Talking to strangers
The University should do more to draw respected and renowned speakers

Published: Friday, October 17 2008

If the ability to draw big-name commencement speakers is any indication of a university’s prestige, the University needs to catch up to a certain institution in Lynchburg. Liberty University’s speaker last year was Chuck Norris, noted TV and film star (and conservative activist). The University’s speaker was Hunter R. Rawlings III, a classics scholar whose most notable achievement is his term as a university president — at Cornell.
Of course, fame is not the only measure of a great commencement speaker. Relatively unimpressive individuals could write great speeches, and sometimes people who have done fascinating things are completely unknown. Certainly Norris’s professional achievements do not warrant him speaking at any university.
But — like it or not — improving a university’s appeal to students involves increasing its prestige, and attracting well-known or respected speakers — commencement speakers and others — is important to a university’s reputation. Truly prestigious universities attract prestigious speakers. Just look at Harvard University. Its commencement speaker last year was J.K. Rowling, and its “Class Day” speaker — the Ivy League equivalent of the University’s valedictory speaker — was Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. Not too shabby.
Respected visitors to a university convey the message that it is a place where serious people discuss ideas. Prospective students see speakers who have visited a university as an indication of the quality of opportunities available at that university. Students talk about impressive speakers they have seen, spreading word about the university’s status as a world-class institution.
Even controversial speakers benefit a university. David Horowitz, the conservative academic who spoke at the University this week, speaks at so many schools that his visit alone does not lend prestige, but the discussion his ideas provoked — even in the form of protest — improves the University. Ironically, the students who agree with Horowitz were likely the same ones outraged by former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami’s visit in 2006. That speech undoubtedly lent some prestige to the University, despite Khatami’s controversial image — especially since Khatami, a fan of the University’s founder, had asked to visit Charlottesville.
More high-profile speakers — whether heads-of-state, captains of industry or respected scholars — would help the University as it tries to break into the ranks of truly elite American universities. Unfortunately, the University does little to attract them.
The University has a policy of not paying for speakers, according to Fourth-Year Trustees president Christina Polenta. This is not unusual. Many universities invite speakers offering only the honor of being invited.
The honor of speaking at the University does not seem to be enough to attract the best speakers. It is clearly not enough to get speakers to go out of their way to address the University. Both Rawlings and the previous year’s commencement speaker, John Grisham, were already living in Charlottesville.
The University should reconsider its position on paying speakers. At the very least, valedictory speakers could be offered some enticement, and the University could fund high-level speakers throughout the year (selected by students, of course). Refusing to pay speakers might place the University in the same category as other elite schools, but that stance is invisible to those outside the University community. A more impressive slate of speakers would do more for the University’s status.