Commencement in Review

Commencement speakers are rarely spectacular. Certainly, one can bring to mind a few notable speeches. This writer, at least, remembers watching, some ten-odd years ago, a video recording of Conan O’Brien’s speech at Dartmouth. And yet the singular notoriety of that oration distinguishes it from a crowd of forgettable speeches. Adding to that later pile this year was Sandra Oh’s speech at our own commencement. While far from being truly objectionable, Oh’s address was uninteresting, and failed to justify its principle position in the course of the event. Indeed, it was singularly irrelevant as it lacked any content particularly aimed towards Dartmouth and its graduating class.

Certainly, Roger Federer was going to be hard to top. We cannot reasonably expect a world-famous athlete every year, nor can we expect one who combines fame with speaking ability. And yet, this writer thinks it reasonable to be disappointed in just how marked the decline in speaker cultural significance was between this year’s speaker and last year’s. While well-liked in some circles, Sandra Oh is hardly a household name. Moreover, she does not bring any Dartmouth connection to make up for this lack of universal name-recognition.

But the circumstantial deficiencies of this year’s speaker have been debated to death at this point. In fact, if Sandra had delivered a wonderful speech, she would have more than made up for her lack of name recognition or particular relevance to Dartmouth. Unfortunately, her speech was, while far from the worst commencement speech ever given, not remarkably inspiring or insightful. Most of it was unmemorable, a slow procession of platitudes and notions from grade-school lessons on self-esteem. Oh delivered some standard lines, encouraging the audience members to be brave and comfortable with themselves. This relativistic view of individual quality is fundamentally wrong-headed. But of the left-wing talking points it is one of the least offensive.

Sandra’s speech had but a few moments that can be called “notable,” most of the speech having blended into a nearly-uniform verbal paste. Perhaps most tellingly for the state of the modern individual, Sandra deemed it worthwhile to ask the audience to spend a mere thirty seconds in introspective contemplation. If, indeed, this were a novel experience for the audience, Dartmouth has clearly failed its stated mission to engender capable minds in its students. She further asked us to be “kind” and to be open to internal healing, whatever that may mean. Such platitudes are at first glance as harmless as they are inane, but Oh likely meant them to have an indirect impact on the social outlook of the audience. Indeed, a core component of that modern ideology is that its political prescriptions are invariably aligned with “kindness” and that the positions of the opposition are “unkind.” One is kind when one agrees with Oh and acts as she does, and is unkind when acting otherwise.

Perhaps most provocative of her rhetorical checked boxes was her veiled criticism of President Beilock’s administration. She questioned not-so-subtly whether one could be allowed, in such a speech, to promote democracy and criticize attacks on free expression. Perhaps the speaker attempted to critique some request made of her not to engage in political commentary without openly calling out the administration. Regardless, Sandra was generally successful in avoiding offending any part of the crowd, failing only when she asked the graduating class to “dance it out” at the end of her speech. While The Review acknowledges the value of revelry and even debauchery, it hopes that such things can be kept to their proper time and place, and that proper ceremonies can be afforded the respect they deserve.

The core fault of this year’s address is also its greatest strength when considered in the context of the administration’s interest. Sandra Oh’s speech could have been delivered in its entirety to any graduating class at any school in the country. Indeed, one need not look far to find speeches with similar structures and nearly identical, and generally insubstantial, messages. Perhaps the speech’s lack of weight can be considered a victory for President Beilock. While we hoped for a speech that conveyed important insight on the moment of progressing from life as a student to true adulthood, we can at least be thankful for the absence of virulent and boorish political grandstanding. While we may be disappointed in this year’s commencement speaker, we should be thankful for a president so adept at steering Dartmouth away from controversy.