Question honorary degrees
During the campus turmoil of the late 1960s, Washington University Chancellor Thomas H. Eliot dismissed student protests by claiming that Wash. U. students were “birds of passage” who would strut and fret their four years on the academic stage and then be heard no more.
While I have many faults, I still have a good memory and that phrase has stuck with me for almost 40 years. Chancellor Eliot started transforming Wash. U. from a commuter-school for the wealthy scions of St. Louis families, not smart enough to be admitted to the Ivy Leagues, to a top-ten school under the vaunted U.S. News & World Report standings. Furthermore, he was also a former U.S. Congressman who is credited with co-authoring the Social Security bill in the 1930s.
While many of us (who are now of course nearing Social Security status ourselves) were offended by Eliot’s “birds” comment, he was probably correct. Only a few alumni from my era are modest givers and show up at reunions. An even smaller group cares about what happens on campus. That’s why the University generally reacts to student protests and complaints with a “rope-a-dope” strategy, figuring it will do nothing until the year’s flock takes wing.
That’s what the administration did and will do with last spring’s embarrassing Phyllis Schlafly honorary degree fiasco, when Wash. U. honored someone who not only took actions that are anathema to the University, but who has also shown contempt for the very idea of a liberal university. The previous year, Wash. U. honored Paul Harvey, who advocated using nuclear weapons in Iraq.
The Schlafly incident was particularly maddening because the cowardly nominator hasn’t even confessed his or her action. Two of my classmates who’ve amassed fortunes large enough to be elected to the Wash. U. Board of Trustees responded to my inquiry about how Schlafly got nominated with the Sergeant Schultz defense (“I know nothing,” for those who missed the Hogan’s Heroes era). It’s as if Schlafly nominated herself.
So here’s hoping that the class of 2012 doesn’t just suck up the fine education Wash. U. has to offer and fly away. There is more to life than getting into professional school or moving back to your parent’s basement and working at Starbucks. Get involved and for your first task consider demanding, not necessarily the end to awarding degrees to every right-wing nut, but making the honorary degree process transparent so that there can be a true debate about what Wash. U. stands for and who should be recognized.
There is always room for honest discourse in the selection of anyone for honorarium when the selection process is based upon merit. There isn’t room for any discourse when the selection process is based upon fiscal contributions or public relations opportunities. But by lingering on past perceived transgressions the writer focuses the spotlight on himself, sounding more like a pouting victim than an advocate for change. Ms. Schlafly, while perhaps not the most appropriate selection to some, was highly acceptable to others. It is now time to move on. Don’t like the process? It isn’t going to change. Let’s stop harping on past alleged failures. It gets tiresome. And the more liberal aren’t the only one’s affected by how the University had, and has, conducted itself.. Chancellor Eliot, interestingly enough, not only slighted the left (as the author pointed out) but at the same time did the same to the more conservative element as well. I remember not so much what he said but his total lack of response to the trampling of the rights of others. I was standing at attention as the buildings around me burned watching my only chance of receiving a degree before being drafted seem to eviscerate in smoke. Eliot’s reaction was to do nothing. Nothing. Only after a group of students filed suit for the protection of our rights did the University decide that the policies of avoidance had to be re-examined. It certainly didn’t change much, and they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the point of grudgingly acknowledging that perhaps all students had rights, not just the most vociferous, and at least they would recognize that even if they would do nothing to protect them.. Since then, while the political climate has changed, the school’s attitude has not. So long as the endowment funds continue to grow there will continue to be no change. Rich kids attend, scholarly works are published, special attention is given to special contributors. Let’s accept it and move on. Whether leaning to the left, right or center, there are alternatives that would benefit from the passions, efforts, and assistance of the dedicated. Life is not in the victories, it is in the living. Time to accept Wahsington U. reality and move on.