Wed 9 Jun 2004
Anyone looking for a link to David Halberstam’s commencement address can click here. Here’s a funny tidbit:
So there is life after college; I’m proof of it. And so was Henry Ford II, the grandson of the founder of the Ford Motor Company, who went off to Yale in the late thirties, where he proved to be a devoted playboy but regrettably, an indifferent student. In time with a critical paper due in an English course, he paid a classmate to write the paper for him, was caught in the act, and was unceremoniously bounced from Yale without his degree.
Still the future was not that bleak for him. He managed to get a job after college: with the Ford Motor Company of course–he was wise enough not to change his name–and he soon, amazingly enough, rose to the top, becoming in almost record time the president of the company, and thereby, one of the most powerful and richest industrialists in the country. Much later, a somewhat rueful Yale, always on the lookout for a new building or two–the Henry Ford School of Business administration–invited him back for an honorary degree. That day Henry Ford stood up, held up his beautifully written speech, looked at the assembled Yale officials, waved the speech in front of them, and said, “And I didn’t write this one either.”
I wrote this one.
Indeed. Incidentally, he delivered it at Skidmore College’s May 22 commencement. It happens to be, for all intents and purposes, the same speech as the one he gave two weeks later at Williams.
17 Responses to “ Commencement Address ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from Respect World Law » EphBlog
April 1st, 2008 at 8:25 am[...] alums with amazing life experiences who would make for much better commencement speakers than the rubber-chicken-circuit crowd that the College usually chooses from. Why not Nimetz for Commencement Speaker in [...]
June 9th, 2004 at 3:36 pm
I think commencement speeches should all be the same - you just pay a different person to come and read it.
“You guys got Bono!? Oh man, we only got Rerun from What’s Happening!“
June 9th, 2004 at 3:38 pm
Amazing catch!
1) Note that the “moral equivalence” passage that I objected to in the Williams speech does not seem to be in this one. I am not sure what to make of that.
2) It is pretty clear from the Williams Honor Code that a student who did what Halberstam has done — use the same piece of writing twice without acknowledging (I assume) its prior use — would face serious consequences.
What sort of consequences should Halberstam face? I would say that the College should politely request “clarification” as to the provenance of the speech that he gave, thereby allowing him to apologize for not mentioning that his speech at Williams was a retread. If he were to refuse to apologize — even if it were no more than a mealy-mouthed pseudo-apology — the College should rescind his honorary degree.
June 9th, 2004 at 6:05 pm
You can see an excerpt from Halberstam’s Williams (no, wait, it was Skidmore’s!) Commencement speech in the New York Times.
June 9th, 2004 at 6:09 pm
Once a cheater, always a cheater.
Halberstam gave an extremely similar speech last year at Tulane’s commencement.
Pathetic.
June 9th, 2004 at 8:08 pm
What are you guys whining about? Professional speakers almost always get their speech down and give it multiple times. Stand up comedians will run with the same material for a year. Motivational speakers (even the ones costing tens of thousands of dollars a pop) use the same material. Politicians have a stump speech and recycle commencement addresses. I’m sure our President has given the same commencement address dozens of times over his career. Even in the academic world people recycle speeches. I gave an identical job talk at different schools. Hell, Pinker gives pretty much identical “Blank Slate” talks whether speaking to the broader populace, general academics, or specialists.
When a school “hires” someone famous for a commencement address, they know the material is likely to be recycled. Coming up with a new speech each time would be hard work and pointless. How many people at Williams had heard the Halberstam address before? [Indeed, schools might prefer the canned speech. It is unlikely to be objectionable, and gives the signer time to practice the speech. At my graduation, Grace Paley completely changed her speech an hour before giving it and the signers had one hell of a time trying to keep up with her rambling.]
Halberstam shouldn’t face any consequences. You’re being ridiculous. He said he would offer an address. He gave an address. Where was the claim that these words had never been uttered in this combination before?
June 9th, 2004 at 8:16 pm
In general I agree with (d)avid. Obviously Halberstam gives many speeches of this type (including, to my high school 5 years ago) and parts of it will be recycled. I do think it is highly disappointing that a school that prides itself on being so warm and personal a community as Williams does would have a commencement speaker who gave the identical speech two weeks ago. This is a critique of the selection of Halberstam (especially in light of his Skidmore commitment) as speaker, not Halberstam himself.
As I said to David in an e-mail earlier today,
I don’t fault Halberstam for a second — he gave what should be expected. I do think those who selected him could have done a better job of providing something a little more special than a canned speech.
June 9th, 2004 at 8:51 pm
In my mind, nobody will ever touch Conan O’Brien’s Harvard ‘00 speech.
Quite frankly anything else leaves me unsatisfied and bored.
June 9th, 2004 at 9:23 pm
If Halberstam told Williams ahead of time that he would be giving an identical speech two weeks prior at Skidmore, he is blameless. In fact, as long as he informed Williams that he has a standard “stump” speech that he would be using, Halberstam is in the clear.
If Halberstam did not, in fact, make this clear ahead of time, then I think there is a problem. Read the Record article on the topic. Note the claim that “The topic of each speakers [Halberstam and Gomes] speech yet to be determined.” It sure seems like Ohm Deshpande ‘04 and Adam Grogg ‘04 (and other members of the Honorary Degree Committee?) did not expect Halberstam to give a recycled speech from last year’s Tulane Commencement. (Admittedly, I am guessing from their comments.)
Now, you might argue that even if Deshpande and Grogg thought they would be getting a new speech then they were naive and misinformed. But, in their place, I would have expected a new speech, at least 75% new anyway.
So, I guess that there are two issues. First, did the people who invited Halberstam know what they were getting. Second, should they have been surprised to get what they got?
June 10th, 2004 at 12:55 pm
You realize that there is a tradeoff, right? If you invite someone famous/important to offer the address, then the speaker will likely recycle large parts of the speech. Afterall, how many different things are there to say in a graduation commencement address as currently conceived? In the day and age of the internet and media databases, alumni might discover that the speech was not unique to the school and object to having a recycled speech used at their alma mater (despite the fact that noone had heard earlier incarnations of the speech). I know it is hard to believe that alumni could get worked up about things like speeches being delivered more than once, but I assure you it happens.
On the other hand, if the college goes for second or third tier graduation speakers, the speech will be fresh and new, but the alumni will complain about not having A-list speakers. “Amherst had George Bush and Usher; Williams hired Walter Mondale and Flock of Seagulls.”
I’m not sure the college can win either way.
June 10th, 2004 at 2:10 pm
I assume that this last question is mostly for Mike, but, as one worked-up alumni, I realize that there is a trade-off. I would be happy to say to Commencement speakers, “Williams is a special place and, should you agree to accept an honorary degree and speak here, we would expect your speech to be largely original to the occasion.”
Given that constraint, it would be fine if the College went for the most famous/important person who would still agree to come. I realize that folks like Halberstam would decline. And good riddance to them. If you don’t think that Williams is special, then you don’t deserve a degree.
My own preference would be to go further than this. Consider the fact that *all* trustees are Ephs. There is no requirement that this be the case. There are certainly more famous/important/wealthier people that the College could have as trustees should it so choose. But I think that the College is right to do things this way.
So, I would do the same with Commencement (and other big event) speakers, along the lines of Mike’s suggestion. I think they should all have a deep and substantive connection to Williams.
In fact, I don’t know anyone who would prefer a recycled speech by Halberstam to, for example, a unique, heartfelt speech by Stacy Schiff ‘82, also, it so happens, a Pulitzer Prize winner.
Is there anyone out there who disagrees?
June 10th, 2004 at 2:44 pm
I’d go for anyone who had something original to say. Commencement addresses are usually cookie-cutter type affairs. You are probably right that alums would offer more heartfelt or polished speeches. It is also true that you would be creating a very small bottleneck for speakers and the pool of interesting possibilities might run dry very quickly.
A number of families attending graduation might prefer famous people to alums. At Yale commencement this year, a number of very famous writers and scientists received honorary degrees, but Willie Mays received the largest and loudest ovation. I wish I were kidding. David Baltimore (a Nobel laureate whose breakthroughs in genetics have helped to direct cancer and HIV treatments) received tepid applause. Bernard Fisher is a pioneer in breast cancer. For Willie Mays, they showed “The Catch” on the big screen and handed him a diploma to thunderous cheers and applause.
Why? Did the students and families at commencement really value a remarkable play in a baseball game 50 years ago more than applied science that saves lives? Of course not. However, the audience had HEARD of Willie Mays. They knew he was famous. The presence of one of the greatest baseball players made the proceedings more special. I doubt that anyone came away thinking “I just received a degree along with Nan Keohane and David Baltimore. Wow.”
How many alums are you going to find who:
a) Will find the time to come and prepare a speech?
b) Have accomplished something worthy of an honorary degree?
c) Have something interesting to say?
d) Are famous?
e) Will be on the radar screen of a committee?
I say, cast a broad net. Get alums when you can, but get interesting and worthy people first and foremost.
June 10th, 2004 at 3:17 pm
Well David’s post pretty much gets at my point, though I wouldn’t go so far as to make it a requirement that the speaker be an alum. (d)avid I think you underestimate the number of interesting people in the world with ties to Williams. On the note of famous baseball players, Ernie Banks was at Williams a few years ago and stayed at Morty’s house watching a Cubs game with Morty, students and faculty until midnight talking about how much he loved the place and would like to come back. Maybe he’d be a good choice. George Shultz has a regional tie — he has a house in the area — and maybe he’d have enough respect for Williams to offer a heartfelt speech.
Eric Lander was the commencement speaker last year and I’ve heard that he was overjoyed when asked to speak and spent the entire weekend with a huge smile on his face. I don’t know what connection, if any, he has to the school, but that should be the goal. If somebody like Bruce Springsteen has no interest in speaking at the College, then the College should have no interest in having them speak. Williams talks about having a special and intimate community; that should mean something on commencement day.
June 10th, 2004 at 6:30 pm
I was going to link to Conan’s speech, but Eric beat me to it — I agree that sets the gold standard for commencement speakers.
First, I would have traded Grace Paley for Halberstam any day. Paley’s speech was something I could have written in third grade, except that my speech would have been a lot more coherant. That was probably the only time I have ever been embarassed to be affiliated with Williams. I wish a copy was avaiable on-line, it was laughably bad. If I recall, she was chosen at least in part because she was connected closely with one of the Williams professors. Which also explained why we had to read her awful poetry in one of my classes. So be careful on taking the connection thing too far.
That being said, here are my criteria, in order:
1) Something interesting / inspirational / novel to say (aka, not “you can’t be afraid to take risks / fail / face new challenges” like every graduation speaker says, unless it’s said in creative a fashion as Conan did). This may be hard to determine in advance, but perhaps, if it’s not too insulting, a potential speech could be vetted by the committee, at least in outline form, before a formal invitation is rendered. After all, isn’t this what the Williams philosophy is about? We may not have famous profs, but we don’t care as long as they can teach well.
2) Fame / level of accomplishment. Of course, it can’t just be some random schmoe like Jeff Zeeman ‘97 speaking, it should be someone who inspires via deeds as well as words. Strike that, I think Jeff Zeeman ‘97 would be an outstanding choice.
3) Someone who is very accomplished, but perhaps hasn’t been recognized for their accomplishments. This to me cures the Halberstam problem of canned speeches while, at the same time, hones true to the Williams philosophy once again of substance over style / name-brand recognition. This would mean keeping away from people accomplsihed in politics, entertainment and media, and looking to more service / leadership oriented people, people who are inspirational and accomplished without necessarily being household names, like doctors, scientists, activists, etc. They would probably appreciate the recognition more and, accordingly, put more effort into their presentation. One exception to this: unless you can get someone really, really huge, like George Bush for class of 1996. His speech, despite being canned, was at least really good, and it was damn cool to see a former US Pres.
After reading the New Yorker article (which to me should be required reading for all Williams frosh as the ideal to which the entire Williams community should aspire), Kurt Varnedoe (who I think did speak at one commencement) comes to mind as the perfect sort of speaker for Williams.
4) Ability to be funny / entertain. Let’s face it, what made Conan’s speech so memorable is that it’s damn funny. If my relatives have to sit there through 550 names being read, at least let the speaker be entertaining.
5) Williams connection, per eariler discussion on this thread.
6) Not be Grace Paley, any relative of Grace Paley, anyone who knows Grace Paley, or anyone who has read and enjoyed a Grace Paley poem. Yes folks, it was that awful.
June 14th, 2004 at 4:57 pm
1) According to someone who was at the 2001 and 2002 ceremonies, Morty gave the same speech to the seniors. Morty has an intimate (some might say, incestual) relationship with Williams College. Should we ask him to be more diligent about practicing the honor code?
2) Maybe Eric Lander was overjoyed about being the graduation speaker for the class of 2003, but if I recall correctly, he opened with platitudes about Princeton, his alma mater, and how Williams was not Princeton and could not really compare to it. The rest of his time was spent talking about genetics, and really, I thought it made for a less-than-inspiring speech - only in the end did he tie the human genome back to a broader message. I remember that most of all, I was bored while Lander was speaking.
3) As for speeches, I thought that Kai Chen’s speech was phenonmenal - very little verbosity, long on humility and gratitude versus the infantile verbal hijinks of other student speakers that I have heard. It was a remarkably mature speech, one that served the gravity of graduation far better than a speech about remembering Williams through a drunken haze.
Yes, I thought that Jon Stewart’s speech was unendingly hilarious, but I also think that for some people, graduation is a serious event, not simply a lighthearted one. To those of us that struggled to make it through, whether because of family deaths or having to pay our own way through by working part-time in addition to attending classes, or because of culture shock, it was an infinitely serious event. To those of us who are the first members of our families to attend, much less graduate college, it remains a serious event. I didn’t take receiving my degree lightly, and I think that Kai’s speech respected what I consider to be the stateliness of graduation.
ravenastro
June 14th, 2004 at 5:15 pm
The case of Morty (or anyone who as part of their job is placed in the same situation repeatedly) is different. I expect Morty to give the same (or similar) speeches to incoming First Years, just as Dave Paulsen ‘87 might reuse remarks to the basketball team at the start of the season, just as Joe Cruz ‘91 might rely on the same analogy more than once when teaching PHIL 101. There is nothing wrong with that.
I am happy to leave aside the issue of whether or not Halberstam is in the right in this case. I have actually talked to several people (including two historians) about the topic and the general opinion seems to be that this was unsurprising but probably tacky — especially going word-for-word at Williams and Skidmore.
All of which raises the question of why Halberstam does it. Why, if you don’t care enough about Williams (or Skidmore or Tulane . . .) to write a personalized speech for the occasion, go to the trouble of accepting an honorary degree? Is it that much fun to come to Williams? Does Halberstam have nothing better to do than give the exact same speech to a bunch of strangers that he does not seem to care all that much about?
I don’t know. Perhaps Halberstam just loves to line his office wall with honorary degrees. My worry (suspicion) is that Halberstam does it for the money.
If he were to speak at Williams outside of Commencement week-end, his fee would be $17,500. I am still trying to determine whether or not he a received a fee for Commencement. I like to think that the answer is No, but I wonder.
September 14th, 2004 at 12:55 pm
After Christopher Reeve spoke at commencement in 1999, a friend of mine who was working in the PR office was tasked with transcribing it from a recording. He commented that the speach was basically the same one that Reeve gives at every commencement he speaks at.
As for my opinion about this, I’m not really sure if it’s fair to expect these people to say something different or not. Sure, Williams is unique to us, but to these popular speakers I’m sure one commencement is pretty much the same as another.