There Could Be No Worse Choice for Commencement Speaker

On the issue of the invitation of Colin Powell, the argument is rightly made that in finding a suitably prominent and interesting speaker for Commencement, it is difficult to find people who do not espouse views that some in the Harvard community will object to. After all, as an institution, we rightly pride ourselves on the diversity of opinions represented among our members.

That said, it should still be a consideration that the speaker chosen should not be too bitterly divisive to the community being addressed. After all, Commencement is supposed to be a time for celebration and reflection, not dispute. In this regard, the selection of Colin Powell to speak at the 1993 Commencement is astonishingly inappropriate. This point has been made before, but it cannot be fully appreciated without considering the full range of issues that have arisen during the tenure of the Class of '93 that have so bitterly divided our community as to spark mass public protest. For the astonishing thing is that they all relate directly to Colin Powell.

1) The war in the Persian Gulf. The single issue that generated the most anger among faculty and students during that past four years was the war. It gave us SUDS arguing for patriotism, SAWME arguing for defiance, and Students for a Free Kuwait arguing that Americans should risk their lives and pay the bill to reinstate the notoriously brutal (and fantastically rich) Kuwaiti monarchy.

President Rudenstine was not yet with us, but those of us that were here have not forgotten the protests, the arguments, and the bitter conviction, either that protesting students were betraying them. Colin Powell's reputation was born out of this conflict. It was a reputation for competence, having competently carried out the will of our nation's elected Commander-in-Chief, having competently planned and executed the destruction of an ancient nation and the killing of 100,000 people of color. (Choose your preferred interpretation.).

Incidentally, our Harvard administration contends that Powell was not invited because of his status as a war hero (or criminal, again, choose your favorite), but because of his historic role in reshaping the military after the Cold War. Yet Time recently reported that Powell's plan for military restructuring is remarkable only for how little it would change, and surmised that Powell seemed to prefer to cater to his military power base rather than to address the broader issues of the military's changing world role or the nation's new financial priorities.

2) Discrimination against homosexuals. The other issue by which we know Colin Powell is his opposition of allowing gays to serve in the military. Sure enough, the second most hotly disputed issue of campus during the last four years has been the issue of homosexual rights. The ROTC issue, homophobic graffiti and vandalism, the infamous Peninsula issue, the theological dispute between Reverend Gomes and Conservative Christians, and the BGLSA's graphic postering campaigns all helped to keep this issue in the campus consciousness.

As an issue of principle, homosexuality engages civil rights activities, certain Christians, and bigots alike. Yet to a significant minority of our community, the issue is more than one of political principle; to Harvard's gay, bisexual and lesbian students, faculty and staff, it is an issue of personal identity and personal safety as well. While much progress has been made towards insuring homosexuals equal civil rights, the ROTC issue in particular has not yet gone away. In part, we have Colin Powell to thank for this. And while our administration offers a hefty dose of principled rhetoric to address both the ROTC issue and the Powell invitation, it has not yet allowed such considerations to affect its actions. It is sadly ironic that Powell should be an outspoken opponent of civil rights given his status as a prominent African-American.

3) Inviting majority speakers who regard other minorities as inferior. If you haven't gotten the point yet, try imagining Leonard Jeffries as your Commencement speaker. And finally...

4) Sexual harassment and assault against all women. Just to spread the insult around, he is the Commander of the same military forces that so recently gave us the Tailhook affair. If Powell is really concerned about immoral sexual behavior in the services, perhaps he should worry about the problems caused by overly enthusiastic heterosexuals.

Ahistorically, inviting Powell can be considered inappropriate just because of his stance of discrimination against homosexuals in the military. Considered in the context of recent campus politics, however, the question is not whether or not he invitation is inappropriate, but whether or not there is any living public figure less appropriate to speak at this year's Commencement.

It is understood that the administration could not be expected to anticipate that the ban on homosexuals in the military would become such a high-profile issue this spring. It remains to be seen how much the University will do in response to this unfortunate turn of events, however. For although the administration consistently professes its non-discrimination policy when asked, its invitation to General Powell has communicated the opposite message to a far wider and more influential audience.

It should be noted that the lack of voices calling for the administration to simply disinvite Powell and not have an outside guest speak at Commencement demonstrates how unthinkable it would be for an institution as illustrious as Harvard to compromise something as sacred as a tradition for something as plastic as a principle. At the Undergraduate Council meeting of April 25, President Rudenstine also rejected the idea of publicly reaffirming the University's position at Commencement, arguing that that would be discourteous to General Powell. Never mind the lavish courtesy of being given an Honorary Degree at a special ceremony in the middle of Harvard's Commencement; never mind the particularly stinging discourtesy to those homosexuals among us of having the most prominent public advocate for a denial of their rights honored at their Commencement ceremony.

It has been observed that this is as a perfect example of why the administration ought to involve students in the decisions that affect them. To this point, President Rudenstine replied that such involvement would not have prevented the choice of an objectionable speaker in this case, and was thus beside the point.

Yet regardless of the choice arrived at, if students had been actively and visibly involved in the selection process, Mr. President, you would not be the target of such heavy criticism as you now bear. If you govern our University without our consultation, however, you will rightly be held responsible for the results. Gian Neffinger '93   Chair, Undergraduate Council Delegation   Adams House