Texas Southern University canceled Senator Jon Cornyn’s commencement speech, due to student opposition.
Trump gave the commencement address at Liberty University, Jerry Falwell’s university, where he knew he could expect a friendly reception.
It appears that neither Trump nor DeVos will be giving many commencement addresses, except at small evangelical colleges. Students are not passive, and they know that this administration cares more about the student debt collectors than students. They know that this administration will do nothing to reduce their debt burden. They know that this administration wants to take away their family’s health insurance.
The cancellation of Senator Cornyn’s speech suggests that campuses will not be friendly environments for anyone supporting the mean policies of the Trump administration.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
YEAH!
I can’t recall who spoke at my commencement as an undergrad; however, when Governor Wallace spoke at a symposium, students filled the auditorium. Except for one fraternity, everyone remained silent and walked out at the end silently.
Freedom of speech was maintained and opposition was “heard.”
I actually gained some insight into the feelings of Wallace supporters.
Figured out how to respect the people and counter their world-view. You do not change people with anger and calling them stupid.
Of course, in this day and age, the silence would be taken for assent and the few frat members would be turned into a mammoth crowd, the biggest ever, even larger than at the inauguration.
I went to college during the Vietnam years when college campuses were anything but respectful of opinions not in line with the majority. We always here the meme that college campuses are bastions of free speech. Hah! I can’t really say that 18-22 year olds are the go-to people for reasoned discourse in heated situations. They are more likely than any other age group to react in an overtly hostile fashion to what they see as wrong. Of course, this reaction is not always a negative. They often push us beyond our comfort zone when we need to feel a little “uncomfortable.” I can’t imagine what possessed the President of a traditionally black college to think that it was a bright idea to invite a commencement speaker who had really done or said nothing that could be taken as inspirational for the graduates. DeVos was not the speaker to send them out into the world ready to take on its challenges. They showed admirable restraint. Sometimes being “respectful and polite” is beyond us all, especially when so little has been shown.
DeVos has taken action to harm these graduates. Why should they respect her? It is not a matter of listening to someone with different opinions, but a matter of being compelled to listen to someone who is actively harming you and has no respect for you.
Exactly.
The rest of the country needs to take a lesson from our college/university Students and totally stop inviting Trump and his minions to any event where well educated, bright, caring, responsible people gather. Students are saying enough is enough. The rest of us should do the same.
Really now, when has Trump ever associated with really bright people
I can hear the right wingers screeching now in faux outrage that liberals are against free speech and how dare they. Talk about GOP/right wing hypocrisy. Right wingers had no problem eliminating liberals from talk radio which is now 97% right wing. Good for the students, Cornyn and his gang are against the interests of the people, the 99%.
The right-wing/hate radio wasteland was facilitated by the Reagan administration revoking the Fairness Doctrine, which had been in force since 1949, and required holders of public broadcast licenses (with the broadcast spectrum assumed to be a Commons, to be administered for the public good) to present opposing views on controversial issues.
( I used to work in radio, as an engineer). The Federal Communications Commission ended the fairness doctrine. The Supreme court judge Chief Justice Burger wrote: “Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.”
The FCC is an independent regulatory agency, and it operated independently of the administration.
Charles,
As Dienne suggested, when will Liberty University invite the CEO of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards to address its graduates and explain women’s right to control her own body?
I do not know. I would think that all institutions of higher learning, would welcome and encourage the presentations of opposing views. Georgetown University, a Jesuit institution here in WashDC, often presents speakers from many different political views.
BTW- I am a fiscal conservative, but I am generally liberal on many social issues. I am supportive of same-gender marriage. (Why should only straights be miserable?). I am supportive of a woman’s right to choose, on reproductive issues (Roe v. Wade 1973, is settled constitutional law).
It’s really not possible to be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Fiscal conservatism hurts all the populations that liberalism supports. The whole (unspoken) point of fiscal conservatism is to concentrate money and power in the hands of already affluent white males.
From the LaTimes, 6-21-1987: WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation’s broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old “fairness doctrine,” the White House announced Saturday. end quote
Reagan was certainly against the fairness doctrine and was not some neutral bystander. He had his bully pulpit plus he could appoint FCC members and he had veto power.
Charles, your statement that the FCC is “independent” may be true in the narrowest, legalistic sense, but it is preposterous for you to suggest that the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with the ideological leanings of the President, who appoints the heads and commissioners of all federal agencies, presumably with the intention that they’ll implement his/her policies.
Charles
“The FCC is an independent regulatory agency”
Please define independent . The FCC, the NLRB, the FDIC ,the FTC and a host of other quasi governmental agencies including the Fed. whose chair is appointed by the President are hardly independent . Take the NLRB where congress refused to approve Obama appointees to the commission and now the spots will be held by anti labor right wing appointees. Sorry only in your fantasy land are these
independent. Republican obstruction of Obama appointees to judgeship and even the Supreme Court has now created the reality that even the court is a partisan body.
The party of Jim Crow is not the party of Lincoln . He was not going to face opposition due to his economic beliefs,nor his social beliefs but his opposition to restoring the pre clearance provisions of the voting rights act that were struck down by the Supreme Court and required a congressional fix. The right to vote is fundamental to Democracy . If I were a student at this Black University and a bigoted bastard like Cornyn were my commencement speaker, he would look like pasta sauce before he got off the stage.
A lot of Reagan’s influence is being felt today, especially among the me first, laissez-faire crowd reared on him. I suppose we have to blame teachers for not teaching about the late 1800’s. History gets to the Civil War and stops. How many teach labor history?
Most US history textbooks don’t mention labor history.
And more the shame, as students nowadays seem unable to hear any voice that differs from their world view…
The hysteria surrounding “Coulters on campus” is an invention of the right wing to divert attention away from the oligarchy’s take over of higher ed. Example: Gates Frontier Set targeting higher ed., “Implement business models for collaborative course development and delivery”.
Carol, why don’t you focus on opposition to oligarchy if you are such an advocate for democracy?
They didn’t want Cornyn to deliver the commencement speech precisely because they had heard his voice.
Is there any line you would draw? For instance, should a black college allow David Duke to be their commencement speaker? Would failing to allow David Duke to speak at a black college count as being “unable to hear any voice that differs from their world view”?
Incidentally, does it work the other way too? What if Liberty University, for instance, refused to allow a pro-abortion-rights person to be their commencement speaker? Does that too count as being “unable to hear any voice that differs from their world view”?
Universities choose their commencement speakers. So the question isn’t whether a university should allow a particular person to give a commencement speech, but whether it should invite that person to give the speech, and under what conditions it should rescind the invitation.
A commencement speech is an address to an entire graduating class. So a college typically will, and should, invite speakers who have broad appeal and are not polarizing figures. David Duke would not be a good choice for a commencement speech at any university, let alone a black university. And if a university did happen to invite David Duke to give the commencement address, and students voiced significant opposition, the invitation should be rescinded.
If a group of students at a university, even a black university, wants to invite David Duke to a panel discussion, should they be permitted to do so? That’s a slightly different kind of analysis.
Some colleges and universities invite the graduating class to nominate their commencement speaker. Why shouldn’t they have a voice? It’s their graduation.
Definitely a reasonable way to do it (although practical difficulties could arise — e.g., if the nominee turns down the invitation, do you have to hold a new vote?).
At this point in a Third World dictatorship they would be storming the Palace gates.
I think that the world view foisted upon us by this administration IS what they are being forced to hear! Such as it is, it is now imperative that they hear from those who can give them–& all of us–hope & order, so that they might succeed in future endeavors to work for all that is right and fair in a true democracy.
Good for the students. The self-anointed at New America (Gates funded) decided they should reinvent universities, “Starting from Scratch or New Vision for Higher Ed.” It’s the same garbage you’d expect- taxpayer money for private schools, etc.
YES !
I’m betting Cornyn has staffers scouring the university’s appropriations requests to punish them ASAP.
Is this the free speech championed on school campuses?
Free speech doesn’t mean anyone is entitled to a platform, especially at the expense of students who have worked hard to earn their degree.
No one is asking you to do anything except allow him to speak, even if its to empty seats.
Oh, George, c’mon. Really? Some misguided commitment to “free speech” would lead you to prefer Cornyn even if as a result the graduates didn’t go to their own graduation?
Seriously, George? People who spend 4+ years of their lives and have paid upwards of $100,000 should skip their own graduation? Think about that for a moment and tell me you’re really serious.
The Constitution, as I have read and understand it, guarantees a person’s right to speak. You are correct that it says nothing about listening. The decision to attend therefore is yours. Others have worked hard for 4 years, have spent $100k, and may have a desire to hear someone with a different perspective. Your attitude is depriving them of that opportunity.
George, commencement is a time of celebration for the graduates. The speaker is supposed to be inspirational and uplifting to them. Obviously, the majority of the students felt that Cornyn did not fit the bill. Speaking at commencement is by invitation. Since the graduates are the ones to be celebrated, it would be very odd to invite a speaker who the celebrants felt did not embody that sense of celebration.
George, Where’s your outrage at the Gates/Walton heir attack on public education? Isn’t it worthy to note the Gates/Zuckerberg/Pearson investment in for-profit schools-in-a-box and the World Bank’s promotion of them to the exclusion of public education? When, the external affairs manager of a Gates-funded organization quoted self-anointed reformers as saying, “We’ve got to blow up the ed schools”, where was your outrage?
Stop being a ditto head from the right and start caring about your nation’s future. Public education is where the shared values of our nation are taught. It is what makes the country cohesive.
Just a note: readers, please remember Linda’s reference to the “Gates/Zuckerberg/Pearson investment in for-profit-schools-in-a-box”
coming around to 2020–remember the Zuckerberg-Newark-BOOKER
connection (gee, whatever happened to all that money to help “save” the Newark Public School system?).
Whether I agree with Gates or Common Core, and I don’t, is irrelevant. Ad hominem attacks don’t advance your argument. What shared values do you have in mind?
If the current “free speech on campus” noise from McConnell’s demographic didn’t repeat the packaged AM talk radio mantras, the insults wouldn’t apply.
George, The reason you don’t know the nation’s shared values is that Rush Limbaugh et. al. haven’t told you about them. But, I’m sure if they told you how to ridicule those shared values, you could repeat their words.
Cornyn has all the free speech in the world and then some. He’s all over the media spouting his right wing filth.
It is their Graduation not his and frankly I would rather seen him booed off stage.
I am appalled at the recent events where individuals have been cancelled and/or shouted down. Free Speech, means protecting and encouraging all types of speech, most especially speech with which you do not agree with.
So students at Liberty University should have to sit through Cecile Richards for their commencement speaker? Free speech works both ways, right?
ouch
(I had to google Cecile Richards). The answer is a definite yes. Free speech is all about extending the right to people with which you disagree, else, there is no free speech. Without free speech (working both ways), no one will ever learn anything, and no one will ever compromise.
I am a conservative, but one of my favorite TV shows is Rachel Maddow (a leftist, and a lesbian). I want to learn all about what the left is up to, because I already know what conservatives are doing.
When I was in college, I had to listen to all types of opinions, from professors who were screaming leftists. I benefited from hearing alternate opinions.
One of my professors, who was in favor of the Panama Canal transfer, asked me “How would you like to have your country cut in two by a foreign country”? . I responded “500 miles of Canada, separate Alaska from the lower 48 states, and cuts my country in two”. Then he asked me “So you are against giving the canal away?” and I responded “We are not giving the canal away, we are paying Panama to take it from us”.
I could never have had this exchange with a conservative.
Charles – do you understand the difference between a commencement speaker and a general speaker/panelist? As Steve Nelson notes below, inviting someone to be a commencement speaker connotes some degree of approval from the university to the person, whereas other speaking contexts may not confer that sort of approval (participating in a panel, for instance).
Also, at a commencement, the speaker speaks, everyone else listens (the expectation being, listens silently). At other sorts of speaking events there are generally opportunities for questions and challenges, whether from other panelists or from audience members.
Do you not see a difference between the two situations?
Incidentally, since you seem to think that conservative universities should invite commencement speakers with non-conservative views, I invite you to find a time when any conservative university has done so. Plenty of “liberal” universities (since you seem to think that’s what most universities are) have invited plenty of conservative commencement speakers.
@Dienne: Of course, I understand the difference between a commencement speaker and a panel. I can see your point, but inviting a commencement speaker, does not necessarily mean that the university agrees with nor supports the views and positions of the speaker. Universities have the right to invite any speaker they wish, irrespective of the political views of the individual speaker. And, I would add, the institutions have the responsibility to do so.
The audience is supposed to sit and listen quietly and respectfully, but lately the students have been disruptive, and bent on denying the constitutionally-guaranteed right of free speech to speakers that they do not like. Listening to a speech, does not mean that the listener agrees with the speaker. And the audience has every right to ignore the speaker.
Of course, I see the difference between a one-way speech, and a panel/discussion group.
I cannot cite a specific instance of a “conservative” institution inviting a speaker with “non-conservative” views. But, the National War College and the Naval War College, often have presentations from individuals from all sides of the political spectrum. The colleges understand the need for the students to have a diverse variety of viewpoints.
I do not think that most universities are “liberal”. Universities run the entire spectrum, from Middlebury college (VT), to Brigham Young University (UT), to Bob Jones University (SC).
“…bent on denying the constitutionally-guaranteed right of free speech to speakers that they do not like.”
Um, no. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about anyone having to listen to you. You might want to read it again sometime.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to protest a crypto fascist like Cornyn or Coulter.
All I have to say is “two Corinthians”!
Why should graduating ADULTS be forced to sit through a bunch of hot air from a senator who won’t even hold a town hall for constituents who actually WANT to hear from him? He’d prefer to lecture, rather than listen. On the bright side, now Senator Cornyn has a few hours available to meet with his actual constituents, instead of a captive audience of students who likely didn’t even vote in his district–and if they did, they voted against him. He shouldn’t be allowed to use a whole class of unwilling graduates as a PR or campaign prop.
This incessant nonsense about “free speech” is getting old. It is very much like the right wing approach to religion in public life. They whine and whimper that their “right” to religious expression is being fettered when they can’t shove the Ten Commandments into courtrooms, have a Christian prayer on the loudspeaker at a football game, or refuse to bake a cake for gay folks. They are, of course, absolutely free to spend each day in utter devotion, but that’s not what they want. They want to impose it on the rest of us. DeVos is a prime example by way of her repeated public statements about schools as the Kingdom of God.
When students and thoughtful faculty members object to offensive speakers, who have no connection to the school or anything useful to say, they are exercising an important right too. Cornyn has no restrictions on his freedom to spread his vile points of view. He does it all day, every day. They are not obligated to listen, particularly as it is their day, not his.
” They whine and whimper that their “right” to religious expression is being fettered when they can’t shove the Ten Commandments into courtrooms, have a Christian prayer on the loudspeaker at a football game, or refuse to bake a cake for gay folks.”
Yes, then they’re the first to squawk at the mere thought that the very word “Allah” might be so much as uttered within a public school or courthouse.
Say a group of students were to hold a symposium and invite Cornyn to speak on a panel, and some “students and thoughtful faculty members” objected on the ground that Cornyn’s speech was offensive. Should the university refuse to allow Cornyn to speak on the grounds that the objecting students and faculty members are exercising an important right, and that Cornyn is free to speak elsewhere?
Well, FLERP, maybe and maybe not. The contexts are crucially different. In your hypothetical, the germane issues would be the nature and substance of the symposium and the considered judgment as to whether Cornyn had a worthy contribution to make, however disagreeable it might be. I would certainly err on the side of inclusion and join those who might see excluding him as chilling dissenting viewpoints. And, of course, any student or faculty member would be free either to decline attendance or to speak up during the event.
Commencement choices convey an (admittedly small) assumption of endorsement from the university, thereby conferring both dignity and power to the speaker. Students have every right to object to the occasion of their celebration being soiled, even if only by the presence, not necessarily the words, of the speaker. Cornyn, even if delivering lovely platitudes, cannot escape the stench of his politics which would permeate the room no matter his utterances. And students in this context have no opportunity to speak up and should not have to decline attending their own graduation.
So the university should consider whether Cornyn’s contribution to the panel discussion “worthy,” and refuse to allow him to speak at the symposium if it finds his contribution unworthy?
No, FLERP, the organizers of the symposium should have taken that into account in arranging the panel discussion and I see no particular justification for the university to intercede. I don’t think we disagree, but we can continue exchanging comments! I’m enjoying lunch in my office and this is more interesting than preparing for the finance committee.
Steve,
You have made an important distinction. Everybody’s rights end when they try to impose their views on others. That is why I cannot understand the whining of the Christian right. They can worship as they please, but they should not be able to use their religious beliefs to discriminate against others or impose their moral compass on others.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education and commented:
Good for them.
John Cornyn and Little Teddy Cruz need to be voted out office at the next election. Little Teddy is up for defeat in 2018.
Vote them out of office!
Vote them out of office!
Vote them out of office!
Are either of those Wendy Davis’ districts?
If so, run, Wendy, run!
We’ll be sending you the $27!!!
They are the two Senators from Texas. Wendy would be a better choice. At least she listen to her people.
Trump’s Liberty speech conclusion was stolen from the movie Legally Blonde!!!
Plagiarism must run in the family!!