I would like to complain about the choice of Bill Clinton as the commencement speaker for our June 2008 graduation ceremonies. Who makes these decisions?
First of all, I think it should be a principle, when making such invitations, that the speaker not be involved in a current political campaign.
In an important high-stakes election year, this kind of choice should be avoided at all costs, and I think that UCLA is vulnerable to criticism from many quarters for ignoring common sense caution in this regard. It may even be actionable from an “equal-time” perspective.
It is not at all clear whether Clinton’s wife will be the presidential nominee of her party by June 2008, but whether or not she is the nominee, Clinton is not simply an avuncular former president ready with words of wisdom to enlighten UCLA’s graduating classes.
Clinton will either still be deeply and problematically involved in his wife’s campaign for her party’s nomination, or he will be deeply and problematically involved in dealing with her defeat and with the bitter rancor within the ranks of their political party.
Clinton will also be coming to terms with strategies for next November’s general election, when the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be, will be running against the Republican nominee, John McCain. Clinton will certainly be trying to decide with what attitude he will approach the November election, depending on his wife’s successes or struggles in the primaries or caucuses that continue into June.
Clinton’s mood will no doubt depend upon his wife’s most recent successes or struggles in primaries or caucuses in Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota ““ the last of which will have been decided on June 3, within a couple of weeks of his trip to Westwood ““ not to mention the outcome of the Michigan and Florida seating brouhaha, over which some delegates are “in limbo” as I write, and may still be the fodder for nasty disputes in June.
The choice of Bill Clinton as a commencement speaker is seriously flawed. The choice seems thoughtless, as if his name had been picked from a list of well-known people available to speak on college campuses, or from a “Famous Speaker” lecture series.
There is the idea that this previously popular, now-polarizing baby boomer would be an exciting choice for young people and their families to hear after four or more years of academic work. But the large speaker-fee that will be paid out of UCLA’s coffers, which now cannot support job searches for new faculty on campus, is absurd and almost insulting.
I can see Bill Clinton talk endlessly on television almost any day. I don’t need to invite family and friends to hear this person famous for loving to talk being paid to talk. His credibility and that of his likely message are weak, and it is a presidential election year, in which he is very much involved.
Please join in asking the UCLA administration to rescind Bill Clinton’s invitation to speak at this year’s commencement. It is unseemly to have him speak.
Cowan is a parent of a UCLA student and a resident of Los Angeles.