is the highest form of patriotism…and we are “producing” too many young sheep these days, in spite of all those “liberal” professors.
— Linda Rawles May 20, 04:20 PM #
I thought commencement was about celebrating the students. Only a few of the posters mentioned this I guess that John Ciardi was correct when he said “A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students.”
I teach at a community college (I suppose that makes me a peon to most of you) and am extremely proud and excited to see students I have worked with and mentored succeed and move on to the next level of their education or to their careers.
If you truly don’t care about any of the students graduating then don’t go. But if you believe that your support as a mentor and a guide to just one student receiving his or her degree is important then you really should attend. The speaker is secondary and is not the most important person in the building. Those graduates are and if you think one of them would genuinely miss you…well, it’s your call.
— RCM May 20, 04:21 PM #
Personally, I think that the faculty should attend a graduation, even if not required, to show respect for the graduates. Second, I think that they should grow up and learn to respect the position of the President of the United States and also be able to listen to someone who you might not agree with (open mind, what a concept).
I personally find it educational to hear people I don’t agree with since then I have first hand knowledge of their statements and can use that against them, rather than having it filtered by others. If they want to be childish and walk out, refuse to attend or even wear earplugs, then it says more about them than anything else.
I am sure that if they were treated in the same way as they want to treat the President, they would most likely be furious and insulted. I doubt that they allow students to speak up, against what they are often spewing in the classrooms. I personally think they are hypocrites.
— K S May 20, 04:21 PM #
Why would a REAL faculty member not attend commencement? It is not about US! Get over yourselves, put on the cap and gown, celebrate with your students, smile and shut up!
— DJH May 20, 04:27 PM #
I disagree with the person who says that one comes to graduation to see graduates off. Yes, that is a great part of graduation, but we should be free, especially in academic settings, to speak our minds. Faculty and students should be allowed to make a statement at this dangerous time in history. The fact that Furman invited Mr. Bush is discouraging. Were I an alumn, I would be ashamed of my alma matter. Were I a donor, and how I wish I were a billion dollar one, I would take back my gift. Did the students, indeed vote to have Mr. Bush as their speaker? What a sad state of a graduating class: youth skipping over idealism, hope, vision of a good world. Oh, how sad it all makes me.
— Ginny May 20, 04:28 PM #
As reported, it was the senior class that invited President Bush. This is the group that the faculty educated to make choices (not always popular) for a variety of intellectual reasons. Sometimes the choice may be to honor an individual and sometimes the choice may be to hear and be exposed to a point of view of a prominent person and/or policy maker. The President of the United States seems to qualify as a prominent person and policy maker. I am a long tome faculty member at a major state university and I have been privileged to hear such speakers (including presidents) with whom I agreed and with whom I disagreed; I think I learned more from those with whom I disagreed.
Faculty should not be required to attend if their intellectual curiosity and their respect for their students does not urge them to do so. Those who do attend should show respect for their students and decorum for the occasion.
Furman is a distinguished and proud university. Don’t taint and diminish its academic maturity with unbecoming and childish outbursts. Assume that your students have learned to critically listen and evaluate.
— JD May 20, 04:33 PM #
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp4MYii7MqA for how UMass responded when Bush henchman Andrew Card was awarded an honorary degree last year. Furman folks might get some ideas.
— Ferd Wulkan May 20, 04:36 PM #
Here’s a suggestion: all who want to issue a protest do so with a bright, white peace sign atop their mortarboards. And media can have a great photo-op. What fun that will be!
— Nancy D May 20, 04:36 PM #
I’m not a supporter of George Bush, but this graduation is for the students and faculty should put them first.
— P. Miller May 20, 04:40 PM #
Commencement has never been about the achievements of the graduates. It is usually about getting a big-name speaker to get media or rich-donor attention. I’ve worked at colleges for years as a staff member (not administration) and most faculty, in my experience, can’t wait to be rid of students and the complaints I’ve heard through the years about having to attend commencement would really make a lot of those who graduate very sad. Furman has received all this attention with this controversy. They have reached their goal. It is too bad that yet again, the graduates, are the losers.
— jb May 20, 04:42 PM #
It would seem foolish to force faculty to attend, as they are unlikely to applaud for the President, and their silence would be awkward for all. Better to have only those who wish to be there, and who are ready to applaud.
— RAC May 20, 04:42 PM #
I’ve met The Shrub (as he’s known in Texas) and he’s an OK guy, but he’s delusional when it comes to world affairs, and he’s a lousy public speaker. If he were speaking at my university, I’d probably go drink a beer rather than attend. He is one speaker I’d rather hear in TV news story out-takes than in person. And of course the reason for commencement it to honor the graduates. What a great idea to invite the guy who will be handing all of them the largest public debt in history, and sending the ROTC grads directly into harm’s way.
— Al May 20, 04:42 PM #
Muap Conners, Faculty are required to attend unless they have the Provosts permission to miss the ceremony, which they do have. To everyone who making it sound like a mass exodus, I won’t be surprised if more professors will there than normal.
Finally, why is everyone so quick to rip apart our professors? People, you probably don’t know them personally or have heard why one individual chose to sign a letter objecting to the current Administration’s policies (not Bush’s speech as some news clipping have erroneously said) and another not. Those outside Furman’s campus don’t hear the repeated confirmations of support of the class of 2008 given by the vast majority of our faculty. That does not make national news, does it?
As a graduating senior, I am extremely grateful for their support regardless. Their support and mentorship is incredible. Over the last four years, they have written more than 40 letters of recommendation for various summer jobs, scholarships, and graduate school. That is just for me, one student of about 600 who graduate each year. They have taken me to eight professional meetings, ten national parks and monuments, and two continents. They support the students in many other ways including showing up at our concerts, plays and athletic events.
They push us to excel and often use graduate level textbooks in my major courses. At conferences, people often mistake Furman students to be graduate students as our professors invest a lot of time involving students in professional grade research. When I could not financially afford to go to a conference, they found funding. When
Always willing to teach, I have had “extra” lessons in blacksmithing, electrical wiring, car maintenance, aikido, fencing, gardening, cooking, swing dancing, cricket, and Xhosa. One was even willing to sacrifice their car’s transmission to teach me how to drive a stick shift.
I have been welcomed into their homes (at least a dozen different professors) for dinner several times a term. One once offered to take give me a ride to the train station at 5 AM in to morning.
My friends at Harvard, Carleton, Dartmouth, Indiana University, and Duke are often jealous of the opportunities I have had and my interactions with Furman faculty, as they should be. Furman’s greatest asset is the professors.
— annette May 20, 04:43 PM #
S. Britchky (#4)… let me put it mildly, the scenario you painted is delussional fairy tale at best.
— Really Concerned May 20, 04:45 PM #
I applaud Robin S’s comment — “One doesn’t attend commencement to hear the speaker; one attends commencement in order to recognize the accomplishments of the new graduates, and to bid them farewell on their new journeys.”
This is not about the speaker – and this is a country of free speech – how many times have I heard from faculty that they certainly have the academic freedom to say anything they like – this applies to others too if we are truly a democratic country.
— Carol May 20, 04:46 PM #
I recommend a solution to all (though not for this occasion): Cornell University has a proud tradition of NO Commencement speaker other than the president of the university. There is a senior convocation the day before with a person the senior class invites. It has no ceremonial role. Faculty can’t even get tickets; they are all for the senior class and their relatives. End of problem.
— historian May 20, 04:46 PM #
Just my two cents: The professors (and any students who feel similarly) should go the graduation ceremony and silently and respectfully protest the President’s policies. That’s what we did at my college graduation, at which Colin Powell spoke just after Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was rolled out. We wore pink stickers, we carried pink balloons, we definitely let him know that we did NOT support that policy, but we were quiet and listened to him speak. That’s what universities are all about.
— Go and protest May 20, 04:51 PM #
It is really ironic that the Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow think it is ok to “force” faculty to attend the commencement regardless of the faculty objection. From the name of the students’ organization it would seem that the students ought to know better. Unless of course the “better tomorrow” that these students want is one where no one has any freedom to express themselves unless they tow the line of the conservatives.
— Really Concerned May 20, 04:54 PM #
I have been to many graduations and rarely has there been a speaker who I was glad to have heard. The ceremony truly is about the young people who are graduating, not the faculty’s gag reflex. After all, the students probably have been exposed to some speakers they did not want to hear over the course of their university experience. Surely the faculty could be civil for a couple of hours.
— Tango May 20, 04:55 PM #
Are faculty really required to attend graduation ceremonies at Furman? No one requires me to attend these ceremonies at the large state university where I teach.
— Michael May 20, 05:00 PM #
Members of an academic community should indeed welcome exposure to differing points of view. The problem is that this man is utterly and proudly uninformed and incapable of articulating a coherent position. Furman would be better off inviting its mascot, the horse Sterling, to address its graduates.
— SGK May 20, 05:02 PM #
If President Bush stopped one professor from speaking anywhere, there would be hell to pay—the President goes to Furman and the illiberal faculty act like the yahoos the conservatives say they are. Who’s afraid of George Bush?
— Vincent May 20, 05:03 PM #
Dr. David Shi, the president of Furman, once wrote a book called “The Simple Life.” I suppose that the sequel, “The Simple Life in the Daniel Mansion,” will have to be published now, subtitled, “Precisely how it is that power [and wealth] tend to corrupt and also to ossify the brain.”
Dave, some say you have a mind like a steel trap. What can you do with a mind like that?
Landrum Kelly, Ph.D.
Furman Alum
— Landrum Kelly May 20, 05:07 PM #
I think this whole thread is a bit ironic. On one hand, you have the conservatives that are forced to sit in class and hear all the liberal ideas and theories from many of the professors.
But when the intolerant liberals might have to listen to a conservative, there is an uproar. Why is there this double standard???
Perhaps all the conservatives should boycott the liberal professor’s classes, and force the universities to hire a more balanced faculty.
There are many a meeting I attend as a faculty/staff member that I would consider a waste of time.
Ultimately, graduation is to honor the students for their achievements. I attend for that, not to hear the speaker.
— Mark May 20, 05:23 PM #
It is amazing the lengths that hatred will take people. The fanatical, histerical musings of left wing intellectuals never cease to amaze.
Why are the lives lost in Iraq worth more than the milllions of babies we murder every year in this country? Where is the moral hatred and ridiculous complaining out of the left wing nut jobs about this loss of life?
Let me be clear, I am strongly against (although not histerical and borderline looney) the Iraq war as well as the death penalty. I do not think that humans should take human life. Yet, I do not attach my emotional rants towards Democrats or Libertarians or any other group or their leaders based on these views. ANd I certainly do not impose some sort of speech test towards speakers. Interesting that the most spiteful, intolerant, closed minded people in this country are often members of the intellectual liberal elite.
Be consistent in your view points, get over yourselves, learn some commons sense, get some manners (which in this case would include a reasonable course of civil disobedience for those who so wish) or (frankly) keep quiet and do not waste our time with sharing with the whole world your misery.
— Scott May 20, 05:37 PM #
I am constantly amazed that those of us in academia, who claim to be ‘open-minded’, refuse to listen to the viewpoints of other people we disagree with. Academia is so full of hypocrisy that it makes me sick!
— David May 20, 05:42 PM #
The anger and ugliness expressed by some of the posters is quite striking. Are these the same people who preach tolerance and ‘multiculturalism’ and seek a university that is more ‘nurturing’? Or is their warmth and kumbaya spirit reserved only for those with whom they agree? Keep in mind that the president’s grades at Yale were higher than John Kerry’s.
To answer the question, of course the faculty should not be required to attend commencement; nor should the students. Encouraged, but not required. Forcing them to attend would compel them to be exposed to the childish activities and puerile rage likely to be exhibited there.
— Commentator May 20, 05:47 PM #
Nope.
— J. Marshall May 20, 06:10 PM #
Let us not forget the title of this thread:
“Should Furman U. Faculty Be Forced to Attend Bush’s Commencement Speech?”
There is nothing noble is listening politely to an idiot defend idiocy. They also speak who simply walk away. The question is whether the conservative students can tolerate that kind of speech, i.e., seeing some of their professors get up and walk away as an expressoin of genuine disgust.
I would hope that many of the students would likewise get up and walk out when Bush come to the podium. There is no hypocrisy there—just voting and speaking with one’s feet. Let them mail you the diploma. Show that an education is more important than a degree. Walk out on him. Do it. He has the right to speak. You have the right to speak back by walking out. Exercise that right.
Landrum Kelly, Ph.D.
Furman alum
— Landrum Kelly May 20, 06:11 PM #
I think GWB has the requisite experience to give inspiring testimony on overcoming boozing, going AWOL to avoid combat assignment, and using drugs. Let him speak.
— cj May 20, 06:19 PM #
PLEASE – No more responses to the S. Britchky post. He/She is too immature to be taken seriously. Let’s stay in the present and not be distracted. My post wonders where in the world was the Administrative or Faculty person assigned to support the “Senior Class Leadership Group”, who unanimously selected Mr Bush as the commencement speaker. Extremely poor choices are frequently made by students who are given the latitude to recommend speakers. However, a well run institution routinely tests reactions to such speakers from key college/university constituencies prior to finalizing an invitation. Obviously, Furman did no such thing. If they did they would have been deluged with objections from each one of their constituencies. It is no coincidence that until Furman, Mr Bush was welcome to appear at only one US commencement, namely the Air Force Academy, in his last year in office. In am sure he was nominated at several other colleges/universities but ruled out by the very adverse reactions that followed within those institutions who were astute enough to practice careful due dilegence.
— Bill May 20, 06:27 PM #
Thi s isn’t about conservative vs. liberal, as much as those factions might want to see it that way. This is about the faculty protesting an invitation to a man in a great position of power who is responsible for an unjust war. And who, frankly, personifies anti-intellectualism. Bush an “achiever”; perhaps, but of what? If Furman were my U, I would attend to honor the students, but I would certainly protest in some way. Perhaps the faculty should remove their caps when he begins to speak and replace them with the bags that cover torture victims’ heads. And while the conservative student group certainly has a right to its opinion, how dare it insist that the faculty attend? We are not the servants of the students.
— Kathleen May 20, 06:30 PM #
One of the basic requirements for a commencement speaker should be literacy and that would definitely leave out Bush.
— Donald Winters May 20, 06:41 PM #
The “Conservative Students…” seem to have been over taken by a severe case of groupthink. Perhaps the best response to the call for mandatory attendance would be to appear at the event in street clothes signifying the faculty’s refusal to associate the President’s visit with an academic event.
— Maynard May 20, 06:44 PM #
Finally we will get to see the President speak to an audience that he doesn’t have command over. Bush has been sheltered throughout his administration—every speech we see him give on television is either to veterans’ groups or to men and women on active duty, people who are afraid to protest. This has misled the people of this country into thinking that everyone supports him, when in fact his audiences have been carefully presorted.
Ferd (#36), thanks for the Andy Card link.
— Jody Profuturus May 20, 07:03 PM #
If the US had not fought these wars for your right to free speech, idiots like you could be put to death for bad mouthing the leader of the country. Hitler didn’t like you, you were killed. Sadaam hilled millions of his own people. That is not the kind of country I want to live in. In my opinion, the country would be a better place without some of the wack jobs that the media loves to cover just to boost ratings.
— Mark May 20, 07:09 PM #
#65 – for the record more Iraqis have died after and as a result of our occupation than did under Saddam’s regime. And 2. This war has nothing to do with defending free speech or anything else free. It is about oil. We are not invading Zimbabwe are we? We are not about to invade Burma are we? This war has nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam was a secular Arab nationalist and fyi Osama hated him (even offered to help us in the 1990-91 Gulf War by killing him). 1991)
— John May 20, 08:33 PM #
I always attend the commencement ceremony where my students are graduating. I can’t imagine a professor not doing so. Some of the commencement speakers are good, some are poor, and some might be objectionable. But, commencement is about our students. I am a strong supporter of Sen. Obama and I think GWB is likely the worst president since Nixon — but I’m free to criticize him now, then, and later. I would not choose to avoid my students’ great day because of a poor choice by the college administration.
— Bill May 20, 08:36 PM #
Just wanted to point out that most college and university faculty members will likely vote for a candidate who listened to a hate mongering minister for over twenty years. The least you can do is support listening to the PRESIDENT OF THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH for 30 minutes. It is a shame that the tolerance of the left doesnt extend to those who disagree with them.
— Matt High May 20, 08:37 PM #
I wish to note that the statement of objection by the Furman faculty does not appear to say they will boycott the commencement. Having noted that, if I was on the Furman faculty, I would have signed the statement, but would still attend.
— Bill May 20, 08:42 PM #
Matt #68: since McCain has also been endorsed by a hate mongering minister, you’re probably right.
— Bill May 20, 08:46 PM #
It is ridiculous to cast those opposed to attending Bush’s speech as simply unwilling to listen to others’ opinions. The objection to attending this ceremony is rooted in hostility toward treating a mass murderer and leading global criminal with respect and dignity — as he will be during the Furman commencement. I can assure everyone that we would be more than happy to attend Bush’s testimony during his trial.
— Amy May 20, 08:49 PM #
Nancy Pelosi was a speaker at a commencement I attended and I don’t agree with her at all. Sit on your hands and respect those with different opinions.
Amy, some of the mass murders died on 9/11, and the mass murderers today are the ones bombing their fellow citizens in Iraq. Commencement is about the graduates, not the speaker. As to John (#5) Clinton never faced the criticism of GWB because he did nothing when the World Trade center was bombed – or the Cole, or the embassies in Africa. If he had, we might not be in the situation we are in today.
— Wayne May 20, 10:13 PM #
Faculty attendance at commencement is to celebrate student achievement. Speakers are almost a universal at the ceremonies. Faculty can close their minds if they need to but they should always be prepared to celebrate student achievement.
— lef May 20, 10:39 PM #
Think of the bragging rights Furman is giving the members of the Class of 2008: in forty or so years, they will be able to tell their grandchildren that the worst president in the entire history of the United States — the very one to whom historians trace the demise of a once-great nation — spoke at their graduation.
— MWR May 21, 05:48 AM #
@Wayne 72: You illustrate the problems with not qualifying voters. Bill Clinton’s defense policy was centered on fighting terrorism—but not in a stupid way like Bush 43. When 43 was elected, he threw that policy out in favor of “Star Wars” defense (remember now?). And look what happened.
That being said, the faculty should respectfully attend if required; if they wish to dissent they are free to do so through the usual channels.
— dhimes May 21, 06:27 AM #
First, I agree with those who feel that faculty should attend, both because this ceremony honors their students, and by extension, the teaching work of the faculty members themselves, and second because they may have a contractual obligation to do so (if this is true—it is at some universities and is not at others).
Second, it strikes me as quite ironic that conservatives (who, after all, once mainteined that they believed in the principle of freedom of choice) are attempting to force individuals to attend a speech that some believe will be offensive. I suspect that they would be incensed if they were required to attend a graduation ceremony where, let’s say, Al Franken were to be the speaker.
Third, although there are a few cases where faculty members attempt to propagandize in favor of a particular position, this is not wide-spread. In fact, most fair-minded people express admiration for the vast majority of faculty members who, because of their commitment to scholarly values, are careful to teach in a way that validates their students’ intellectual capacities, without regard to their politics. Why is it that some politically active individuals (both right- and left-wing) seem to believe that they themselves engage in vigorous debate, while those who argue for the other side are characterized as propagandists?
Fourth, I wonder about the motives of the students who invited the President. They must have known that this would provoke strong reactions (although they may have thought it unlikely that he would actually accept). Nevertheless, they issued the invitation, provoked the controversy, and here’s the result. If they wanted an event where the students would be the center of attention, I suspect they would have invited someone less likely to steal their limelight.
— Bob May 21, 06:47 AM #
David (#55), you are wrong, and clearly not in academia. No one is refusing to listen to a viewpoint they disagree with. They are refusing to listen to the architect of some of the most hypocritical, undemocratic and corrosive policies in history — policies that are taking the U.S. over a cliff.
And — if graduations really are about the “students,” why on earth would a university invite this kind of controversy by inviting such a divisive figure? Bob, above, is right, as are the posters who suggest that we all follow the Cornell model or at least admit it’s a ploy to get ahold of a wealthy speaker’s wallet.
— Comm Prof May 21, 07:22 AM #
I think some of you place too much importance on the faculty being at graduation. At my undergraduate university the faculty didn’t attend, and I didn’t miss them. In fact at one graduation, the faculty was outside the ceremony protesting the fact that someone they considered to be a dictator was receiving an honorary degree.
If there is a contractual obligation for them to go, they should, unless they can legally get out of it. In the case of Furman, it appears that they don’t have to attend or there is a legal way for them to stay home. I support their right to be absent from graduation. The world will not come to an end, if the faculty isn’t at graduation.
— Ve May 21, 07:22 AM #
GROW UP! Most of the faculty members who posted here appear more immature than the students they teach. As a Ph.D. and a mother of a college student (not Furman), I am appalled to think that these are the same folks who lecture to my child on a daily basis.
Before you walk into the commencement, which is the formal opportunity to honor your students (and their families), think about how your own mother would expect you to behave. Protest if you must, but do so in a way that does not ruin the event for others.
And one more thing . . . those who wrote those “servant of the student” comments should keep in mind that they would be unemployed if it weren’t for the students and the families who sacrifice to send their children to college. You have been entrusted with the future. If you don’t appreciate this awesome responsibility, please find work elsewhere.
— J. May 21, 08:09 AM #
Faculty are under contract to teach and advise students. Being shown off for graduation is not a part of teaching. Having the president go to a graduation sounds like a security nightmare. Who is paying for the security? taxpayers?
— me 2 May 21, 08:11 AM #
Could we solve all of this by having the Irreverend Jeremiah Wrong speak at the Furman Graduation as well?
— GT May 21, 08:16 AM #
Aren’t teachers supposed to teach students HOW to think, rather than WHAT to think? Shouldn’t education be based on open discourse? I live in Greenville, a city of extremes. On the one side we have Bob Jones—often criticized for intolerance of the left. Now we have Furman. Who is better?
— Eng. Prof May 21, 08:18 AM #
As a conservative working in higher ed, I have to tell you it is incumbent upon us to listen to one and other, including Mr. Bush, so that we can start to build the very needed and lacking political bridges in our country. All the rants from either side of the aisle are the same. We all know the script.
Let’s build something.
Honestly, aren’t we tired of our preconceived notions and the foundering?!
— Marty May 21, 08:18 AM #
If you go and read more about this, it appears that Bush is forcing himself on Furman just as he did Calvin College in Grand Rapids Michigan a few years ago. These religious schools have a right to protest being used as a platform for his (or any political) agenda. Some are tired of religion being used as a political pawn. The professors are exercising freedom of religion.
— me 2 May 21, 08:28 AM #
I’m fairly ambivalent about whether Bush should speak at Furman or not. But do I understand that Furman REQUIRES faculty to attend commencement? That’s shocking. Where else does THAT? Is it just a small print contractual thing that most faculty don’t even know about, or have generations of Furman faculty gotten employment reprimands for not attending commencements in the past? My view of Furman changed today, and not because of George Bush.
— hieddoc May 21, 08:30 AM #
First, I would like to thank annette (#42) for a thoughtful and informative post. I have a question about how the school/students came to choose President Bush as commencement speaker. Did students vote for this? How much opportunity for input did they have?
I have to admit that my initial reaction was to suggest that schools not select such divisive speakers, so that all graduating students can enjoy graduation (and faculty can enjoy the celebration too). However, I’m not sure that sits well with me either in that hearing the viewpoints of those with whom we disagree is important, and learning to dissent meaningfully is also important. I don’t know the answer and I don’t know if faculty should be required to attend. I have, however, enjoyed reading these posts and will continue to think about the issue and discuss it with both colleagues and students.
— EAC May 21, 08:53 AM #
Hey! Can we get back to an informed discussion of the student loan debacle? Now there’s a meaty issue we can all agree about!
— M C Smith May 21, 08:54 AM #
It is not uncommon at small colleges (I am not certain for a University such as Furman) for employment contracts to reference the faculty handbook as part of the contract. In most small college faculty handbooks, wording that reads something along the lines as “special programs such as commencement should be considered an integral part of one’s workload and attendance and participation are expected” are found quite often. Thus, when there is a comment about the contractual obligation to attend commencement ceremonies, often a faculty member is referred to the Faculty Handbook for clarification. That being said, in the 20 years that I have held administrative posts in small colleges, I can’t recall one time when a person was dismissed for breach of contract for not attending commencement. Many people have legitimate reasons for not attending the ceremony and those are honored by the people in the administrative ranks. Contrary to what may be perceived as the norm on larger college campuses, the vast majority of faculty at institutions such as the ones where I have worked gladly and proudly attend the commencement ceremonies in order to honor the achievements of their students as well as to preserve the traditions of the institution by doing so, irrespective of the speaker’s “street cred” or lack thereof. Thus, in the case of the controversy at Furman, faculty who would wish to not attend for what would be considered legitimate reasons (and in my opinion the inability to stomach this administration’s foreign policy is a legitimate reason) likely would be excused from the ceremony. Those that attend should see this as an opportunity to model civil behavior for the graduates instead of perpetuating the “Jerry Springerfication” notion of civic engagement.
Just my $0.02
— Small College Admin May 21, 09:15 AM #
Perhaps the graduates could raise a banner simply stating “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.”
— JKL May 21, 09:17 AM #
#87, aren’t we going slightly off topic?
This has certainly been a lively discussion. Personally, although I find the idea of compelling faculty to listen to a speech delivered by someone they find objectionable and the very thought of a C- student and Yale legacy graduate like Bush speaking at ANY commencement offensive, there is no law that says they must speak on his behalf. Freedom of speech also includes the freedom to say absolutely nothing. Sometimes, silence can be deafening. Perhaps those students, parents, faculty and staff who object to GWB’s presence at Furman can make their voices heard by remaining absolutely silent during and after his speech and while the Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow are marching in lockstep across the stage. Then, cheer as loudly as possible to celebrate the accomplishments of those students who have demonstrated an ability to think for themselves by objecting to his appearance.
— Mina May 21, 09:27 AM #
Not a lot of commentary about Annette’s comments (#42). She’s one of the students people keep writing about in the abstract. Why not engage with her measured, literate, and thoughtful response about her educational expereince at Furman?BECAUSE it’s measured, literate, and thoughtful?
Thanks, Annette. I appreciate your insights.
— angela May 21, 09:28 AM #
No matter your views on the President of this country, he is still the President and I think it would be an honor to have someone of that high office to speak on my campus. Someone posted above that it is good to listen to an opposing view and I agree. To listen to President Bush does not mean that you support him. Also, graduation is about the students and their accomplishments, not the speaker. The faculty should go for them. At least graduation will be exciting, as it was so boring this year at my campus. Our commencenment speaker was actually so boring everyone moaned loudly during his speech. Be open to listen to other people, even if you disagree with them.
— Brooke May 21, 09:30 AM #
I love all the hate an intolerance that always spews forth from the liberal, US-hating left (ie, Democrats.)
— Paul May 21, 09:31 AM #
Some people in this thread wondered if we should just show respect to the President no matter who he is, because of respect for the office, etc. etc.
That was before we started torturing people.
But graduation should not be about politics. I am not sure what is the right action in this case. Attempting to compel people to listen to someone they don’t want to hear is hardly what I would call “tolerance”, but this is an event for students and their families.
— Ba'al May 21, 09:37 AM #
These so called intellectuals are misled by other pseudo intellectuals to boycott the ceremony. Faculty are contractually responsible for attending the ceremony. They should be forced, unless they are really sick and/or mentally unbalanced, to attend the graduation ceremony.
— kvc May 21, 09:42 AM #
First poster’s “sociopath” comment was right. Wake up America: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2461177575671329682
— Cynthia May 21, 09:42 AM #
Are people really up in arms about the President of the United States speaking at commencement? What is wrong with this country, when did we lose the ability to seperate our political views and opinions and enjoy being one of two campuses were the President will address the graduating class? I commend the seniors for accepting and “approving” this honor.
— Michael Wilson May 21, 10:03 AM #
Thank you Ferd (#36) for posting the YouTube link with the UMass video.
Anyone who believes that commencement ceremonies are strictly for the students needs to question why it’s so important to sponsor speeches from such divisive personalities.
— B DiNome May 21, 10:05 AM #
Many of the non-academics or even the academics at larger institutions don’t understand how these graduation “requirements” usually work. You’re required to go to Fall or Spring graduation or you’re on a rotation and you have to go to both every couple of years. Or you’re an usher. Typically it works that way at smaller schools b/c if they didn’t require a certain percentage of the faculty to attend, none would. It isn’t written in the contract. It is covered in the job description as “other duties as assigned”. Nobody is ever fired or written up or dressed down for not attending. Role is taken but
They probably shouldn’t have invited him. It is always an honor to have the President speak at your commencement, even if he is a repulsive, illiterate sociopath.
I agree with the poster who said be courteous until he makes a political point and then boo like hell. The administration will require the faculty to be there. If they do so, the administration will have created a hostile audience. I don’t think that is their intent. They are simply clinging to procedure and this is how schools without huge faculties or schools with an inordinate percentage of adjunct faculties demonstrate to the audience at graduation, the parents who paid for a lot of those educational costs, that the faculty cared about their students and are responsible educators that taught their children well. Basically, that the parents got their monies worth.
S. Britchky’s post was the most amusing. I wonder if you can see with your crystal ball what we’re all running our cars on in 70 years? I wonder if your crystal ball can see beyond what you perceive as media ignorance and bias to how peak oil is going to redraw the political, ecological, and financial landscape? Too bad you’re not blessed with that kind of ironic foresight. I know you don’t have it because if you did, you wouldn’t be on this board as an apologist for a regime and ideas that are lurching us all towards omnicide!
— Academic Technology Trainer May 21, 10:20 AM #
This “controversy” is totally silly. I’ve attended more graduations than I care to remember and the speaker has rarely been someone I might want to hear from. The only memorable commencement speakers have been ones who screwed up. Occasionally a speech has been revealing (e.g., Jeb Bush crediting his Mother with being his life influence and not once mentioning his Father). I have a very strong negative reaction to George Bush, but it would be interesting to hear exactly what he might choose to talk about at a commencement ceremony. Who knows, he might prove to be one of the memorable screw-ups.
— CW May 21, 10:20 AM #
Remember, Bush has speech writers who will most likely get wind of this blog and prepare an appropriate speech (we can only hope). All George has to do is read it. He will also be wired in case he has to ad lib, so he won’t flub up (we can only hope).
I would recommend that faculty attend the ceremony, listen to what Bush’s advisors have to say, and then have a big party afterward where you can vent to your heart’s delight!
— Janet May 21, 10:24 AM #
The issue is not whether Bush has a right to speak but rather that, had the administration not freed faculty from the usual requirement, faculty would have been required to attend. Obviously, since the administration has freed faculty from doing so, the administration recognized that this was the issue. Had Bush simply been invited to speak during commencement weekend, there would be no problem. I might add that this entire episode has poisoned faculty-student relations. It will take a while for the university to recover. Furman admissions might reflect on current admissions policies. Granted President Bush’s current approval rating, one can only conclude that they are recruiting rather narrowly, creating a student body that is not only conservative but authoritarian. Were Furman students a more diverse body, the current situation would probably not have developed.
— Elizabeth May 21, 10:29 AM #
#95, How about if the SPEAKER is “sick and/or mentally unbalanced”? Should he be forced to leave? Think about it.
— Eric May 21, 10:31 AM #
All sides of this debate are repugnant. First, we have the conservatives pretending to be champions of free speech when lord knows their victim-mongering would have come out in full force had Hitchens or Dawkins been invited to speak. We would have hear dall about elitism, lack of respect for religions, etc Horowitz would have decried the offense to inpartiality. Then you have the liberal faculty and students who would call conservatives who boycotted a liberal closed minded calling for a boycott. The man is the US President, for God’s sakes and while I dislike him, he is well within the mainstream. Attend and criticize, but please don’t fall back on the baby notion of “offense”. Isn’t that the tired refrain of the religious right and conservatives like David Horowitz?
Brian Erb Furman ’92
— Brian May 21, 10:42 AM #
No one yet has made the most salient point about the Bush appearance at Furman. He will speak to the class using poor grammar. His reasoning will be distorted and unclear. His unintended use of malaprops will soil the dignity of the event. What are the faculty to do? Look and act impressed with a performanve each one would grade with an “F”. What an embarrasing mess for Furman.
— Bill May 21, 10:44 AM #
Interesting —- Another perspective which one might consider interjecting —- cultural divide.
Has anyone bothered looking at the percentage of students attending their own graduation overseas?
How many attend at Cambridge? At Oxford? At the Indian IIT’s? —- #‘s are on the rise —- yet as a % of the graduating class, —- they probably still are around 50%
I never attended any of my own graduations —- and angered many by not showing up —- even for my awards for graduating at the top of my class.
Years later, my son and a lot of his friends at a well-known mid-west institution refused to attend their own commencement —- ergo I didn’t have to attend.
However, when my daughter did not want to attend her commencement (at a ivy-league sister college), she was forced to change her mind —- out of consideration for an elderly loved one (who was close to her last days on earth).
Oh! yes bye the bye —- the reasons given by my kids and their friends for not wanting to attend —- simple the very notion that someone was handing them something which they had rightfully earned —- by their own hard work was ….
— zahid May 21, 10:52 AM #
I, too, am an alum of Furman University. When I first read that President of the United States would be the commencement speaker this year, I was immediately filled with feelings of pride as well as a sense of uneasiness. I had not yet submitted my annual contribution either. While I do not agree with President Bush nor really support him, I do respect him for holding the office of President of the United States. The vast majority of us will never hold that office and so to not at least respect the man for having to make the kinds of decisions he makes on a daily basis just goes against my own sense of patriotism.
While I do not necessarily agree that he should be the commencement speaker, he is the commencement speaker. Other than the alums and the student (way to go Annette for sticking up for the students) who have posted here, the vast majority of you have little understanding of the culture of Furman or the institutional values it embodies in its students. One thing that I learned there is that it is a valuable learning experience to hear voices from all perspectives. Furman students are required to attend cultural programs (was about 36 when I was there) in order to graduate and many of these programs featured speakers with whom I vehemently disagreed. However, I can tell you that I learned a great deal from hearing those individuals speak because it not only reinforced my own values but provided me with exposure to a perspective to which I would have never been exposed. So, while I may not agree politically with President Bush, I think that this will be a learning experience for all those who attend graduation.
Graduation is a ceremony intended to celebrate four years (at Furman anyway) of hard work. Annette was right about the way Furman students are taught. I have gone on to get a Master’s and a Ph.D. degree and have often been told that I am way ahead of my fellow students. When people ask where I went as an undergrad, and they hear it was Furman, then they usually say, well that is why. Furman’s undergraduate programs are taught more like graduate school and the amount of work I did as a student has been fairly equal to the amount of work I did in both of my graduate programs. I am not saying they were easy but I was more than well prepared and a large reason is because of Furman’s faculty, who really care about the students in a way I have not often witnessed at some other institutions where I have been. My understanding is that Governor Mark Sanford (who is a Furman alum and a Republican governor in a state which is highly conservative and tends to support Republicans more often than not) had a role in Furman being one of the two institutions at which President Bush will speak this year. I believe it was his office that initially contacted Furman about the opportunity for Bush to speak there and that opportunity was presented to the students for approval. In the past few years, students who were chosen from their peers gave the majority of commencement speaches. However, the students did unanimously support the invitation that was extended and since the ceremony is intended to honor them, I do not agree with those who support an organized protest there. The students simply recognized the opportunity for what it was – a chance to have a learning experience with a sitting President and gain a historical perspective that will be highly valuable in the future.
As far as faculty are concerned, I personally support their right to not attend graduation, if there is an existing policy which allows them to not attend. However, Furman is one of those small private institutions were graduation (as well as convocation and other institutional ceremonies) is considered a requirement for everyone to attend, and I cannot imagine many of Furman’s faculty for not showing up to support those to whom they care the most about – the students who are graduating.
— Brad May 21, 10:54 AM #
Wow. The hatred on both sides of this…“dialogue”??…is breathtaking.
Thank you Annette for letting us know that the Furman experience today is what I experienced 15 years ago. The faculty members next to the stage, smiling and waving to me, some even hugging me as I walked off the stage at my commencement – that’s what I remember. I don’t even know who the speaker was anymore. I really hope that years from now you can say that your memories of commencement aren’t all about ugly incivility.
I completely applaud #83 and 104. YES!!! So sick of all this screaming at each over the aisle. Let’s just get over ourselves and speak CIVILLY to one another. Discuss ideas and opinions without the hatred and ideology.
As someone who is embarrassed by much of the POTUS’s behavior and choices over the last many years, I still believe that just because we have RIGHTS do to something doesn’t mean it is PRUDENT TO EXERCISE THOSE RIGHTS. Graduation is about the students. NOT the speaker. NOT the faculty members’ opinions of the speaker. What happened to respect??? Just because we don’t agree with POTUS’s actions and words, even if vehemently, doesn’t mean we should choose to disrupt what should be a very special day in HONOR OF THE STUDENTS.
Perhaps Furman wasn’t so wise in their choice of speaker but they have to live with that choice now.
Find some way to show your opinion but not at the expense of commencement’s decorum.
IT IS NOT ABOUT “ME, ME, ME” ALL THE TIME.
— Kim Jennings Furman '95 May 21, 11:02 AM #
107 comments: not one quotes specific passages from the faculty contract that “hold professors to their contractual agreement to attend commencement exercises”.
Without the specific contractual words, the above comments are intelligent, complex, insightful, and irrelevant.
— richard May 21, 11:02 AM #
I think its disgusting that faculty at Furman would even think about boycotting commencements because Bush is speaking there……how incredibly arrogant and childish….I would be afraid to send my consertive christian children there, God forbid they disagee with one of their liberal views….please try to remember…..just because you teach the BS in your classes…we (students) may shake our heads in agreement out of fear of retribution, but deep down, we disagree with many of your ideoligies.
— Kat May 21, 11:10 AM #
This discussion really is quite sad. So many posts violate standards of critical thinking in such a way that they would earn an F in freshman comp.
— drj50 May 21, 11:11 AM #
Let me suggest an alternative—force the faculty to attend a John McCain rally.
— Gary Brooks May 21, 11:23 AM #
It is a shame that Janet #101, after eight (8) years, hasn’t noticed that George Bush cannot read.
— Bill May 21, 11:38 AM #
Obama’s sure got his work cut out for him if he wishes to bridge political divides in this country. As the comments to this blog demonstrate, trying to do so generally opens more wounds than it closes. And people wonder why I think Obama is a pie-in-the-sky dreamer.
— Tracy G. May 21, 11:40 AM #
The manner in which the President of Iran was treated at Columbia University (my Alma Matter) by the President I found horrible, far from tolerant, far from the free academic discourse they so proudly convince themselves they follow. The students were prepared and did not need the President of Columbia to pollute the discussion prior to the President of Iran’s speech. I will not be leaving anything to my Alma Matter nor papers nor money.
Needless to ask, but will the President of Furman University also treat Bush similarly? Will he be introduced as lacking personal will when given a heads up on Osama bin Laden that August before 9/11or did his personal relationship with the bin Laden family play into his decision not to pursue or was it just a matter of not wanting be bothered while on holiday in Taxes. ( The conspiracy theorist can take it from here and the data is insurmountable.) Further, will the issue of massive arrests of innocent people because of “racial profiling” be part of the introduction. Will the President of Furman speak to the issues of torture, rendition, and the limitations on civil liberties that have been in force during this administration. Will he be introduced as the person that has lifted hypocrisy to an art form speaking against appeasement with terrorists states while in Jerusalem as the state of Israel itself is negotiating with the so called terrorist state of Syria.
Go to the graduation! Use student e-mail addresses to bring them up to date on this international criminal. Use your freedom of speech; you can’t sign that away. Do what you are suppose to do inform, organize a mock trail of Bush, – let the conservatives come to his defense, and show up with placards condemning him during graduation. Show the Bushies that not everyone was taken in by their insanity, not even in territory he considers safe.
— ouramericas May 21, 11:41 AM #
Cowards! You people that are crying about George Bush being the commencement speaker are the same one demanding that conservatives respect the office of President under Bill Clinton and that abysmal failure, Jimmy Carter. You hypocrites! As a graduate, commencement was about the academic accomplishments of my class. These were students who dedicated themselves to improving their knowledge and understanding. They were also single moms and dads without adequate resources, working their way through a college education. In most cases they were not receiving free rides. Who are you to demand that everything about their commencement be vetted by you. Commencement is not your opportunity to parade around in sanctimony. Your contracts require your attendance. They do not require your agreement. Attend and be quiet. Honor your word whiners, or leave your positions and get real jobs.
— 2B May 21, 11:49 AM #
With all due respect to number 110 who said:
“I would be afraid to send my consertive christian children there, God forbid they disagee with one of their liberal views….please try to remember…..just because you teach the BS in your classes…we (students) may shake our heads in agreement out of fear of retribution, but deep down, we disagree with many of your ideoligies.”
It is the Christians who have an ideology. The whole point of college is that you might actually find out that you don’t have any good evidence or reasons to believe what you do. This is why I want to hear from all sides. You, of course, don’t think a Christian college would give any time or space to opposing views, do you? Bob Jones, just down the road from Furrman, would be the place for you. I would say churches are the place for learning BS, not colleges, since they dont’ require any evidence for their views or any serious contention with counter-evidence.
— Brian May 21, 11:55 AM #
Post 107 is correct. SC Governor Mark Sanford, evidently at the request of the White House, asked that the President be invited to speak at Furman’s commencement. Presdient David Shi met with senior class leadership—the presidents of various student organizations, including the retiring president of student government who actively supports Senator Clinton, for their views. They agreed that it would be a memorable event to have a sitting president address their class. (The senior class did not “vote unanimously” for the invitation. Although attendence at graduation is expected by Furman faculty, there is no “contractual agreement.” The faculty letter, which seemed to me eminently reasonable, did not suggest a boycott. While graduation speakers in the past have always received honorary degrees, as President George H. W. Bush did when he spoke at commencement weekend as vice president in 1983, the current president will not be so honored. The “Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow” group last year reaped considerable publicity protesting the on-campus appearance of Kinsey Sicks, the somewhat over-the-top theatrical troupe. Now they want the uniersity president to force faculty attendence at commencement.They do love stirring the academic pot.
— Emerita May 21, 12:05 PM #
I agree with MikeyD—many of you have serious anger issues. You seem to not like it when someone disagrees with your point of view. Graduation is the public acknowledgment that the graduates have learned all that we required of them, and that they are ready to go forth into the world. Don’t teach them to be intolerant two year olds who take their toys and run away when they don’t get their way. Jeez, act like you’re a little grown up.
Neither the democrats nor the republicans have mastered the simple art of moral behavior—they are POLITICIANS. Get over yourselves and think about your students and the families that struggled to make this event happen.
And…Brian, you are making quite the contribution bashing Christianity. I suspect you choose the softest targets possible for your hate speech. I’d bet you’ve never publicly bashed Islam or Judaism, both of which require followers to accept much on faith. Likely it has to do with the “turn the other cheek” portion of the “ideology” that accompanies Christianity. Jews, on the other hand defend themselves vigorously, and Muslims…well, you are smart enough to realize what happens to you if you criticize Islam. Soft targets, yes, that’s what you like, Brian. People who don’t fight back. You’re quite the man.
— Sven Carlsen May 21, 12:19 PM #
You vill go to listen to der Fuehrer. It is your obligation to listen to der leader of der free vorld, WHETHER YOU AGREE VIT HIM OR NOT!
Ve haf a democracy, and WE MUST NOT FORGET THAT LEADERS LIKE GEORGE BUSH ARE OUR SAVIORS!!
Let me hear no more of dis childish foolishness. DISSENT TRU CHANNELS OR SHOT OP!
Ve vill decide when you can speak, and what you can say.
I am impressed dat Mark Sanford accomplish dis great ting.
GO BUSH! GO SANFORD! GO REPUBLICANS!
Sieg heil!
Landrum Kelly, Ph.D.
Furman alum
— Landrum Kelly May 21, 12:23 PM #
Bill, #113, all I am saying is that I hope George’s speech writers pen something that makes more sense than when George is left to speak on his own. Of course he can read, but George Bush certainly cannot (without a script) speak with any degree of eloquence.
— Janet May 21, 12:39 PM #
Oh, Landrum! How perfectly droll! You are quite the wit, aren’t you? So clever. Clearly, your massive intellectual prowess has left all of those dirty conservatives weeping into their proverbial pillows. All of that wit, AND a PhD—wow? You are sooo special.
— Mom May 21, 12:48 PM #
I, for one, am proud of Landrum Kelly’s last post. I don’t know how he finds the time. Most adjuncts like Landrum who teach 5 sections of freshman composition are drowning in illegible essays waiting to be graded, but not Landrum. He handles the pressure well. We are all very proud of you.
— Uncle John May 21, 12:55 PM #
As a Furman Alum, I am offended by the blatant political selfishness exhibited by these folks. I thought “liberal arts” meant listening to all views with respect, and treating traditions with reverence. For these professors to not join celebration of student success, for whatever reason, is a grave disappointment…another example of the me-centered society we are becoming.
My Furman graduation speaker in 1989 was David Gergen – my wife’s speaker (also at Furman) was author Pat Conroy – rather controversial in 1990 since his books had profanity, and he was speaking at a Baptist college. However, I don’t remember anyone walking out or not attending. SC Baptists did raise some concerns of course, and actually about a year later was when Furman separated from Baptist control over election of trustees.
Since the 2000 election, a strata of liberals have felt no remorse, since they think the election was stolen, in giving no respect to the sitting President. After about a year of the war in Iraq, many of the elected Democrats became nothing short of verbally violent and hate-filled in their “statements.” Republicans were critical of Clinton 1, but there were certainly many clouds of issues, and of course the Lewinsky affair, but you didn’t hear the same hatred from Republican members of Congress.
Furman’s Mission is to prepare students for the lifelong process of education. I suppose this protest is designed to show importance of standing up for your beliefs. However, they in fact are just showing the stereotypical liberal response to those they oppose. Unfortunately, some may have seen their chance for spotlight like actors and others who like to think they are policy geniuses and feel the need to spout their views, when most folks really don’t care.
In my lifelong process of education, I began listening to NPR during college at FU when I thought it was a source of balanced reporting…today I have my alarm clock set to wake me up when I will get local weather on NPR and then to listen to the skewed non-balanced liberal views presented there. I make a point to still catch Car Talk, but that is all I look forward to there, except for music. So, this is where I learned of the controversy; I presume NPR was drooling over opportunity to rehash all the old “Bush lies” and “rush to war” and “we are the terrorists” tired rants under the guise of news and with a hint of academic/intellectual backing to the views.
I believe that questioning of policies is not in itself unpatriotic. And if Obama chooses not to wear the American Flag on his lapel, he can so choose. The corner Democrats have painted themselves into is the hateful way they have presented their views. Has anyone checked the poll numbers for Congressional Democrats lately in comparison to GWB’s ratings? Check Clinton 1 or 42’s ratings in his last year…while higher than Bush’s, he was limping out as well, with a stock market decline and recession under his watch, as well as the impeachment cloud.
And it is a shame that these seniors and their families will have this cloud over the day. I have two daughters in middle school and will be facing a college graduation in a few years. I do have new concerns about academic freedom at Furman. This falls in jack boot lock step with the views presented in Ben Stein’s movie EXPELLED about academic freedom and criticism/punitive treatment given to academics who dare question the God of Darwinism/Evolution. This should be another cautionary story in the apparently ever-left leaning of academia.
People, we can disagree without being disagreeable. I hope cooler heads will prevail and no one will get up and walk out or worse and these successful young Americans can pass into the next chapter of their lives without living out a soap opera.
— black_sheep_one May 21, 01:05 PM #
I am afraid I am an equal opportunity basher of religion. Which, of course is not hate speech – it is opposition to an ideology. WHy do religions deserve spcial protection? My point is that Christians complain their beliefs aren’t be respected when they seek special rights for them (such as insulation from criticism). Beliefs are beliefs, whether they are religious or not, and are equally open to examination from evidence. Religion, of course, proceeds from faith, not evidence and has the audactiy to demand this entitles it to SPEC