University commencement speeches are designed to be brief, ritualistic acts that are not intended to be memorable or expressive [1, 2, 3].
This tension between tradition and expression is intensifying as universities struggle to maintain the ceremonial nature of graduations amid increasing political polarization on campuses. The conflict highlights a shift in how higher education institutions view the role of the commencement podium—whether as a sacred, neutral space or a platform for activism.
Some observers argue that the primary goal of these addresses is to mark a student's transition rather than to provide a lasting intellectual contribution. A reviewer for The New York Times said, "Commencement speeches are supposed to be forgettable" [3]. This perspective suggests that the value of the speech lies in its function as a social marker rather than its content.
An author for The Atlantic said that a good commencement speech is not aimed at posterity, proffered to everyone for all time [1]. In this view, the speech is a temporary event meant to be unremarkable, serving the ceremony rather than the speaker's personal brand or a specific political agenda.
However, the reality of these ceremonies has shifted in recent years. University commencement ceremonies occupy a distinctive place in academic life, a Boston Globe opinion writer said [2]. This distinctiveness has made them targets for political expression, leading some institutions in cities like New York to restrict what speakers can say [4].
These restrictions often follow periods of high campus tension. For example, some New York City universities implemented speech restrictions following the events of Oct. 7 [4]. Such moves are intended to prevent political controversy from overshadowing the celebration of student achievement.
Despite these restrictions, the debate persists over whether the "boring" nature of these speeches is a failure of the speaker or a success of the ritual. While some students and faculty seek more expressive addresses, university officials often prioritize the avoidance of conflict to ensure the ceremony remains a cohesive event for all graduates [2, 4].
“Commencement speeches are supposed to be forgettable.”
The conflict over commencement speeches reflects a broader struggle within U.S. higher education to define the boundaries of free expression versus institutional neutrality. As universities move to restrict political rhetoric to preserve the 'ritual' of graduation, they risk clashing with students and faculty who view the ceremony as a critical moment for public testimony and political advocacy.
