Steve, I was struck by this: "I told him that graduation was not his platform and that freedom of expression was not a relevant argument. The commencement ceremony was for all students and their families, many of whom would be - might be - uncomfortable or offended." I agree with your decision but immediately thought of Colin Kaepernick and the NFL's "dime." I have long supported the taking of the knee, the raising of the fist, but when I read and agreed with your decision, I felt the discomfort of what may well be my hypocrisy. Is there a difference between offensive political lyrics and offensive political gestures if they are both considered speech? You succeeded in making me curious about my own stance. (I certainly couldn't agree with you more about the bludgeoning of curiosity in our schools--including most of those that call themselves progressive--and, I would add, our colleges.)
You raise an interesting point and I don't find hypocrisy. I also support knee-taking, but I think the issues are categorically different. While a graduation ceremony is more "sacred" than the NFL, I'll skip that distinction. Kaepernick and others (Smith and Carlos) engaged in silent protest, perhaps causing ideological discomfort, but not forced on anyone. I suppose it would be different if Kaepernick had been invited to sign the anthem and then just yelled, "Fuck you!", even if I personally enjoyed it. Then again, I want to shout "Fuck you" whenever seeing/hearing the superfluous, performative patriotism of the anthem.
OK. So if your student had simply stood during graduation and turned his back on the stage and refused to come forward, you would have been ok with that? I guess I still find the issue difficult because we tend to treat gestures (performance) as speech. Hell, we seem to treat everything as speech, including donations to candidates. Colin's kneeling during the anthem is a statement that everyone is forced to see, and (whether or not it makes any sense given the performative nature of the patriotism) some find such gestures as offensive as actual speech. Don't they? A gesture that says, "Fuck you." Of course, there's also the factor of permission. Your student asked permission to be part of the program with his performance, and you, quite logically, said no. If he had asked if he could stand and turn his back, what would you have said? I guess I don't see as clean a break in the categories as you do. I am still wrestling with them.
Protests against the anthem, in 1968 or Colin, are in direct response to the glorification of a nation they believed was/is falling short of its promises. They, in essence, said, "No, I will not honor that which dishonors me." The student's provocative song was utterly unrelated to the occasion. Had we played the anthem, which we didn't, or said the Pledge, which we didn't, I would have supported him and others taking a knee or staying silently seated.
This whole debate has come up in the context of pro-Palestinian rallies on campuses, which universities have tried to shut down because, as you say, it's "political". Yet none of those universities have shut down any pro-Israel rallies. So the message is opposing genocide is "political" but supporting it is just the American way, I guess.
Eh, true dat. But a pro-Palestinian rally is not quite the same as coopting the College website. I agree that sanctioning Palestine is a whole lot more politically palatable than criticizing the horrors inflicted by the IDF. It's rather like the difference between 9/11 and the slaughter of 100s of thousands of Iraqis. We Americans are mighty self-centered.
Steve, I was struck by this: "I told him that graduation was not his platform and that freedom of expression was not a relevant argument. The commencement ceremony was for all students and their families, many of whom would be - might be - uncomfortable or offended." I agree with your decision but immediately thought of Colin Kaepernick and the NFL's "dime." I have long supported the taking of the knee, the raising of the fist, but when I read and agreed with your decision, I felt the discomfort of what may well be my hypocrisy. Is there a difference between offensive political lyrics and offensive political gestures if they are both considered speech? You succeeded in making me curious about my own stance. (I certainly couldn't agree with you more about the bludgeoning of curiosity in our schools--including most of those that call themselves progressive--and, I would add, our colleges.)
Hi Denny,
You raise an interesting point and I don't find hypocrisy. I also support knee-taking, but I think the issues are categorically different. While a graduation ceremony is more "sacred" than the NFL, I'll skip that distinction. Kaepernick and others (Smith and Carlos) engaged in silent protest, perhaps causing ideological discomfort, but not forced on anyone. I suppose it would be different if Kaepernick had been invited to sign the anthem and then just yelled, "Fuck you!", even if I personally enjoyed it. Then again, I want to shout "Fuck you" whenever seeing/hearing the superfluous, performative patriotism of the anthem.
OK. So if your student had simply stood during graduation and turned his back on the stage and refused to come forward, you would have been ok with that? I guess I still find the issue difficult because we tend to treat gestures (performance) as speech. Hell, we seem to treat everything as speech, including donations to candidates. Colin's kneeling during the anthem is a statement that everyone is forced to see, and (whether or not it makes any sense given the performative nature of the patriotism) some find such gestures as offensive as actual speech. Don't they? A gesture that says, "Fuck you." Of course, there's also the factor of permission. Your student asked permission to be part of the program with his performance, and you, quite logically, said no. If he had asked if he could stand and turn his back, what would you have said? I guess I don't see as clean a break in the categories as you do. I am still wrestling with them.
I'll try a different way . . .
Protests against the anthem, in 1968 or Colin, are in direct response to the glorification of a nation they believed was/is falling short of its promises. They, in essence, said, "No, I will not honor that which dishonors me." The student's provocative song was utterly unrelated to the occasion. Had we played the anthem, which we didn't, or said the Pledge, which we didn't, I would have supported him and others taking a knee or staying silently seated.
This whole debate has come up in the context of pro-Palestinian rallies on campuses, which universities have tried to shut down because, as you say, it's "political". Yet none of those universities have shut down any pro-Israel rallies. So the message is opposing genocide is "political" but supporting it is just the American way, I guess.
Eh, true dat. But a pro-Palestinian rally is not quite the same as coopting the College website. I agree that sanctioning Palestine is a whole lot more politically palatable than criticizing the horrors inflicted by the IDF. It's rather like the difference between 9/11 and the slaughter of 100s of thousands of Iraqis. We Americans are mighty self-centered.