As soon as Michael Bloomberg was announced this year’s commencement speaker, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media filled with debates over whether the appointment was a good or bad decision on the part of the Harvard administration. There’s space for both sides of the spectrum. Supporters of this invitation could cite Bloomberg’s distinctive personal history as a largely self-made billionaire, as well as his rare experience governing one of the United States’ largest cities through years of dramatic transition. Opponents could argue that his stop-and-frisk policies were offensive to minority communities and his selection represents a step backwards on the part of the Harvard administration, especially after the hugely successful “I, Too, Am Harvard” performed last weekend. In my view, both of these arguments miss the mark. Instead of evaluating the choice through weighing whether we support or dislike Bloomberg as a politician, we should simply consider his speech as an opportunity to prompt a valuable discussion among graduation attendees and the Harvard community.
Last year’s commencement schedule looked exciting but grueling, packed with activities starting at 8 a.m., long before the time that most Harvard seniors wake up. While he or she always receives a considerable amount of publicity, the commencement speaker is a comparatively tiny portion of the day. Realistically, the purpose of the commencement speaker is twofold: to aid in the increase of Harvard’s prestige worldwide, and to provide a meaningful speech for graduating seniors and their families. Of course, which of these one considers more important varies from person to person. Many students (myself included) would probably put much more weight on the second one.
Bloomberg fulfills the first requirement in spades. His status as commencement speaker was covered by Reuters, ABC, and (not surprisingly), Bloomberg News. However, what about the implications of this choice to Harvard and its graduating seniors?
Looking at previous commencement speakers provides some guidance. They have generally toed the line between speaking to the world and speaking specifically to graduates in various ways. Some were relatively innocuous picks like J.K. Rowling, whose largest controversy was probably having Hermione end up with Ron instead of Harry. Meanwhile, other speakers like Kofi Annan or Alan Greenspan undoubtedly brought more debate to the day. There are a few common trends: speakers come from a variety of backgrounds, but are generally well-known and successful. But more importantly, writers and government officials dominate the list, while thinkers in areas more narrowly accessible, like higher mathematics, are thin on the ground. The reasoning behind this is clear: speakers should have something to say that all listeners can relate to.
In some cases, they can relate perhaps too closely. Harvard’s undergraduate community of 6000 is a highly opinionated one, and no matter who is announced as commencement speaker, at least some will find a reason (in this case, very valid reasons) for concern over giving him or her such a high profile platform and honor. Even the choice of Rowling was criticized by a few as being not serious enough for Commencement Day. However, instead of viewing this as an endorsement of Bloomberg’s (or any other speaker’s) policies, I propose considering Commencement speech as a chance to hear a prominent, largely successful individual’s views on life. Whether or not you agree with Bloomberg’s policies, hearing his ideas on postgraduate life will undoubtedly be fascinating and memorable.
In fact, the controversy around his selection could even support further the much-needed discussion of race relations within Harvard. After “I, Too, am Harvard,” a constructive next step could be a series of discussions within the houses on different perceptions of Bloomberg’s most controversial policies and why members of the Harvard community see them differently. Rather than undermine the ongoing discussion, this choice could help sustain it so that the student body can offer clear feedback on the issue to the Harvard administration.
Finally, all the controversy may have an unintended side effect. If nothing else, the choice of Bloomberg ensures everyone will be listening to the Commencement speech, even after a brutal 8 a.m. start.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.