BYU To Invite Dick Cheney To Speak At Commencement?
Today’s Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that BYU has apparently scheduled Dick Cheney to speak at its upcoming commencement on April 26, 2007.
No one at Cheney’s office or at BYU will confirm the speaking engagement, yet the Tribune is apparently comfortable running the story:
WASHINGTON - With the Bush administration under fire from seemingly all sides, where can a vice president find a loving crowd? Apparently, in the conservative heart of the most conservative state.
Vice President Dick Cheney is expected to speak at Brigham Young University’s commencement in late April, The Salt Lake Tribune has learned.
The vice president is tentatively scheduled to speak on April 26 at the Provo university’s graduation ceremony. Cheney last visited the state in 2003 to raise money for his and President Bush’s 2004 election bid.
Cheney’s office declined to confirm or deny the visit, as did a BYU spokeswoman. The school has about 30,000 students and is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“I think he’ll find the audience to be very accommodating and very receptive and very hospitable,” says Kelly Patterson, director of BYU’s Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, when told of the vice president’s scheduled visit. “It’s an honor when a vice president or the president comes to speak at a university. There are only a limited number of these engagements they can do.”
Cheney’s popularity has hovered in the lower 30s of late with a Gallup Poll on March 14 showing Americans’ job approval rating of Cheney at 34 percent, just a point under Bush’s.
But his approval in Utah, the reddest state in the nation, and especially in Utah County, one of the most conservative areas in the state, is undoubtedly higher. A Tribune poll in January still showed Bush with a 56 percent job approval rating among Utahns.
The article notes that Mr. Cheney’s current approval ratings are at an all time low (almost 7 out of 10 disapprove of his performance), everywhere but inside Utah. Some questions come to mind, in no particular order or relevance:
1. BYU is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a worldwide Church with more members outside the United States than inside the United States. BYU has the largest foreign student enrollment of all Utah colleges at 2396 students from 120 countries. Is is appropriate to invite such a divisive individual to speak at BYU’s commencement just because he is more popular there than anywhere else in the world?
2. Does this invitation boost BYU’s academic image or actual credentials in some way?
3. Assuming the audience to be hospitable and accommodating is that a good reason to invite him?
4. Do faculty and students approve, and/or do they even have input? (Or do they even care?)
5. What about alumni?
6. Is is necessarily an honor to have a president or vice president speak at a university?
7. Does such an invitation imply tacit approval by the Church/BYU of domestic and/or foreign policies promoted by Mr. Cheney and the Bush administration?
8. Should Mr. Cheney be asked not to defend current administration domestic and foreign policies during his address?
There may be more. Feel free to fill in any of your own, answer any of these, or defend such an invitation to speak.
Tribune poll in January still showed Bush with a 56 percent job approval rating among [Utahans].
Comment by Carlton — March 22, 2007 @ 9:40 am
Carlton, I’ve edited your comment slightly. I appreciate your viewpoint; but, would like to keep the discussion elevated.
Comment by Guy Murray — March 22, 2007 @ 9:51 am
Seriously, how can anyone approve of the job Cheney (and Bush) is doing? Six years ago, maybe, but at this point? Come on, it’s embarrassing.
Comment by Rusty — March 22, 2007 @ 9:51 am
What the hell is BYU thinking?
Cheney’s message however will be red meat to BYU students. They’ll eat up everything he says, go out in the world and preach his gospel. So sad.
Comment by Dan — March 22, 2007 @ 10:02 am
“What the heck,” Dan. Keep it elevated.
Sorry ’bout that Guy, and thanks for the post. I agree with Dan, so sad, so sad.
Comment by Carlton — March 22, 2007 @ 10:07 am
I don’t care that the commencement speaker is a divisive figure. I’m more annoyed that it’s a political figure. Inviting someone to speak at commencement does, in my mind, indicate tacit approval of the individual’s public work and I don’t like any association, no matter how indirect, between the Church and political figures of any persuasion.
That said, Cheney is an important person with a long, interesting history of public service and is someone who a lot of BYU students will be excited to have speak at their commencement. When it comes down to it, the goal of commencement organizers should be to provide the graduates with a memorable, exciting experience. So, in that sense, scheduling Cheney makes sense.
Comment by Tom — March 22, 2007 @ 10:12 am
Are alumni allowed to attend and protest?
Comment by Connor — March 22, 2007 @ 10:12 am
I wonder how much money Cheney had to shell out for this gig.
Comment by Jeff G — March 22, 2007 @ 10:47 am
Q#6: Yes. It would have been similarly an honor to have had Al Gore speak at the university commencement, no matter how much you disagree with his policies.
Comment by Eric Russell — March 22, 2007 @ 11:19 am
I wonder if BYU will bestow an honorary degree upon him…and if so, what it’ll be.
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — March 22, 2007 @ 11:26 am
This will be spun negatively in the mainstream media, and even display even more minutiae under the Mormon microscope. Mitt Romney is not amused.
Comment by Phouchg — March 22, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Janet Reno spoke at BYU several years ago.
Comment by eric hoffer — March 22, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Awesome.
It is good to see that the right-hand man of our Dear Leader will be speaking at the Lord’s university.
Comment by danithew — March 22, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
danithew,
reason #149,324 why I regret having gone to BYU. I should’a stayed out in California.
Comment by Dan — March 22, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Cheney?! The time I’m finally graduating? Why can’t it be Gore? That’s at least the way this BYU student is reacting, though I do admit it will be a memorable experience. Do we get to debate him afterwards?
Comment by a random cougar — March 22, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
Dan,
It is nice that you and I agree, for all the same reasons, on this. I’m BYU alum, and this is not funny to me.
Even if one stretched to believe that Cheney’s image is wrongly skewed, overblown, or misinterpreted, it doesn’t matter. It is image that matters in this case. Universities need to be sensitive to the brand they sell.
Cheney will brand the University with a deeper stain red than any freely academic setting would desire. A partisan red that BYU, and the Church PR office, should avoid.
There are other, less controversial figures to ask to speak.
Right or wrong, nobody outside of BYU, nor many inside it, will interpret this as anything more than implicit approval by those running BYU of Cheney’s example. Whether they do or don’t (or are most likely divided), this is like placing a partisan lightning rod over the head of Moroni.
And as a supporter of Mitt Romney, I am not amused.
Comment by Sam G — March 22, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
My take on your questions. First, I should make it known that while I am not a huge Cheney fan, I see no reason why it would not be an honor to have the Vice President of the United States of America speak at your commencement. So with my obvious bias in mind, here goes with the questions:
1. BYU is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a worldwide Church with more members outside the United States than inside the United States. BYU has the largest foreign student enrollment of all Utah colleges at 2396 students from 120 countries. Is is appropriate to invite such a divisive individual to speak at BYU’s commencement just because he is more popular there than anywhere else in the world?
I don’t think they are doing it necessarily because he is “more popular” at BYU than anywhere else. I would assume they are inviting him because he is a high-profile speaker. No matter what anyone thinks of him, he is the Vice President of the country in which BYU happens to sit.
2. Does this invitation boost BYU’s academic image or actual credentials in some way?
No, but commencement speakers don’t necessarily have to, thought that can certainly be a consideration in who to ask. They are often more motivational and congratulatory. That said, how would it not boost a school’s image to have the Vice President speak? It’s not like they invited Ann Coulter or something.
3. Assuming the audience to be hospitable and accommodating is that a good reason to invite him?
It may well be. Why not do something to increase your prestige. That said, I don’t think inviting Dick Cheney was necessarily done with that end in mind, though I’m sure it’s crossed someone’s mind.
4. Do faculty and students approve, and/or do they even have input? (Or do they even care?)
They probably care, and they probably have some input. I would guess that at BYU, most approve. I would if I were still a student there, and I do as an alum. I would even approve of having Hilary Clinton speak there- she is also a distinguished individual. The point is having someone people know, someone who has distinguished themselves that can act as a motivation to use your credentials to accomplish something. At least, that is what I always tried to gain from my commencement ceremonies (5 of them since I started College for 5 different degrees).
5. What about alumni?
I think the BYU administration also is keenly aware of what alumni want, especially important alumni who donate a lot of money.
6. Is is necessarily an honor to have a president or vice president speak at a university?
I think it is always an honor to have a head of state recognize your university by speaking there, in my humble opinion.
7. Does such an invitation imply tacit approval by the Church/BYU of domestic and/or foreign policies promoted by Mr. Cheney and the Bush administration?
Perhaps it does to some people, but not to me. Though the tacit approval thing is probably one reason why BYU will likely never invite Hilary Clinton, etc., to speak, which is a shame.
8. Should Mr. Cheney be asked not to defend current administration domestic and foreign policies during his address?
I don’t think so, but hopefully he will have the wisdom to tailor his remarks appropriately. Since he is not running for office, I think he may be able to do that. I remember when Harry Reid spoke at my brother’s BYU Law School graduation- he did not pontificate too much on partisan politics. I think most politician types know where the line is. I’m sure Mr. Cheney does as well.
Now here is the questions you definitely should have asked:
9. Should Mr. Cheney be allowed to go hunting with Cecil Samuelson or any of the General Authorities? If so, which one? (sort of a loaded question, if you catch my drift/…)
Comment by Jordan — March 22, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
Oops- I meant “question” singular. I am not as illiterate as I seem on paper… lol.
Comment by Jordan — March 22, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
Oh, and great picture of him, too, by the way!!
Comment by Jordan — March 22, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
Cheney supports and has created many of the instruments of torture and subversion of the Constitution that have come to define America since 9/11. He is not merely divisive, he is a criminal who belongs on trial then behind bars for life with the relatives of the hundreds of thousands of victims he has created across the world (and yes, the dead do number in the hundreds of thousands primarily in Iraq but scattered around the world) all permitted to testify at his trial regarding the murder and/or torture of their loved ones which he ordered. This BYU alumni says disinvite him NOW.
Comment by Non-Arab Arab — March 22, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
It’s too bad they waited to invite him until he has squandered every last bit of his credibility on just about any topic
Comment by Bill — March 22, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
I was thinking about whether or not to be outraged at this or not and I remembered that Bill Clinton spoke at Class Day - part of my university’s graduation celebration - last year (Quite hilariously, the people heading up the committee to select a speaker were Bill Frist’s son and President Bush’s niece, both members of my school’s class of ’06). Anyway, that was no big deal, even though he could obviously be called a divisive political figure.
Although I personally am a lot more offended by Cheney than I am by Clinton, I can see that there are some people that might feel the other way, and I can at least acknowledge that, even if I don’t think such people are being rational.
However, Clinton obviously was a divisive political figure of the past. I don’t imagine anyone would have invited him to speak at our commencement when the whole Lewinsky scandal was happening (especially not two of the most conservative names on campus).
So, while it might be different to invite Cheney to speak five or ten years down the road, it probably isn’t appropriate right now, especially given the uncertainty about how the next couple of years are going to go. I don’t think the church should be offering support of active political figures in any way, especially ones that are probably guilty of a whole host of horrible misdeeds that will probably come to light at some point.
So yeah, I think I’m gonna decide to be outraged if they really invited him. Or if not outraged, at least sufficiently embarrassed. Sooo glad I decided not to go to BYU….
Comment by Meg — March 22, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
Maybe they could schedule Kyle Sampson or Jay Bybee as backups.
Comment by Bill — March 23, 2007 @ 12:03 am
If the shoe fits…
Comment by David J — March 23, 2007 @ 12:25 am
He’s the Vice President of the United States of America, sounds like a great commencement speaker to me.
This comment seems on target:
“I think he’ll find the audience to be very accommodating and very receptive and very hospitable,” says Kelly Patterson, director of BYU’s Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, when told of the vice president’s scheduled visit. “It’s an honor when a vice president or the president comes to speak at a university. There are only a limited number of these engagements they can do.”
I would expect him to keep his comments appropriate to the occasion and not to treat it as a political rally. In other words, he should be there as the Vice President, not as a Republican. The same would hold true if he were a Democrat, he should represent his office at engagements such as this, not his party.
Comment by Aluwid — March 23, 2007 @ 8:15 am
Bill:
That doesn’t fit the pattern of inviting Dick Cheney, though, because those guys are LDS.
I think an invitation to Tom DeLay, or perhaps Karl Rove (hey- there’s even a Utah tie with that choice!) would be more fitting as back-ups… lol.
Comment by Jordan — March 23, 2007 @ 8:54 am
I think most students will only be excited because he is famous. And we all no how Mormons like to connect themselves, in some way, with someone famous - even if they don’t agree with what they stand for. The “fruits of Dick Cheney’s labours” completely contradict and Christian values that the BYU tries to impart on its student body. His causes and fights, under the “guise” of Christianity and moral rightness, have been soley driven towards his gain, and the gain of his corporate underholdings. Thousands of lives have been lost in the pursuit of power and money for his elit group of cronies. It’s disguisting. I’m ashamed of my Alma Mater right now for thinking he is, in any way, an example to graduting students. Who cares if he is VP. What really have been his “fruits”?
Comment by Matthew — March 23, 2007 @ 11:12 am
Wow- I guess people actually really do care about this. BYU could invite Al Sharpton or David Duke, as far as I am concerned. I strongly disagree with tenets forwarded by both of them, and in the case of David Duke, am seriously offended by them, but I’m sure both would have interesting things to say.
I don’t think who you invite to speak at a commencement has to necessarily be turned into a political statement. It could just be interesting! Though I may be seriously naive…
Comment by Jordan — March 23, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Jordan,
It doesn’t matter if Cheney’s invitation is meant as a political statement or not. It is construed as a political statement when picked up by the press. With the recent interest in Mormonism & politics given breath by Romney’s campaign, this pushes BYU far enough out on the fringe that it should consider the consequences to its image. Outside of a few firecracker issues like abortion, the actions of this administration bear little in common with traditional values at BYU.
Note: It is my understanding from reading the Deseret news article today that the White House offered that Cheney speak to BYU. I think that is interesting. I don’t understand it.
Comment by Sam G — March 23, 2007 @ 11:50 am
BYU lost all the credibility it might have had when Margaret Thatcher was given an honorary degree in the late 90s.
Comment by Norbert — March 23, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
“It’s an honor when a vice president or the president comes to speak at a university. There are only a limited number of these engagements they can do.”
Yes, and once upon a time, lots and lots of Germans got real excited when Adolf showed up to give them a little speech, too.
Oh, crap: I played the Hitler card. I guess that means I automatically lose.
Comment by Mark N. — March 23, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Are alumni allowed to attend and protest?
Probably, but you have to stay in the official, protected “free speech zone” which is, no doubt, located about 10 miles out of town.
Hey, they’re just trying to keep you safe from the rabble that will misunderstand your intentions.
Comment by Mark N. — March 23, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
Hmm…I thought I posted something this morning but I guess the Internet ate it.
He’s the Vice President of the United States of America. Of course he’d be a great speaker for commencement, BYU should be proud to have him.
I expect him to give a speech appropriate to a graduation ceremony, not a political rally. In other words, he should represent the Vice Presidency, not the Republican party.
BTW, regarding the approval rating jab. Only 28% approve of Congress right now, I guess Vice President Cheney isn’t doing so bad after all in comparison.
Comment by Aluwid — March 23, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Interesting to see the voices of dissent here. Typically the people who are anti-Bush and Cheney are the same people who blast BYU’s conservative tendencies with the “open discourse” “academic freedom” “marketplace of ideas” rhetoric.
Now an opposing viewpoint isn’t welcome on campus as a keynote? I find that disconcerting.
Personally I think Cheney is a greedy, amoral freak. But there are many who believe his policies to be right and good. Let the man come and speak his piece. No one is suggesting this means you have to agree with him. It is intellectually stimulating to hear from the man who (in theory) weighs in on the most dramatic operations of our country.
Comment by General Nonsense — March 23, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
All BYU does by having Dick Cheney speak is validate the lies and shenanigans that have be propogated by the “worst” White House administration in our Nation’s history. The Iraqi War has done much to undermine our Nation’s world wide credibility and has only hurt the LDS’s evangelical mission. Why the “Church” would then invite a corrupt, morally bankrupt war profiteerer to speak at it’s flagship hallowed campus seems to go against everything the University and Chruch might stand for.
The Church talks about how our sacred Constitution will hang by a thread, well Cheney has been responsible for a lot of the Constitutional butchering that has played out in the last 6 years. This is a scary message the Church is sending. I hope the morally conscious will show up enmass to protest this badly thought out decision.
Comment by David L. — March 23, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
“BYU could invite Al Sharpton or David Duke, as far as I am concerned. I strongly disagree with tenets forwarded by both of them, and in the case of David Duke, am seriously offended by them, but I’m sure both would have interesting things to say.”
I don’t agree with all that has been said against the choice of Cheney as commencement speaker, but David Duke? You can’t be serious. I bet Louis Farrakan, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and Hugh Hefner would have some wild and crazy things to say, but I’d be quite ashamed if BYU invited one of them to speak at commencement (as a Mormon–I’m not an alum). Why not Ed Decker? The guy’s ‘famous’ among the LDS, and his talk would be a blast. The commencement speaker is not just another invited lecture, it’s a great honor that a school chooses to bestow, and it tells you what the school is about.
The president is one thing. He’s the head of state, no matter how low his approval rating goes. I think any school in the world should be honored (though perhaps not thrilled) to have him as a guest, as long as the U.S. remains a decent, democratic regime. Bush has also shown that he is capable of being unifying in a speech. But Cheney (and any other VP) is mainly a politician, about as divisive a politician as there has been in America in the last generation. There are so many amazing, inspiring people who would speak at BYU, it seems like quite a statement to pick Cheney at this particular time. He not the worst person to invite, but he’s one of the worst people BYU would think of.
Comment by Jeremiah J. — March 23, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
General Nonsense,
Show me a liberal politician that BYU invited to speak at commencement.
Comment by Dan — March 24, 2007 @ 7:30 am
Cheney’s coming fits a pattern. There is an overwhelming perception that the Church supports the Iraq war and Bush-style Republicanism in general, and it’s clear the Church isn’t bothered in the least by it. Opposing the war in this state is so much spitting in the wind.
Comment by Lew — March 24, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
I am disappointed by the choice of commencement speakers for political reasons. But my main concern is that it is a missed opportunity to share a positive gospel centered message at graduation. Instead of a general authority, our speaker communicates to my non-mormon family (who are coming to Provo for the first time for graduation), and to the world, that BYU is conservative, republican leaning, and not concerned with the harm that this administration has inflicted on the world. Even the General Counsel of the Church stated that the Church’s international work has been negatively affected by “anti-Bushism.” So, why further endorse a polarizing administration that harms the spread of the gospel?
Comment by robin — March 24, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
Just a question. What if all you “Cheney haters” were to find out later on that in fact he was right all along? What if there were weapons of mass destruction - after all, Sadam’s top general in charge of such miscellaneous little things, says they had them - but that hardly qualifies as proof.
What if his motive for torturing diabolical women and children killers was really to elicit information that might otherwise be unknowable, or at least ensure that they got all the info. How criminal of him. After all , one could compare him to Soviet and Romanian torturers who did that to inncoent civilians. Heaven knows that those he approved the torture of were actually humanitarian workers supplying aid and comfort to widows and children.
At some point we have to wake up and think. Just because what he knows didn’t hit your mainstream press doesn’t mean that he isn’t right. Do you think that he is a stupid man? Maybe, just maybe, he sacrificed his good name in the press and among the self-righteous, to ensure that the safety of those he was charged to protect, was protected, knowing that it might be decades before the truth of why he did it came out. Did he do everything perfectly - no, and neither has anyone else, but I find it incredulous that you impugn his integrity knowing as little as you do. Maybe, just maybe, those who invited him to BYU might understand that principle.
Comment by Larry — March 24, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Larry: good grief Larry, have you been living in a hole for the past 6 years (or a bunker with Cheney)? He has not only been wrong, he has lied, lied, lied, and oh yeah, lied. No weapons of mass destruction, hundreds of thousands dead (more even than in Darfur and two orders of magnitude or so more than on 9/11), the most basic of our foundational legal principles (habeas corpus goes back a whole lot longer than Cheney’s latest grumpy mood) tossed out the window, democracy set back by decades if not a century throughout the middle east, dictators coddled from Egypt to Uzbekistan, torture legally justified and routinized within US intelligence and military circles with official approval from Cheney on down with the rest of the world in near unanimous agreement that this means America has lost it’s claims to the moral high ground, racist Apartheid regime in Israel strengthened and further armed and killing civilians at will while stealing their land with American aid dollars, illegal domestic spying routinely engaged in without even consulting the toothless “court” set up in the 70s for rubber-stamping, US intelligence agents and special forces routinely engaging in illegal kidnappings around the world (generally of innocent people) and sending them on to torture by the dictators we coddle or at the least conveniently utilize even if he’s breathing fire at them out the other end of his blowhole (Morocco, Egypt, Syria, etc.), modern lawless gulag’s established (and not just Gitmo, “black sites” around the world), and even the truly guilty bad guys’ cases so massively compromised by the torture and evil Cheney and the rest of this administration has committed that the freaking world couldn’t care less about their crimes any more because US crimes have so grossly outweighed them! If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy at night blindly trusting your very own American Kim Jong Il great-leader when all the facts staring you back in the face (not the least of which should be Cheney’s body count of innocent civilians around the globe), then go right ahead. You stand in marked contrast to our founding fathers who tried to set up a system of checks and balances because they knew perfectly well that all human beings are inherently flawed, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that the only way to try and prevent the abuse of power was to NOT trust your leaders but to constrain them with other institutions and leaders who would limit what they could do.
Comment by Non-Arab Arab — March 24, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
I say we petition the BYU admin. and Church leaders to bring aboard a man or woman of peace. A Martin Luther King, jr. type or His Holiness the Dalai Lama. What a message that would send versus the one being sent by inviting Dick Cheney.
Does not the LDS Church espouse the values of the Prince of Peace? Why contrast that message with a politically divisive and controversial head of state who is marred by dishonesty and scandal.
Comment by David L. — March 24, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Non-arab-arab,
You prove my point. Thank you.
What you fail to acknowledge is this. What has he gained personally from all this? He is one small heart attack away from death. If he wanted to enrich the Haliburton’s of the world he could have done it with a lot fewer soldiers and virtually no military deaths on his side. Really, try, try to think of what he has gained personally from all of this.
Give your head a shake and try , just try, to imagine that there might be another side to the story.
Comment by Larry — March 25, 2007 @ 12:35 am
Cheneys’ apperance at this time at BYU is a de facto endorsement on the part of the Church of the Iraq war. This is hardly supprising since President Hinckley gave the invasion his blessing (event though he stated it was personal) at the April 2003 Conference. KSL radio to the degree it does politics (and its plenty) just does Bush-style Republicanism. Under Bush the Church is more Republican than it has ever been.
I can’t help but feel there are factors which do not readily meet the eye. I don’t understand much of what is going on. I wonder how Bush-supporting LDS an justify the mass of traumatic brain injuries on the part of U S troops, or the multiple deployments of reservists.
BYU could do a lot to soften this image if it sponsored some debates on the war, having administration defenders debate a wide variety of war opponents, e.g. Pat Buchanan (paleocon), Ron Paul (Libertarian) or Al Gore (Demo). It could perfom a valuable public service.
Comment by Lew — March 25, 2007 @ 12:38 am
I can’t help but feel there are factors which do not readily meet the eye.
I agree with this. I think we should be careful about reading into this without the information to accurately do so. I think everyone’s wondering what the thoughts are behind this, but I think it would be wise to give the benefit of the doubt.
Comment by m&m — March 25, 2007 @ 2:13 am
Larry,
He was not right, is not right, and never will be right. I hope you can finally understand this point. Can YOU accept that he was actually wrong? Apparently not, even with all the evidence flying right in front of your face.
I’m glad you agree it was criminal. Now, why is BYU inviting a criminal to speak at its commencement?
So our problem, according to you, is that we supposedly know little of what is REALLY going on. What if, it is YOU who has no idea what has been happening? Have you considered that? Apparently not. After all, we should trust our leaders to know what they are supposed to know and to actually use that information for righteous purposes. This is a pretty risky thing to suppose. Our Founding Fathers created checks and balances just for this very case.
It’s okay though, Larry, go on trust your Bush and Cheney to “protect” you. Trust in their arms for your protection. Meanwhile, I’m going to trust in the Lord, not in the arms of flesh. And you know what, by trusting in the Lord, I do not need to lower my standards by employing murderous and criminal techniques such as torture.
Comment by Dan — March 25, 2007 @ 5:55 am
It’s odd to me that people who openly support Mitt Romney would have a problem with Dick Cheney. Not very long ago, Mitt Romney was at a meeting of conservatives and said he was looking forward to what Ann Coulter had to say (at the same meeting).
As I see it, Mitt is currently trying to brand himself as a hyper-conservative. If he’ll embrace Ann Coulter then Dick Cheney should be fine (by comparison).
I attended a pep rally for George Bush (the current president’s father) at BYU and was hugely disappointed, mainly because he gave a ridiculous speech that clearly had been written for him. But it was obvious that enthusiasm for the Republican president was fervently felt campus-wide.
Dick Cheney probably has important insights to share with the BYU student body. The question is whether he will actually share those insights or will merely offer some lightweight comments designed for the local taste. I’m a bit pessimistic on the subject, frankly.
It seems pretty rare to me these days that any politician actually speaks from the heart or dares to speak spontaneously for fear of being trapped in some kind of random momentary foolishness. The fear (from the politician’s side) is justified, considering our culture. But it’s sad that we’ve created such an environment, where we get sound-bites instead of actual wisdom or learning from people who are in a position to know things.
I also think that if BYU hosts Cheney, they should make a special point of inviting Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (or both) to speak at BYU. BYU does need to work much harder to invite people who think differently than the BYU administration, student-body, etc. For one thing, it gets really really boring to just listen to people who agree with you on everything.
Comment by danithew — March 25, 2007 @ 8:22 am
Danithew,
Your point is well made and should always be the course of action on most any discourse where there is disagreement or alternative points of view.
Dan,
Your vitriol disproves your point on following Christ. My point is that there is little if nothing that Cheney has to gain from all of this, yet he continues to serve. What do you think he has to gain?
How is it his fault that modern weapons are so destructive? And on and on….
Comment by Larry — March 25, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Um, Dan? Hon, I’m trying to tell you to soften up, you get more bees with honey than with vinegar. You’re a one note piano and when you just piss people off, they’re not hearing your message, worthy though it may be.
You’re coming off strident and childish. Try for a more reasonable tone and perhaps your argument will be better received.
The thing I see over and over again with your posts is a harsh criticism of the harshness of others. Your hatred for George Bush and his administration shouts louder than any point you might make and when you criticize their cruelty in a cruel way, negates the value of anything you’re saying and colors the way people take you. It’s like you’re screaming “I HATE HATE! ” Lighten up. Just try it. You have nothing to lose.
On topic now: I’m rather stupidly proud that Utah is the go-to state for civility. Personally I don’t care for Dick Cheney, but I’d be appalled if he were treated discourteously. But I’d feel that way if Osama Bin Laden showed up to speak. Well, perhaps that’s hyperbole.
Utah is predominantly Republican and there is wide spread for the war and the president, so it makes sense to me that Cheney is invited here, well, did he invite himself? That still makes sense. But if, say, Senator Kennedy came to speak at BYU, he’s be politely received. It’s how we (Utahns) are.
I have thought, though, that people who might be afraid to live elsewhere, ie, gay couples, etc., might be, while not accepted totally, at least safe here.
Utahns as a whole will just not tolerate incivility for very long. That has it’s advantages and disadvantages.
Like when I’m the one being uncivil and angry, I wish they were more tolerant of incivility. But when I’m the one being civil, I’m glad.
Comment by annegb — March 25, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
Annegb,
Utah LDS support for the war has dropped significantly. See Today’s Tribune article.
Also, if I recall correctly, there was a Senator Kennedy who came to BYU. I believe it was Sen. Robert Kennedy, the current Sen. Kennedy’s late brother. This was clearly a long time ago.
Comment by Guy Murray — March 25, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
Annegb,
Yes, here’s a link referencing Bobby Kennedy’s visit to BYU. It even predated my time, as I was in 8th grade when he was assassinated. The quote about Bobby Kennedy follows:
It would have been an interesting visit both for the Senator and the students. This was under Ernie Wilkinson’s tenure, who was a rabid republican.
Comment by Guy Murray — March 25, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Actually, Bobby Kennedy had close ties to the family of my childhood bishop (Egan A. Glaus) of the 22nd ward of the Salt Lake Stake. This is an interesting story.
Comment by Lew — March 25, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Larry: if you want to know an alternative theory for what drives Cheney - because I would agree with you that while he has no problem profiting from the war (in the revolving circle of Washington office to think tank/corporations/lobbying and back to Washington that marks many of their careers especially Cheney’s), it’s not his personal key issue - a good place to start would be Ron Suskind’s “One Percent Doctrine”. Basically - and again, he’s not alone in this in Washington - he lives in a dark cave of self induced fear of the outside world. “The natives are coming, the natives are coming and they want to kill us all!” He believes in a dark, horrid vision of the world outside of those with his own narrow viewpoint. Arabs and Muslims are one amorphous dark mass of non-humans except for those who sell their souls to neocon think tanks or princes and generals who for a price will say anything their great power masters want them to. The masses of people in Egypt or Iraq or Iran or Pakistan with legitimate grievances are merely cats’ paws of some nefarious force (once it was commies or anarchists or “fanatical” nationalists, nowadays they’ve invented a supposed “Islamo-fascist” threat which in reality exists nowhere but his mind) or else playthings to be ignored or acquired to fit what he believes is in America’s best interest (no checks or balances please).
You want an alternative theory? He is scared of Arabs and Muslims the same way the Brits and the French and the Dutch and the Belgians were scared of the “natives” in earlier generations. Nothing unusual or abnormal about that, just despicable, that’s all.
I also note no response to the issue of checks and balances which the founding fathers found so critical and which Cheney is a staunch believer in removing. Even before 9/11 he was a believer in an imperial presidency and felt that Watergate proved the executive had been unjustly robbed of power. Go figure, a president breaking the law and claiming he can do whatever he wants and suddenly the country wanted proper checks and balances restored. Not in Cheney’s world though. I’m with Dan on this one, don’t trust in the arm of flesh, not Cheney’s, not any politicians. Bind then with checks and balances as the Constitution stipulates, let no man claim he is above the law.
Comment by Non-Arab Arab — March 25, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
Sorry Larry, mangled sentence up front: I think we’d agree profiteering is not Cheney’s primary motive, but clearly you and I differ at present over whether he is as a “side” motive.
Comment by Non-Arab Arab — March 25, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
What is his primary motive, then, power? It can’t be altruism.
Comment by annegb — March 25, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
There are a lot of people up in arms about this, BYU students included.
For those who think Cheney speaking at commencement is inappropriate, there is organizing at various levels to protest this event. There is a sizeable group (hundreds) of current BYU students who oppose Cheney coming, there is a letter-writing campaign, there are petitions, and there is a walkout and alternate commencement in the works. Futhermore We the People for Peace and Justice (a Salt Lake City-based group) will be organizing a mass rally.
For alumni (or students), members or whoever that are interested in being involved or knowing more about this and the various reasons why people oppose Cheney being honored in this fashion, please contact peaceandnoise@gmail.com
Comment by Hannah G — March 25, 2007 @ 11:04 pm