Several leading American universities are beginning to reconsider longstanding practices regarding the selection of commencement speakers and honorary degree recipients, aiming to address concerns about ideological imbalance and its impact on institutional mission. Recent developments at Vanderbilt University and Dartmouth College exemplify a shift toward greater political diversity in these high-profile academic ceremonies.
Last week, Vanderbilt University featured Arthur C. Brooks, former president of the American Enterprise Institute and a prominent conservative voice, as its commencement speaker. Similarly, Dartmouth College plans to award an honorary doctorate to Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, an organization committed to defending free speech and academic freedom without ideological bias.
These choices mark a notable departure from patterns observed in a 2022 survey by Hope Leman and Robert P. George of the spring commencement speakers at 50 leading institutions, including the nation’s top research universities and liberal arts colleges. Their research found a complete absence of conservative figures among speakers, highlighting a de facto partisanship that conflicts with universities’ professed nonpartisan missions.
The ongoing practice of exclusively honoring liberal and progressive individuals, many argue, conveys a selective valuation of achievement that implicitly prioritizes certain political perspectives over others. This, they say, risks undermining the foundational academic goals of pursuing truth and fostering intellectual diversity. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and a co-author of the survey, has called the phenomenon a “scandal,” emphasizing that the exclusion extends beyond fairness to conservatives and reflects poorly on institutional integrity.
Administrators responsible for speaker selections have reportedly cited fears of protests and disruptions as a factor in their decisions, effectively yielding to a form of the “heckler’s veto.” While figures like Michelle Obama or Robert Reich may not provoke controversy at commencements, conservatives such as Tim Scott or Sarah Huckabee Sanders might, leading some universities to avoid controversial choices at the risk of compromising inclusivity and viewpoint diversity.
Acknowledging the problem, some university leaders are beginning to promote a more balanced approach. Harvard University President Alan Garber has publicly recognized the limitations of echo chambers in the search for truth, while Yale University formed a committee on trust in higher education to address ideological groupthink on campuses. These efforts aim to reinvigorate the mission of higher education by encouraging intellectual openness and impartial recognition of achievement regardless of political alignment.
Institutions do not intend to mandate political quotas for commencement speakers or honorees but encourage impartiality reflective of their academic values. Princeton’s decision to confer an honorary degree on Lamar Alexander, a former Republican senator, two years ago serves as an example. Vanderbilt and Dartmouth’s recent selections continue this emerging trend, suggesting a broader reexamination of how universities signal their values and commitments to inclusiveness.
As universities navigate competing pressures between community concerns and mission integrity, the challenge remains to foster environments where diverse perspectives are respected and celebrated in academic ceremonies and beyond.