The announcement of next month’s commencement speaker lineup last week incited outrage in the senior class — to put it mildly. The powers that be in the administration and Student Government held a phone conference to address a perceived lack of student input in the selection process.
But it’s unknown what form this student input should take, and — what’s worse — it’s difficult to tell whether this input will have any significant influence at all.
We are too familiar with the tendency, on the part of both SG and administration, to solve problems by creating a “committee” that has power in name only. If students, especially seniors, are going to have a voice in this aspect of their commencement, then it must be one with real power. Some things — commencements are a perfect example — have more than symbolic importance; they leave a lasting impression.
Student input is always good. But it’s not the direct solution here. The absence of student opinion still just doesn’t hold up as an excuse for USC administration to flatly fail to put together a solid speaker lineup merited by the state’s flagship university. Throwing student input in the mix, while admirable, isn’t going to make that fact disappear any time soon.
USC truly made an embarrassing misstep by being unable to lean on its professional and political clout to build a more impressive slate of speakers. It’s a pity the university’s resigned itself to the current lineup.
We weren’t kidding — Darla Moore, Steve Spurrier, heck, call up Darius Rucker.
You shouldn’t settle just because you couldn’t get a Clinton.