CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 19, 2014 10:57 AM UTC
22 Comments
Silli(er) season . . .
Regardless of where anyone stands on "reforms, it seems to me that until our so-called institutions of higher learning can can begin again to matriculate a crop of more emotionally mature and open-minded graduates, that perhaps they should just dispense with graduation ceremonies altogether . . .
. . . For any graduate so easily offended, I say — mail those diplomas home to their parents, just like they used to with these kiddies grade-school report cards.
Amen. Today's students seem to believe they have a right never to be offended by being presented with views with which they don't agree. Enough already. I'd say as long as a speaker isn't advocating for racism, the suppression of ethnic, gender, sexual orientation or religious groups or proselytizing then just deal with hearing something you might not like from someone you might not support. Or stay home with your delicate, entitled sensibilities and get your diploma in the mail. Few speakers will be approved by all graduates.
#3 isn't a bad idea if students could be induced to attend such public forums. I think they'd mostly rather just whine without inconveniencing themselves.
Dio and BC, I think you are both missing something here–it is the student's graduation, not the Dean's. "[A] more transparent and inclusive process for choosing future commencement speakers" that invovles students in decisions about their own ceremony makes sense to me. Or are they supposed to graduate as docile pawns of their exhalted institutional leaders? Why is speaking up for your beliefs and values considered to be whining?
The students–thinking for themselves–have identified the problems with Johnston's educational policies. And this is the Graduate School of Education, so his "strong, articulate liberal Democrat" creditials on other matters–for which I commend Johnston–are not relevant.
The graduates are not trying to muzzle Johnston, as their point #3 calls for extensive public debate–on Johnston's vision. But a graduation ceremony is not a discussion–it is an honor and an exclusive forum for a speech. Let that happen elsewhere, let Harvard honor and spotlight speeches elsewhere, and let the graduates decide what values they want to highlight for their ceremony.
Of course not everone will agree on a speaker. But if the students have a significan role in selection, I expect they would accodate that much better than one imposed by the dean.
I noticed that the article refers to "dozens" of students and faculty. Dozens? And how many, I wonder haven't voiced objections?
I don't think that point 3 was meant as making the commencement ceremony itself a forum for discussion as it takes long enough to get through the speeches and handing out of diplomas as it is.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of the student body we are being asked to look upon as representing the student body as a whole. I may be over reacting due to a general distaste for the kind of excessive pearl clutching over anything that might offend liberal sensibilities I see on so many college campuses. And I say that as liberal. A liberal who can take it as well as dish it out.
The student's point on #3 was that discussion should happen, but of course elsewhere, and not honor Johnston at graduation. A minority of students? Perhaps. My point was that students were not asked. This was the Dean's decision, to honor what/whom the Dean wanted to honor, at the student's graduation. That's normal operating procedure, of couse–administrators not considering–not even thinking to consider–what students might want. You can call it whining or pearl clutching, or see it as some students felt disrespected by that and spoke up for themselves.
Fine. I call it as I see it.
There is a deep arrogance here. Apparrently these educated enlightened graduates of an ivy league institution believe if someone disagrees with them then they and the horse they rode in on should get the hell out.
Were it just easily-offended, emotionally-immature students! From reading the article, it sounds like faculty and alumni have voiced opposition, as well.
I wonder if the faculty at least might also be pissed about not being consulted by the Dean on his choice for a commencement speaker ?
If you only listen to people who agree with you you will never learn a thing.
I think there is a difference between hosting a speaker on campus where Q&A happens versus a commencement speech where there is no opportunity for comment. Commencement activities, including speeches should be focused on offering advice to the graduates, not offering implicit support for controversial issues and speakers.
I'm not sure if I disagree with the first part of what you say, but what thinking person could be invited to give a speech at an event like this with the standards you seem to imply? If we assume that giving a commencement speech is an implicit ratification of all of the speaker's points of view, nobody who has ever taken a position on any issue would seem to be able to speak. You would have to exclude every Diane Ravitch or Arne Duncan, Obama, Bush, Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton.
At what point do we rely on speakers to have something to say because they understand a discipline or the pursuit of life goals in an interesting way and to say what they have to in way that is policy/politics neutral and supports the graduation ceremony as a whole. If Johnston had given a speech telling them all to bag the union, join TFA and teach at a charter, and Test Data Test, I think that would be an appropriate target for criticism. While some of the students may disagree with his positions on some issues in education, he's also been a teacher, a principal, a legislator focused on education, the unsuccessful face of an education initiative, oh, and a graduate of the school himself.
"…he's also been a teacher…" Well, my (admittedly arbitrary) standard for applying the honorific of "teacher" (and I do claim "teacher" as an honorific) is a minimum of five years in the classroom. Anything less is too short to really know what the life of a teacher is like. Johnston did two years with Teach for America. No more classroom for him–grad school, training "leaders for public schools," "education advisor," law school, principal. Poster child for Teach for America, which acknowledges they want to build "leaders" [in their own image], not teachers. And this, he thinks, makes him an expert on how teachers should be trained and evaluated. Nothing in his resume and his policies is surprising, given his history. And nothing shows he understands public education as a teacher. The graduates of Harvard Graduate School of Education are right to reject him as a speaker for their ceremony.
Ummm…by your measure, I suspect that nobody at HGSE knows diddly about education because they don't have the requisite 5 years of classroom experience.
You may well be right, but I don't think the conclusion follows from the argument.
Yeah, I was probably too broad in the second part. I'm trying to establish a standard that prevents selecting and paying commencement speakers who can spout controversial positions without opportunity for discourse. I think you are agreeing with me on that point when you suggested it would be inappropriate for Sen. Johnston to promote bagging unions, etc.
So, are you/we saying that a commencement speaker's address should be vetted beforehand? And, what standards should exist to exclude a speaker? I wouldn't exclude people on your list, but for example, I would have a problem enriching Condolezza Rice who I believe was an utter failure in government.
If what you expect from a speaker at commencement is a diatribe, that person probably shouldn't be hired. I also agree with the idea of giving students (less faculty, tbh, it's not their graduation) a say in who is chosen to speak. As for who should speak, I'd say that if the administration and students pick together, the answer is who they pick (and I think some of them should have participated in Harvard's selection, if they didn't). That's probably going to result in a lot different speaker at Liberty University versus Oberlin. Btw, folks at the school who disagree with the choice should be able to do exactly what these folks Harvard did and protest the choice.
I wouldn't support vetting the speech. I think you make a reasonable pick and hope for the best. The vast majority of thoughtful speakers of all political/policy persuasions understand that a commencement is not the time to spout ideological nonsense of any sort. I wouldn't expect Diane Ravitch to rail against charters, although her speech might have some emphasis on the "public" part of public education, any more than I would expect Johnston to rail against unions, although his speech might emphasize the new graduates' potential roles as change leaders.
As to who should speak and who shouldn't: I'll be honest, it's not a business I want to be in. Should Don Rumsfeld or John Yoo be excluded? Bill Ayers or Noam Chomsky? Yeah, I think I'll let schools pick who they want and enjoy the opportunity for student civic engagement the protests present.
+1
Sounds reasonable.
I am so thankful Harvard students and faculty are taking a position against education reform when it seems like the media is in a coma. This issue WILL DECIDE THE 2014 ELECTIONS.
Here is why:
1. Those of us with older children see that Common Core is dumbing down the education for our younger children. We can compare and see that our younger children are getting short-changed.
2. We can't homeschool or supplement with a traditional education for our younger children because all those textbooks are out of print. We are FORCED to buy only the Common Core aligned textbooks.
3. The technology requirements are expensive and overly burdensome to school districts. This money would be better spent on quality materials and teacher training.
4. The new "blended learning" model is such a scam. It's not teaching 21st century skills. Look at the Rocketship Charter schools sponsored by e Waltons and Bill Gates Foundations. These models have as many as 130 students spending 2-3 hours at a time practicing their test taking skills in the computer lab. Teachers are not necessary so a couple of minimum wage paid workers are hired to manage for technology lab. A school can save $500K with these cost cutting measures. These schools do not offer foreign language, music or art. It's about mass producing education at the lowest cost.
– continued . . .
We have all sat idely by while we have watch the corporate takeover of America. But now, the Walmart model is in our classrooms. I can't believe our leaders are so sick to let greed take priority over children. I am so disappointed!
I'm wondering if the "D" beneath Johnson''s photo above stands for his party affiliation or the grade that his legislation gets.
Who cares? I couldn't come up with the name of my college graduation speaker if my life depended on it.