I recently attended a webinar on “commencement neutrality” sponsored by Heterodox Academy. In it, the presenters, John Tomasi and Jeffrey Flier, argue that

Students receiving diplomas while a speaker condemns their political values, whether progressive or conservative, are justified in objecting.

The graduation stage is not an op-ed page, a political blog, or a partisan rally, though some wish to make it one.

This claim extends the idea of “institutional neutrality” to commencement speeches, and is elaborated at further length in Flier and Tomasi’s recent Boston Globe piece, “Keep Politics Out of Commencement Speeches” (May 14, paywalled). The basic argument is that commencement speeches have a ceremonial or celebratory function which is incompatible with the discomfort provoked by sharp political commentary. 

During the webinar, I asked the following question (appears at minute 43:30 of the video in the first link): 

Would Jeff Flier or John Tomasi have prevented Martin Luther King from addressing the topic of Jim Crow in a speech given in 1965 on the grounds that the topic is not ceremonial or celebratory, or would make people uncomfortable?

I was alluding to an actual speech, Martin Luther King Jr’s commencement speech in June 1965 to the graduating class of Oberlin College, “Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution.” The speech, which aptly invokes Washington Irving’s short story, “Rip Van Winkle,” is quite literally a defense of “wokeness.” (Crediting Corey Robin, I’ve made the same allusion to the same end here.) I’ve transcribed below Flier and Tomasi’s answer to my question, to which I’ll respond in a forthcoming post. Suffice it to say for now that I don’t find it convincing. 

---

Tomasi: Fabulous question.

Flier: No it’s a great question. Well, what I would say is, if I was in the position of trying to decide that in 1965, I wouldn’t have prevented him from giving that speech. And even today, if he was alive, depending on what the speech would be, I would not oppose it, because this is in the category that Jim Crow, which existed, was a real thing, [and] was a horrible injustice to people in America who were subject to it. So I would not have elevated that to the category of a contentious topic, that, you know, there were supporters of Jim Crow. In fact, I was going to say earlier: there are special circumstances to the argument that I think I was making, and some of them might incorporate the question of Jim Crow and Martin Luther King.

Now, I would say: if I was in a role to talk to Martin Luther King, which sadly I wasn’t, I would say, “Remember, this is a celebratory event. Make some comments about it, but don’t make the whole thing a speech about Jim Crow. Well, you don’t have to make it the total topic of your speech. You just need to reflect upon it in a way that will be very memorable and very powerful.” This is not an issue where we have to respect people who think that there should be separated provisions for black and white individuals, etc. So I don’t know: does that make sense to you?

Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1964, anachronistically wondering whether it really makes sense (photo credit: Nobel Foundation, Wikipedia)

Tomasi: It does. I’m just looking at the question a little more closely now, and realizing that it’s kind of written in a way that I think we could answer fairly readily, because it says we would be prevented [i.e., we would be preventing King] from addressing the topic. I think addressing the topic is OK. I think addressing any topic is OK. The question is, how do you address the topic? Do you do it in a broad-minded way? Do you do it in a way that engages the reasons of people who disagree with you?

[Imagine that] the question were tweaked in such a way as to say that Martin Luther King would be prevented from giving a speech condemning Jim Crow. Then the question becomes a bit harder, because Jim Crow is wrong, and by 1965, there were still incredible debates about that. That makes the question tougher. I think our point, Jeff, is not that we oppose the addressing of political topics in commencement addresses, if they’re handled in a broad-minded way that brings people in and tried to build bridges.

Let’s imagine someone giving a talk today in the US about the polarization of American society, addressed that topic, an extremely difficult topic, but did it in a way that tried to do something positive, about seeing some way of moving forward as a community, and come together perhaps. We’re OK with that. But I think just one position, you know, MAGA or not, whatever, that would be objectionable. But this is a really great question. Another thing I was doing while reading the question was changing the dates. I read it three different ways. I read it: 1965, 1865, 1765. And I’m not sure if it makes it any easier to make it 1765, when these debates were happening in a lively way. It’s an excellent question, and it pushes really hard on this: well, don’t we know anything morally? Haven’t we learned something?

Flier: Well I think that there are moral underpinnings that a graduation commencement speaker can incorporate that are totally appropriate, but they should made explicit, and they should be justified, and they should be, as you say, reaching out to people who might have an alternative view. I don’t know, honestly, on the issue of Jim Crow, whether I would want to advise the speaker, Martin Luther King or someone else, who was going to say some negative things about Jim Crow, I don’t think I would want to advise them [to say] that there are some good points to Jim Crow. I wouldn’t do that. So I think there are grey zones, and questions, and times, where things are different. The problem is, that there are people today who will say that the war in Israel and Gaza is one of those times, and every good person has to condemn X or Y, and I would take the position that that is not justified by the current situation, and the requirements of a ceremonial, inspirational speech. But there are going to be people disagreeing. I know that.

Tomasi: Yes, it’s a great question. In ’65, it was still a contested issue. Thank you, a super strong challenge. That was interesting.