Last week I got a double dose of speeches - on Tuesday, Ruth Simmons delivered her "State of the University," and on Wednesday, George W. Bush gave the State of the Union.
I know these speeches are highly politicized events. The speakers use broad generalizations to paint rosy pictures, they address issues that play to their advantage and ignore dangerous ground, they select evidence that fits their position and pretend counterarguments don't exist. I didn't expect anything profound. But despite my low expectations I was still disappointed. Every minute or so I found myself leaning over to a friend and saying, "OK, that's well and good, so what about this," or "OK, good point, so what about that."
I liked Simmons' speech, don't get me wrong. I wasn't bothered by the lack of creativity (she gave almost the exact same speech at Convocation four years ago). Ruth spoke about balancing intellectual freedom with civil discourse, and I found myself nodding along with her. OK, so what is your opinion, Dr. Simmons, of Harvard President Lawrence Summers? Where does his provocative statement on women's innate disadvantage in the study of science and math fall when one draws the line between intellectual freedom and damaging discourse? I know you shouldn't talk about him, I know an inappropriate quote could damage your career and Brown, but I wasn't satisfied. We both agree that there's a line between intellectual freedom and destructive discourse, so did Summers cross it?
Later in her speech, President Simmons spoke about and how learning should be discomforting and not familiar, and my head started nodding again. OK, I agree, so what's your stand on Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado at Boulder professor whose controversial comments about the Sept. 11 attacks provoked a witch hunt by the Colorado government? Churchill called the World Trade Center victims "little Eichmanns," contrasting them with the "gallant sacrifices" of the al-Qaida "combat teams." Where does Churchill sit on the scale of academic discomfort, Dr. Simmons? Hamilton College withdrew a speaking invitation to Churchill, citing death threats as the reason. Not that I wish to hear him speak, but how would Brown respond to a Ward Churchill? Would Brown side with the Boulder faculty and support Churchill's freedom of expression, or side with the Colorado House of Representatives, which approved a resolution stating that Churchill's comments were "an evil and inflammatory blow against America's healing process?"
The State of the Union started with words that might have had me bobbing my head in approval. "Over the next several months," Bush said, "let us do what Americans have always done, and build a better world for our children and our grandchildren." Wow, I might have thought (had I no expectations about what would come next), this is a speech with a long-term view. Had I not known that it was a setup for his economic agenda, I would have nodded my head along with him. Mr. Bush cares about leaving a better world for our children and grandchildren, I couldn't agree more. OK, so what about the future of our world? What about global climate change, the issue of concern for the future of the world. What about the HIV pandemic?
When Bush spoke on the election in Iraq (again and again and again), I had to agree. The election had been a success, perhaps because of rock bottom expectations, but still a success. OK, the world gained a "democracy" this week, so what about Nepal? Didn't we lose one as well? With King Gyanendra's decision to sack the government, aren't we even, tied 1-1 in the democracy counting game?
The "State of the University" and State of the Union left me feeling almost cheated, like a kid who eats his spinach only to be denied the ice cream. Solomon 101 was half-empty on Tuesday night and, according to The Herald, few students tuned in to the State of the Union. I think I know why. Ruth Simmons and George Bush make difficult choices everyday. They draw lines and set priorities with their decisions. Once a year, they're given an opportunity to draw lines and set priorities with their words. Ruth and George, you had an opportunity to argue your positions on tough issues, but you squandered it. Next year, have the courage to go one step further, the courage to pass judgment on the hard cases. You have the stoplight, you have our attention. Don't leave us saying, "OK, so ... ."
Neale Mahoney '05 is a bit picky.
