163rd ÖйúÌå²ÊÍø Commencement address, May 27, 2023

Remarks by President Andrea Talentino

I take as my starting point today the proverb, "there¡¯s none so deaf as those who will not hear." Unfortunately, we are becoming a society of deafness, for we increasingly choose not to hear, particularly ideas and perspectives that clash with our own. We have grown accustomed to talking over or shouting down alternate viewpoints, and while each side might feel that doing so is warranted because their opponents¡¯ views are too extreme or too ridiculous to entertain, in so doing we lose the most important thing that has lain at the foundation of this nation. Reasoned discourse.

The truth is, ideas are not value free. Our positions on any topic, particularly the philosophical questions on which we collectively have our deepest divisions, will betray a worldview and set of values that we each hold to be fundamental. But the expression of our ideas, and discussion of the values that underpin them, is essential to the human endeavor. So I want to talk to you today about listening, really listening, and why the success of our world depends upon on you doing exactly that.  

One of the first examples of persuasive discourse in this country is well-known to students of American history, the pamphlet "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine. "Common Sense" was published in January of 1776 and became one of the first best sellers, eventually selling 500,000 copies. It was specifically designed to motivate people to debate the essential political question of the day, for in its 47 pages Paine sought to convince people that a establishing a republic was imperative. On the streets, in public houses, in places of employment, around the dinner table, "Common Sense" invited individuals to engage in discussion over why British rule was oppressive and how independence could create a system of self-rule that would serve people better.

In taking that position, Paine wanted people to argue. He wanted energy to run high and tempers to occasionally flare. He believed, as did leaders like John Adams, that by providing information and perspective and then inviting debate, the adherents of independence would grow.  And he wanted his argument to be accessible to all, not just the wealthy or highly educated. Most importantly, he understood that his ideas represented his own values about representation, liberty, and effective government.  He also understood that those who opposed independence held values about monarchy and participation with equal conviction. He did not demonize those opponents, or seek to belittle their views, rather, he sought to engage them.

Twelve years later, in 1788, another seminal writing appeared in "The Federalist," which was a set of 85 essays energizing debate about the topics at the center of the political experiment that was the draft constitution. They engaged the question, in its simplest form, of how to preserve liberty within effective government. The Articles of Confederation had been too loose a structure, too weighted on the side of freedom of action, but the Constitution seemed, to many, to be too tight a structure, weighted on the side of central government.  

At the time of course the colonial leadership remembered all too well the restrictions of monarchical rule and they were not keen to recreate that. So the debate concerning how to have enough government without having too much was a profoundly meaningful one. Proponents of the draft constitution argued that its strengthened central government balanced by separation of powers would hit the needed balance. Opponents feared that the proposed government would be despotic and intrusive. Now, nearly 240 years later, we still struggle to ascertain that balance.  

You know the topics engaged in these essays because they are questions that animate us today. If you listen to or read the news, you hear the echoes of 1788. Questions of executive power, the dominance of one branch over another, the corrupting influence of political parties, and the value of taxation in keeping an effective and united union were all addressed in "The Federalist." The essays remain, to this day, a major contribution to political philosophy and a frequent touchstone for understanding the intent and purpose of our Constitution. As Federalist 51 explained, in examining why it was so critical that the power of different branches of government be separate and unimpeded by one another: "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."¹

At times the essays departed from their focus to argue topics beyond government authority. Federalist 42, for example, extended its discussion on commerce to oppose chattel slavery and to advocate for the quick cessation of the slave trade, which it described as ¡°a barbarism of modern policy."¹ That point makes it important to acknowledge that only some individuals were intended to engage in these debates.  White men of property were the intended audience. 

Women, blacks and enslaved persons had no vote and were not considered relevant to political change. That gap between philosophy and policy is precisely why Frederick Douglass would later draw a distinction between the Constitution as a document that expressed the ideals of civil rights and freedoms for all, and the US government as a political body governed by prejudice, self-interest, and power.  

But even among the intended audience of white property owners, different perspectives and political interests remained.  Accordingly, the authors of the essays sought not to limit or skew debate, but to engage it. Furthermore, topics such as slavery likewise became the subject of future common-sense rhetoric campaigns that engaged debate as the well-spring of change. Starting in the 1830s, for example, black abolitionists began a newspaper campaign to link antislavery positions with civil rights, forcing attention to matters that were less of a focus for white abolitionists. 

I hope two things occur to you from this short summary. First, that debate is an important tool for societal advancement, and second, that the questions addressed in these early examples of rhetoric remain fundamental to our discourse and our republic. To assume that we can solve them by stifling debate and shouting down those we disagree with is not simply false, it is dangerous.  

Nearly 240 years after the publication of "The Federalist," we remain deeply divided about questions of liberty, the role and extent of government, and the scope of privacy. These are the same questions that animated the drive for independence and creation of the Constitution, and while we may expect that the intervening centuries have determined a landing point for us, they have not. We are in a perpetual struggle to define the meaning of freedom and privacy within a responsible polity, and the balance between liberty and ethics in application of law.  And this struggle is not unique to the United States. It animates political debates in every country, where the balance may be different but the demand to be heard and represented remains. On such essential questions, we must listen, regardless of how we feel about our adversaries.  

Fortunately for our world, you have spent your time at ÖйúÌå²ÊÍø learning how to listen to others. How to think critically about what they say. How to reach across differences of perspective and background to collaborate with others. How to think creatively about common problems. For those who have been here for four years, you started your college years in tumult, as the pandemic upended your start and pushed you away from your classmates. For those who have been here a shorter time, you came in tumult, navigating separation and anxiety as you learned to connect with a new place.  

For all of you, as ÖйúÌå²ÊÍø Vikings you have learned how to shape your own thoughts after careful assessment of alternative viewpoints. You have also learned how to work with others whose background, experience, and interest may differ profoundly from your own. Whatever country you are from, wherever you call home, your commitment to working across difference will be essential to the success of your community. 

I want you to think about that as you go into the next stage of your lives. Valid philosophical questions lie at the heart of all the controversies of our time, in every country. Indeed, as I have intimated, these controversies are timeless. "The Federalist" stands out for three reasons. First, on the most important topic, leaders wanted more debate not less. Second, leaders wanted to share information and specifics, not hide them from citizens. And third, leaders recognized that their opponents had valid ideas and sought to address their specific concerns, not denigrate their values.  

Though people may try to simplify the questions or mock opposing positions, debate over how to govern ourselves and the appropriate reach of a ruler, whether one person or an institution, has animated human life for centuries. I hope you have learned at ÖйúÌå²ÊÍø that in addressing these questions we can disagree without being disagreeable. You may be challenged as you leave this campus, by those who want you to unquestioningly adopt a certain viewpoint and who test your loyalty by whether you agree or disagree.  This is a decades long problem that has become acute. To quote A. Bartlett Giammatti, a president of Yale and Commissioner of Major League Baseball, "a civil society can be shattered by the kind of coercion that now seeks to become commonplace."²

Stand against that coercion. Your inheritance is anger and discord. Let your legacy be openness and care. And remember that the finest moments of history have been those where the rights of individuals have been affirmed, help has been extended to those in need, and cruelty and conquest have been discredited.   Over 200 years after the printing of "Common Sense," Reverend Jesse Jackson asked, "Where do you find common ground?  At the point of challenge."³ Jackson understood that the way forward is to examine the point of difference. We cannot be dismissive or insulting or afraid of what debate might bring. Engage opposition, invite debate, and follow the footsteps of those who relied on patient explanation and discourse to advance their most passionate goals.    

Congratulations ÖйúÌå²ÊÍø graduates of 2023. You have done great things while on our campus. As you leave campus, remember this. Ideas matter. We must listen to them, whether we agree or disagree. 
Family members and friends, thank you for being part of this special day. And to the ÖйúÌå²ÊÍø Class of 2023: Congratulations!

¹ Carey, G.W. and James McClellan, eds. (2001). The Federalist. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
² Giammatti, A.B. (1988). A Free and Ordered Space: The Real World of the University. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 
³ Jackson, J. (1988). Speech to the Democratic National Convention. July 19. Accessed May 22, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/jesse/speeches/jesse88speech.h¡­