I should have written this letter over a month ago when Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson first announced her selection of Hillary Clinton as the 2005 commencement speaker. I should not have relied on the civil, composed opposition that has been raised by countless seniors, parents, and alumni to influence Dr. Jackson’s decision. I should not have expected Dr. Jackson to show such respect to the people for whom commencement will mark the culmination of four years of work. I’ve learned from those mistakes, and now it’s time for Dr. Jackson to apologize for hers.
Let me begin by summarizing the grievances that have been voiced in response to Hillary Clinton’s scheduled appearance. First off, Clinton is undeniably one of the most polarizing figures of our time. She is, for the most part, either loved or hated, and for that reason, she does not belong as the keynote speaker at an event like RPI’s commencement. This was most certainly a consideration when the senior class voted earlier in the school year and, out of 22 choices, Hillary came in 16th. Ahead of her were people with much more authority on the subject leadership, including Steve Jobs (No.3, who co-founded Apple Computer, and resurrected it in the 1990s) and Colin Powell (No.6, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs and former Secretary of State). Despite this, by no account was either man sent so much as a candygram by Dr. Jackson, whose relationship with Hillary Clinton remains the subject of constant speculation, particularly with regard to whether Dr. Jackson will receive a cabinet appointment in a future Clinton administration. In short, Hillary Clinton is a bad choice because too many people don’t like her, and Dr. Jackson may like her a little too much.
Commencement is a day when we have leaders come and speak about their experiences as leaders, and Hillary Clinton has not held a leadership position since she chaired the Wellesley Young Republicans as a college freshman. Neither her status as senator nor as a former First Lady qualifies her as a leader, unless you are to acknowledge the following she has secured as a polarizing figure. Of course, in her defense, I should point out that she was a key player in the Whitewater scandal, and that she set a wonderful example for young girls everywhere when she showed them that women have to stand by their perjuring, adulterous husbands in order to succeed in politics. Though seeing Senator Clinton at the podium is part of the experience, I dare say we could send the ladies in the senior class the exact same message about “leadership” by giving them each a copy of Vince Foster’s autopsy report and a pair of oven mitts.
I find it quite ironic that Dr. Jackson has been so quick to dismiss the opposition to Hillary Clinton as partisan, when Clinton herself is one of the most polarizing figures of our time. A recent poll by Rasmussen found 37 percent of Americans would vote against Hillary Clinton if she ran for president. The very fact that such a poll was conducted about a person stands as an alarming testament to their nature. Dr. Jackson has refused to discuss the mere possibility that Hillary’s presence will upset—not displease, but actually upset—large elements of the audience at graduation, explaining that RPI has, in the past, hosted other Democrats and Republicans. Though she’s being honest in this regard, Senator Clinton is not “another Democrat.” Dr. Jackson would have those of us without degrees from MIT believe that if the D’s and R’s are balanced like variables in an algebraic equation, the common folk will leave their pitchforks home. If so many people fostered as much disdain for each other based on political affiliation as so many do for Hillary, our society would cease to function. People in general don’t love or hate Democrats or Republicans. They love or hate Hillary Clinton.
This phenomenon is in no way limited to Democrats; Rick Santorum, a senator (and leader, according to the Jackson scale) from Pennsylvania, is an equally polarizing figure. He may be a fellow Republican, but I still wouldn’t expect a captive audience to sit through an address by him at a commencement (unless, perhaps, I was hoping to be his Secretary of Energy if he ever became president). Still, Dr. Jackson has endeavored to maintain the illusion that this is all a question of party affiliation. Last week, she sought cover by announcing the invitation of Paul Volcker, and declaring him to be a Republican. He did not campaign against either presidential candidate in 2004, and putting Volcker’s likeness on direct mailings does not inspire Americans to donate millions of dollars to the GOP. Volcker is not a polarizing figure. Hillary Clinton is.
In less than five weeks, seniors and their families are going to come to RPI to mark the conclusion of what many will recall as “the best time of their lives.” Four years of hard work has guaranteed this for them, but what’s less certain is whether or not they will find this momentous occasion tarnished because someone made the mistake of thinking that the keynote speaker was, “just another politician.” We don’t have to change the world, Dr. Jackson, but why not change the speaker?
Ken Girardin
MATL ’06
