Thursday, May 05, 2005
The University of Pennsylvania and Kofi Annan
At the University of Pennsylvania, an address by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on May 16 will mark the school's 249th commencement. The selection committee at the Ivy League institution is confident the words of Annan, recipient of the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize, will mesh seamlessly with a graduating class that university president Amy Gutmann says is more globally interconnected than ever before.
"Annan's commitment to international peace, human rights, and the universal values of equality, liberty, opportunity and human dignity make him the perfect speaker to address Penn students," said Gutmann, who will preside over her first Penn commencement since assuming the presidency in July 2004.
No word yet on whether the Wharton School will extend an invitation to Ken Lay.
UPDATE: One of the Volcker panel's dissident members has complied with the Congressional subpoena and turned over allegedly incriminating documents to Congress.
6 Comments:
By 
TigerHawk, at
Thu May 05, 02:16:00 PM:
Yet another witty and insightful comment from Viking Kaj. So happy to have you back!
By 
, at
Thu May 05, 05:00:00 PM:
I graduated from Penn (and the Wharton undergraduate program) and share your dismay at my alma mater's choice of a commencement speaker.
Though my graduation date seems a long time ago and I may not be as attuned to student attitudes as I once was, I would guess that the level of support for this choice among Wharton students is far less than among the Penn gen. pop.
There's little value in the practice of denigrating the nation's long-standing institutions because the source of their original funding is allegedly somewhat shady. The Kennedys are an exception, of course.
By , at
Fri May 06, 02:45:00 PM:
That Penn feels compelled to select a celebrity name to draw attention to itself come graduation time speaks to its insecurity. That Penn fails to realize that graduation should bring people together as opposed to polarize them is regrettable.
I personally prefer the schools that are more humble, such as Swarthmore and Princeton, where the only graduation speaker is the University's president. Those schools don't feel a need to grab the headlines with a big name -- they are secure enough to let the institution's good works speak for itself at a time that is supposed to be remembered not for which celebrity spoke but for the lessons, values and memories each graduate is taking away from the place.
And, for what's its worth, if they were looking for a big name, couldn't Penn have done better than Kofi Annan?
The Centrist
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Fri May 06, 05:29:00 PM:
As a current Penn graduate student, I'll be attending the ceremony for the first time this year to see what Annan has to say. Cornell has a policy where only the President speaks, and honestly, Hunter Rawlings just didn't do it for me. I'm sure Amy can write a hell of a speech (it's about the only true prerequisite for university presidents), but why not have a global leader speak if one is willing?
Yeah, maybe the grapes are sour, and maybe they aren't, but I think even sour grapes are better than none at all.
By , at
Mon May 16, 02:45:00 AM:
Nice to see a diversity of opinion here! Though I'm sure many of you would like to have your opinions recited back to you, I invite you to consider what's been said.
Wow--so some people make money off of war. Wharton...sure. Annan...I suppose so (not that any of you might care, but Annan was cleared of wrongdoing in an independent investigation by Paul Volcker--a Princeton man, no less).
But I suppose you've all heard of our current president and his connections to the corporations repairing the war damage in the Middle East? I'm not going to insult you--I just want to know what's different about what Bush and Halliburton are doing right now and what Wharton did back in the day.
War is big business--that's reality. So even if Annan were in some way a war profiteer (which, it has been established, he ISN'T), so is pretty much everyone in the developed world. Hey--do you think conflict in the Middle East or in Central America affects gas or fruit prices? Do you think Americans would have the standard of living that we do if we never took advantage of overseas wars?
This whole thread reeks of hypocrisy, and what's worse, it's founded on the slander of a man who's done his level best to make the world a more peaceful and just place.
Get off your moral high horses and reconnect with reality. While a certain previous poster on this thread is rolling his eyes in masturbatory pleasure at his clever invocation of classical history, I think we can all benefit from the recollection of more history: the United States' rich tradition of war crimes and profiteering.
Vietnam, the Iranian Revolution, funding the Taliban during their war with the USSR, various sanctions...the list goes on--it happens under presidents of all political persuasions.
Funny thing is, I'm still proud to be an American because I'm able to accept the bad with the good. This is a concept that is lost on the current majority in the US. A lot of us seem much more interested in baseless defamation and hypocritical moralizing. Bummer.
By , at
Mon May 16, 02:48:00 AM:
Nice to see a diversity of opinion here! Though I'm sure many of you would like to have your opinions recited back to you, I invite you to consider what's been said.
Wow--so some people make money off of war. Wharton...sure. Annan...I suppose so (not that any of you might care, but Annan was cleared of wrongdoing in an independent investigation by Paul Volcker--a Princeton man, no less).
But I suppose you've all heard of our current president and his connections to the corporations repairing the war damage in the Middle East? I'm not going to insult you--I just want to know what's different about what Bush and Halliburton are doing right now and what Wharton did back in the day.
War is big business--that's reality. So even if Annan were in some way a war profiteer (which, it has been established, he ISN'T), so is pretty much everyone in the developed world. Hey--do you think conflict in the Middle East or in Central America affects gas or fruit prices? Do you think Americans would have the standard of living that we do if we never took advantage of overseas wars?
This whole thread reeks of hypocrisy, and what's worse, it's founded on the slander of a man who's done his level best to make the world a more peaceful and just place.
Get off your moral high horses and reconnect with reality. While a certain previous poster on this thread is rolling his eyes in masturbatory pleasure at his clever invocation of classical history, I think we can all benefit from the recollection of more history: the United States' rich tradition of war crimes and profiteering.
Vietnam, the Iranian Revolution, funding the Taliban during their war with the USSR, various sanctions...the list goes on--it happens under presidents of all political persuasions.
Funny thing is, I'm still proud to be an American because I'm able to accept the bad with the good. This is a concept that is lost on the current majority in the US. A lot of us seem much more interested in baseless defamation and hypocritical moralizing. Bummer.
