Former CRs President and Cornell Review staffer Paul Ibrahim ’06 had an excellent letter to the editor published in today’s Cornell Daily Sun, deriding the choice of David Plouffe as convocation speaker.
He says:
Plouffe’s significance revolves around one and only one activity: the election of left-leaning politicians to public office. That’s it. Plouffe’s job is to make America more politically liberal. Was there really no one else around the globe more notable or better suited to speak words of encouragement to Ivy League students?
Why should Cornell’s graduating moderates and conservatives be subjected to the whims of an incompetent and inconsiderate Convocation Committee? Did they not work as hard as their liberal counterparts? Do they not deserve as much delight from their graduation celebrations? I never thought I’d say it, but this absurd selection makes me embarrassed to be a Cornellian.
Ibrahim hits the nail on the head, in the grand scheme of things, Plouffe is just a partisan hack (who did not gradute from college).
At this point, staging a boycott/walkout/alternative convocation speech for those outraged by the selection of Plouffe could offer a better alternative for those wanting to commemorate their graduation without the din of campaign slogans and blind partisanship Plouffe spouts off on a day to day basis.
What exactly is the difference between the convocation and commencement proceedings?
Convocation is the ceremony with the speeches the day before commencement. President Skorton will speak at commencement, which is when the seniors will walk in cap and gown.
I don’t think a boycott will have the desired effect–no one cool goes to convocation.