The University of Alabama has not had a commencement speaker at ceremonies besides the law school since 2007. After nearly two decades, the decision to reinstate this tradition — particularly with President Donald Trump, a figure whose public presence has generated national attention — marks a significant shift. It is a choice that warrants reflection within the broader context of the University’s mission and history.
The University of Alabama is a place shaped by history. Not just in textbooks, but in the buildings we walk past, the names we recite and the stories we inherit. That history is not always comfortable, but it is ours. And with it comes responsibility.
This university’s mission is built on three pillars: teaching, research, and service. Each demands a commitment to truth, critical thought and the public good.
In that context, the selection of this year’s commencement speaker raises a question we cannot ignore: Knowing what we know about our past, why is this the future we’re choosing?
The University cannot claim to develop leaders while modeling complicity. It cannot preach public service while rewarding those who’ve undermined it. It cannot expect students to uphold values it so easily abandons for publicity.
At a time when students are protesting, being surveilled and in some cases getting forcibly silenced, it is a telling choice to hand the microphone to a figure whose public record includes the erosion of democratic norms, the spread of disinformation and the marginalization of vulnerable communities. The decision is especially troubling for students who have spent their years here doing the very work this institution claims to uphold — truth-seeking, community-building and fighting for justice.
The Capstone Creed calls on us to “act with fairness, integrity, and respect,” to “promote equity and inclusion,” and to “foster individual and civic responsibility.” These aren’t just lofty ideas — they’re expectations. Time after time, we see that these values are far easier to teach than to live.
This is a polarizing moment, not just for this campus but for the country. Choosing this commencement speaker signals to whose voices and experiences the university chooses to elevate.
The real concern is not disagreement, but the precedent set when power is used to stifle dissent. Recent events at Harvard and other universities across the country show what happens when universities are forced to choose between funding and freedom. With federal support being threatened over political disagreements, institutions too often choose compliance over conviction. The result? Student activists get blacklisted, voices are chilled and honest debate gives way to fear. It begs the question: Is the University’s decision rooted in principle, or in fear of losing favor?
The Capstone Creed calls for a community where disagreement is possible, but dignity is never negotiable. That standard should be reflected in every public decision, especially at commencement.
The danger isn’t just the dissonance, but the normalization of it. When institutions preach values but practice convenience, they don’t just contradict themselves. They teach students that this is how the world works. That fairness is conditional. That integrity is optional. That civic responsibility only applies to those without a platform.
The irony is loud. The same university that brands itself as a place of critical thought and civic responsibility is elevating a speaker whose actions have actively undermined the very foundation of higher education: truth, inquiry and inclusion. It’s not lost on us. And it shouldn’t be excused.
Students have done their part. We’ve studied, we’ve served, we’ve contributed to the institution
in tangible and measurable ways. In return, the University owes us more than a campus-wide email and a carefully worded statement to the press. It owes us consistency. Accountability. The courage to align what it says with what it does.
When the speaker contradicts the mission, the message becomes clear: publicity comes at the expense of our values of truth and progress.
The institution made its choice. Now we have to make ours.
If this is the legacy we inherit, let it be the one we outgrow.
Jai Ivy Ranes is a sophomore at The University of Alabama majoring in creative advertising.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Letter to the Editor .. University prioritizes publicity while undermining its principles )
Also on site :
- Miss Manners: His driving was terrifying. Was I wrong to ask him to slow down?
- The Implications of GLP-1s on Women’s Healthcare
- Woman kicked out of Magic Circle for ‘amusing’ male disguise trick gets back in