The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Before we get into the debate here over whether it’s appropriate for graduating college students to protest their commencement speakers, I want to share my own observation about a growing trend in parental manners at these events.

In recent years, I’ve delivered a dozen or so commencement addresses and attended at least a dozen more for family and friends. With one exception, because of a scheduling snafu, I’ve sat through the entire ceremony. Increasingly, I have to remind myself to keep my jaw closed as I sit there onstage and watch one family after another bail as soon as their graduate walks across the stage.

Entire families just stand up and walk out. We’re talking as many as a dozen people at once. Parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings and in-laws of every stripe — standing up in unison and jabbering away as they collect purses, flowers, jackets and babies and traipse right out of there. In the past couple of years, I’ve seen many of their graduates decide to join them, standing up on the floor and pointing at the exit where they’ll meet them.

So, if we’re going to talk about commencement etiquette, let’s start there, shall we? Your graduate may be the center of your universe, but let’s do try to remember there are a lot of other shooting stars in their orbit. Sit back and enjoy the constellation.

Now then, about Notre Dame.

Vice President Mike Pence was invited to deliver the commencement address at the Indiana university.

He came with some baggage.

Before Pence became Donald Trump’s chief enabler, he was governor of the state of Indiana.

What a tenure that was.

In 2015, Pence signed the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This law allowed business owners who don’t like same-sex couples — that includes Pence, who said same-sex marriage could cause “societal collapse” — to legally deny them services. The backlash was so fierce — and potentially damaging to Indiana’s economy — that Pence signed a revised version of the law.

However, Americans who oppose this bigotry — hellooooo, millennials — aren’t willing to let him off the hook.

So, there’s that.

There’s also this: In 2016, Gov. Pence signed one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. As NPR reported last year, “the law bans abortions due to fetal abnormalities and also requires aborted fetuses — and those from miscarriage — to be buried or cremated.”

Because it wasn’t already hard enough to be a woman in Indiana trying to control her own body and the health of her family. She needed to be officially shamed, too.

There’s more, but if you’re paying any attention to this current administration, you already know that. If you’re not, let’s acknowledge how lucky you are to live in a country that lets you be a citizen anyway.

At Notre Dame’s commencement, 100 or so graduates walked out after Pence was introduced and started to speak. They exited silently and then locked arms and sang after they were outside.

What an interesting turn of events at Notre Dame.

Except that it’s not. Hundreds of anti-abortion activists protested Notre Dame’s 2009 commencement speaker, President Barack Obama. Vice President Joe Biden had his share of protesters, too, when he delivered the commencement address last year.

I understand why some people in attendance wish the protests hadn’t happened. You want everything to be perfect for your graduate throughout the day — or at least for as long as you plan to sit there (ahem). For many, that means a few hours without any reminder of the trouble we’re in right now in this country.

I’d be all for that, if everybody in America got that same respite from what Pence and this administration are trying to do to people.

This is why I love so many of these millennials. They have little patience with the notion that an invitation alone cloaks a speaker in respectability. They also know that the time to speak up, particularly for those who can’t, is right now.

For many, this is bound to be uncomfortable.

Most growth spurts are.

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and professional in residence at Kent State University’s school of journalism. She is the author of two books, including “…and His Lovely Wife,” which chronicled the successful race of her husband, Sherrod Brown, for the U.S. Senate from Ohio. To find out more about Connie Schultz (con.schultz@yahoo.com) and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

 

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Eric Holder

The failure of major federal voting rights legislation in the Senate has left civil rights advocates saying they are determined to keep fighting—including by suing in battleground states. But the little bipartisan consensus that exists on election reform would, at best, lead to much narrower legislation that is unlikely to address state-level GOP efforts now targeting Democratic blocs.

“This is the loss of a battle, but it is not necessarily the loss of a war, and this war will go on,” Eric Holder, the former U.S. attorney general and Democrat, told MSNBC, saying that he and the Democratic Party will be suing in states where state constitutions protect voting rights. “This fight for voting rights and voter protection and for our democracy will continue.”

“The stakes are too important to give up now,” said Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which for years has operated an Election Day hotline to help people vote. “Our country cannot claim to be free while allowing states to legislate away that freedom at will.”

In recent weeks, as it became clear that the Senate was not going to change its rules to allow the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to pass with a simple majority, there have been efforts by some lawmakers, election policy experts, and civil rights advocates to identify what election reforms could pass the Senate.

“There are several areas… where I think there could be bipartisan consensus,” said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, in a briefing on January 20. “These areas are all around those guardrails of democracy. They are all about ensuring that however the voters speak that their voice is heard… and cannot be subverted by anyone in the post-election process.”

Becker cited updating the 1887 Electoral Count Act, which addressed the process where state-based slates of presidential electors are accepted by Congress. (In recent weeks, new evidence has surfaced showing that Donald Trump’s supporters tried to present Congress with forged certificates as part of an effort to disrupt ratifying the results on January 6, 2021.) Updating that law could also include clarifying which state officials have final authority in elections and setting out clear timetables for challenging election results in federal court after Election Day.

Five centrist Washington-based think tanks issued a report on January 20, Prioritizing Achievable Federal Election Reform, which suggested federal legislation could codify practices now used by nearly three-quarters of the states. Those include requiring voters to present ID, offering at least a week of early voting, allowing all voters to request a mailed-out ballot, and allowing states to start processing returned absentee ballots a week before Election Day.

But the report, which heavily drew on a task force of 29 state and local election officials from 20 states convened by Washington’s Bipartisan Policy Center, was notable in what it did not include, such as restoring the major enforcement section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was removed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013. It did not mention the Electoral Count Act nor growing threats to election officials from Trump supporters.

“This won’t satisfy all supporters of the Freedom to Vote Act, but this is a plausible & serious package of reforms to make elections more accessible and secure that could attract bipartisan support,” tweeted Charles Stewart III, a political scientist and director of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab. “A good starting point.”

The reason the centrist recommendations won’t satisfy civil rights advocates is that many of the most troubling developments since the 2020 election would likely remain.

Targeting Battleground States

Keep reading... Show less

Former president Donald Trump

By Rami Ayyub and Alexandra Ulmer

(Reuters) -The prosecutor for Georgia's biggest county on Thursday requested a special grand jury with subpoena power to aid her investigation into then-President Donald Trump's efforts to influence the U.S. state's 2020 election results.

Keep reading... Show less
x
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}