Spring Break
EDITORIAL:Students should decide
Editorial | 4/17/07
Posted online at 11:06 PM EST on 4/16/07
/ Last updated at 2:30 AM EST on 4/16/07
We were pleased in recent weeks to see a slightly revamped selection process for senior commencement speaker. The ultimate choice will still belong a committee of students, faculty and staff, but in the semifinal round last week, seniors narrowed to five a field of 10 candidates, having had the opportunity to read each speech.
In past years, candidates penned an essay on why they should address their peers. Then, a committee of 12 chose the best 10 essays without knowing the authors' names. Once the senior class selected the best five, the committee chose the speaker, this time knowing the candidates' names. Only after this process ended did the winner write a speech.
While we wish the ultimate choice belonged to students, the retooled system is a vast improvement over the past years'. Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer said that in the past, senior speeches often reflected the speaker's original essay-in other words, they were boring. We agree with him that given the opportunity, students and the committee will likely choose more original and engaging speeches.
The process is still flawed, however.
Students deserve to have their voices heard in this process. That can only be ensured by allowing the entire senior class, and not just a committee, to make the final decision on its speaker. It is their commencement, after all.
We are not worried that with a name attached to each semifinalist's speech, the process will become a popularity contest. A speech is not solely defined by its content; its orator greatly influences the value of the message being conveyed. Besides picking what they think is the best speech, seniors should choose whom they deem the most respectable speaker.
That seniors now pick their speaker based on an actual speech is an necessary improvement, but even that boon is diminished as long as they don't have the final say on who is chosen. As it stands now, all seniors are doing is deciding whom they don't want to hear.
Associate Editor Joshua Adland, who is a final candidate for senior commencement speaker, recused himself from this editorial.
In past years, candidates penned an essay on why they should address their peers. Then, a committee of 12 chose the best 10 essays without knowing the authors' names. Once the senior class selected the best five, the committee chose the speaker, this time knowing the candidates' names. Only after this process ended did the winner write a speech.
While we wish the ultimate choice belonged to students, the retooled system is a vast improvement over the past years'. Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer said that in the past, senior speeches often reflected the speaker's original essay-in other words, they were boring. We agree with him that given the opportunity, students and the committee will likely choose more original and engaging speeches.
The process is still flawed, however.
Students deserve to have their voices heard in this process. That can only be ensured by allowing the entire senior class, and not just a committee, to make the final decision on its speaker. It is their commencement, after all.
We are not worried that with a name attached to each semifinalist's speech, the process will become a popularity contest. A speech is not solely defined by its content; its orator greatly influences the value of the message being conveyed. Besides picking what they think is the best speech, seniors should choose whom they deem the most respectable speaker.
That seniors now pick their speaker based on an actual speech is an necessary improvement, but even that boon is diminished as long as they don't have the final say on who is chosen. As it stands now, all seniors are doing is deciding whom they don't want to hear.
Associate Editor Joshua Adland, who is a final candidate for senior commencement speaker, recused himself from this editorial.
Be the first to comment on this story