Eagleionline

 By Jesse Stellato, April 3, 2008

How do you feel about the process used to select this year’s commencement speaker? Earlier this week, Eagleionline asked students, alumni, and members of the faculty, staff and administration of Boston College Law School a series of questions through Eagleionline about BC Law’s commencement ceremonies in general and the 2008 ceremony in particular.

Yesterday, Eagleionline analyzed the quantitative component of the survey, which asked “Do you support having attorney General Mukasey speak at this year’s commencement?”

In addition, Eagleionline analyzed the survey’s first optional open-ended question: “What quality or qualities do you look for in a commencement speaker?”

Today, we survey the answers to the second open-ended question: “ How do you feel about the process used to select this year’s commencement speaker?” More below the fold…

Twenty-seven people responded to this question. Most of the people who did so had some reservations of the process. Many of these individuals’ reservations appeared to grow out of the belief that other stakeholders, in particular students, should have had more input in the selection process. As one respondent wrote:

I think the process should involve significant student involvement. I think a small committee of students, whether LSA reps or other students, should be involved in every step of the process.

Another respondent questioned the representativeness of the “Dean’s table” and proposed that the graduating class have authority to make the ultimate decision of speaker selection:

I think the process should include student and faculty members. A decision by the Dean’s table is not representative of the community at large. At the very least the graduating class should get final say.

As Eagleionline reported earlier this semester, no student or student representative was consulted before Attorney General Mukasey was selected as this year’s commencement speaker.

The reservations of others reflected the concern that selecting a speaker unilaterally was managerially imprudent. Using students as a “sounding board” before issuing the invitation, suggested one respondent, would have helped Dean Garvey anticipate the controversy over Mukasey’s selection:

The fact that Dean Garvey failed to anticipate the controversy over Mukasey shows that he did not consult a sufficient number and range of people before making his choice. Dean Garvey should have used some sort of representative group of faculty and students as a sounding board before issuing the invitation.

Another respondent, while not questioning the Dean’s ultimate authority to select the commencement speaker, pointed to other advantages further incorporating students into the selection process:

the dean should have the final choice/say…that goes w/o saying. But its smart to involve students/faculty in the initial process so the school can take advantage of student/faculty ideas and/or connections (ie…’my uncle is head of the FBI…’)

Though a number of respondents appeared a bit more upset (one called the process “an affront to democratic principles”), a number of others saw no problem with the selection process. Indeed, some of these latter respondents praised Dean Garvey for his handling of the situation.

After listening to Dean Garvey’s explanation of the process at out “Town Meeting,” I feel the entire process was thorough. The speaker was selected before the confirmation hearings occurred. But after those hearings took place, the Dean undertook a careful evaluation, soliciting a wide-range of opinions from students in the school to administrators and executives at other institutions. Short of retracting our invitation, the Dean has taken every procedural step one could ask.

Other respondents pointed out that the process of obtaining commencement speakers should not be considered in a vacuum, but in a broader context. One referenced the practical difficulties in obtaining a speaker:

I think it was fine—getting a speaker at the same time every other school is trying is a fast-moving, competitive process that is not easily susceptible of deliberation and debate.

Another pointed out that the process used to select commencement speaker was precedented. “I think that it is perfectly acceptable given that it was entirely consistent with past practices,” the respondent wrote.