When I read online in The Dartmouth that "Nearly 50 professors sign letter in protest of Commencement speaker," I got worried. I scanned down the article as quickly as possible, trying to catch the name of this ostensibly offensive speaker. The article included labels like "a clear and unprecedented danger to our democracy." Yale apparently admitted a former Taliban spokesman as a student; were we asking an official of al-Qaeda or Saddam's former regime to address our school? Then I saw the speaker called "strange and disappointing," and I thought of people who would fit that bill: Was it Jason Blair or Pee-wee Herman?
My mind was, at least for the time being, put to rest when I saw that the speaker was the seemingly innocuous Henry Paulson '68, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. He did not seem, at least to me, particularly menacing or inflammatory.
The apparent grounds on which his speech was protested were his ties to the Bush administration. While it is true that Paulson was appointed by President Bush, I do not think that is sufficient grounds for protest. Opinions of Bush aside, I think anyone would be hard pressed to point to any ideological shenanigans happening at the Treasury Department. I have yet to see any particularly controversial stamps issued by that Department lately.
With a long and substantive resume including time with the Pentagon and Goldman Sachs, there is nothing to indicate that he was tapped to head the Treasury Department for any other reason than his intelligence and ability. (Note the service of Democrat Norman Mineta, Bush's Transportation Secretary for almost six years.)
So when Paulson's commencement speech was put online, I scoured the text for traces of the ideology the protesting professors apparently found so pernicious. The first words one could even peripherally interpret as political were about getting a job. I suppose when young people get jobs and pay taxes for the first time, that might tend to make them more conservative. So perhaps this was an underhanded attempt to convert liberals by sending them into the world to be 'mugged by reality', to paraphrase Irving Kristol.
I read on.
He spoke next about how our technological era rewards talent and initiative. Was that a sly attack on parts of the welfare state that subsidize sloth and apathy? Paulson then brought the collective attention to the need for a global mindset. Students would need to live their lives thinking and acting globally. He wasn't denying the reality of increasing globalization and interdependence; was this tacit endorsement of overseas sweatshops?
Paulson then zeroed in on the key theme of his speech: service. For Paulson, personally, this service is fulfilled by "the protection and stewardship of our planet": preserving our environment. Imagine an individual, out of the goodness of his own mind and conscience, spending time and money without the direction of the government! Paulson continued that many of his efforts were directed at developing countries in Latin America and Asia. Perhaps this was one form of the harmful interventionism cited in the letter of protest.
Paulson concluded his speech by again invoking the theme of service. He spoke about how service could be provided in both the private and public sectors, in the manner in which the individual found most fulfilling. Once again this is radical only in the notion that not everybody has to work under the direction of the State and that the best rewards in life come from self-initiated efforts.
To put it directly, Paulson's speech was in no way ideological, controversial or even mildly inflammatory. He spoke from a wealth of experience, exhorting students to serve their country and society.
On what basis, then, were the calls for protest made? Since the only thing remotely ideological about the whole affair was the outright political partisanship in the letter written by Bruce Nelson and signed by 46 other Dartmouth professors, I can only conclude that this protest was based on misguided ideology. Disgust with anyone affiliated with Bush administration -- however apolitically -- is no grounds for protesting an accomplished and respected college alumnus as a commencement speaker.
It is troubling that the mere association of Henry Paulson with President Bush and his administration was enough to get a few dozen professors up in arms. Redeeming, however, is the fact that the outcry of this small ideological minority did nothing to sway the strong minds of most of those in the Dartmouth community, or damper Paulson's words of inspiration.
