Since this is my last semester at the University, I often find myself evaluating my overall experience at this institution. There are some things I’ll feel nostalgic about when I leave, including the scintillating Lawn and this weekly column. And there are others, like its preppiness and lack of diversity, that I’ll be glad to forget. But then there are those few moments that just make my blood boil. That make me ashamed to be part of this University. That will probably make Mr. Jefferson turn over in his grave.
The University’s selection of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III as commencement speaker is one of those moments. Wilkinson, like the many, many other potential nominees, is a smart man with an illustrious career — he was a former United States deputy assistant attorney general and ex-chief judge on the Fourth Circuit. He also has a deep and abiding commitment to this University.
But respect for intelligence and illustriousness should not lead to veneration. Wilkinson’s vociferous defense of post-9/11 detention policies and inflammatory statements on diversity are radical views would make even the most abashed conservative look like MoveOn.org. By selecting Wilkinson as commencement speaker, President John Casteen III has tacitly endorsed views that run contrary to this institution’s eternal dedication to the rule of law and long-standing commitment to diversity.
Commencement speeches are not the same as discussions or panels where organizations can bring in speakers of any ideological stripe. Commencement speeches are selected by the University to offer words of wisdom to a graduating class, so a nominated speaker says something about whose advice the University values. Also, nominations for commencement nonetheless bestow an honor upon speakers’ accomplishments and their views — which are both inseparable in practice. Lastly, a commencement speech does not give students an opportunity to question a speaker’s past record or challenge his views. And while Wilkinson is an accomplished man, his views are incompatible with those embodied by the University and too baseless to go unchallenged by the students within it.
Take post-9/11 detention policy. Bush-bashing aside, there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether the “war on terror” is a war and what the president can do in times of war. But, if you read excerpts of oral arguments between Wilkinson and federal public defender Geremy Kamens in the “Hamdi case” involving an American citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and held at Guantanamo, Wilkinson asks incredulously: “What is so unconstitutional . . . ?”, ignoring the fact that the Constitution prohibits the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or access to a public defender. He then suggests that the president should have the final authority on these matters, and the judiciary should not interfere.
This is a radical view that not many conservatives or liberals share. Even Bush administration officials such as Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates have tacitly acknowledged that detention policies need to be subjected to some measure of rule of law, whether through military tribunals or closing Guantanamo Bay. Wilkinson, by contrast, doesn’t think we even ought to try, despite the fact that these policies have wrecked America’s reputation colossally as a bastion of liberty across the world. It is downright humiliating for a University with so much adulation for honor and law to honor a man with so little respect, and at times disdain, for these bedrock principles.
Wilkinson’s incendiary statements on race and diversity is another case in point. Again, there’s a lot of room for disagreement on the merits of affirmative action policies and diversity. But when I read Wilkinson’s book, acerbically subtitled “How Ethnic Separatism Threatens America”, I was shocked at his labeling of affirmative action and other pro-diversity policies as modern-day equivalents of racial segregation which will eventually destroy the fabric of national unity. The constructive approach to race relations in this country has always been to find the balance between cultural autonomy and national unity. Condemning diversity as “separatist” erroneously and ludicrously equates patriotism with cultural variety, without contributing much to the substance of the debate.
It also does not augur well for a University who has (at least rhetorically) touted diversity as one of its keystone goals for the 21st century. Carlos Oronce, co-chair of the Minority Rights Coalition, told me the selection “is disappointing to say the least and does not signal praise for diversity.” Manal Tellawi, president of the Middle Eastern Leadership Council, says “this will only serve to alienate minority communities at U.Va.” (But what do these “separatists” know anyway, Wilkinson might say, with their “unpatriotic” notions of “diversity”?) This university cannot promote diversity by honoring those who question this very principle.
Now, one might ask, how could the University select a speaker so contradictory to what this institution stands for? Apparently, University President John T. Casteen III is given a list of 10 possible candidates by a committee which includes University student leaders, but is free to select any speaker he wishes. This process seems pretty contradictory to me. Either a presidential committee makes recommendations from which the president selects, or the president selects any speaker he wants. The University needs to make up its mind; it cannot pretend to be inclusive of other viewpoints while dictatorially being run under the president. Otherwise, it will continue to nominate speakers like Wilkinson, who have close-knit ties with the University but are so antithetical to the values that it represents and embodies. Let the assault on dear old U.Va. commence.
Prashanth Parameswaran’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at p.parameswaran@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 4 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
