Apodaca: Time for commencement speeches to graduate?

Is it a sign of the times that commencement speeches have become controversial?

This year has been marked by a string of protests at college campuses across the country against the people invited to deliver keynote addresses at graduation ceremonies. Among those targeted was former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Some Rutgers University students opposed her scheduled appearance there because of her role in the Iraq War.

Objections were also raised regarding International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, who some at Smith College regard as imperialistic, and Robert Birgeneau, who was asked to apologize and explain to Haverford College students why he shut down campus protests in 2011 when he was UC Berkeley chancellor.

All three backed out of the speaking engagements, prompting widespread criticism of the students, even though it appears that just a small minority actually objected. Haverford’s replacement speaker called the students “arrogant” and “immature” for being unwilling to listen to people they disagreed with. Rutgers students, critics have pointedly noted, were far less discerning a few years ago when they saw fit to invite Snooki from MTV’s “Jersey Shore” to speak.

While it’s fair to raise concerns if students are imposing litmus tests upon those invited to share their views on campus, I’d argue that if we’re going to get worked up about commencement speeches — of all things — then the focus should be on another troubling trend.

The commencement address is indicative of the disturbing evolution of higher education into an exercise in manipulative marketing, a place where the Ivory Tower is increasingly giving way to Madison Avenue.

Colleges, embracing the concept that image speaks louder than accomplishment, have become adept at sales pitches, controlled messaging and brand building. At a time when many budgets and academic programs have been cut, they continue to invest in pursuits that superficially enhance their prestige without actually improving the quality of education.

To be sure, there are still many fine institutions with sterling academic records, brilliant success stories and groundbreaking work being done. But instead of quietly, unpretentiously letting such achievements speak for themselves, most colleges are now screeching about their fabulousness as loudly and ostentatiously as possible in hopes of boosting their status among potential students, parents, and donors.

The commencement speech is a small but telling case in point.

Granted, these addresses have been around for a long time. Winston Churchill gave one. So did John F. Kennedy.

But today’s commencement address has morphed into a distracting spectacle of self-aggrandizement. Schools vie for big-name speakers, sometimes paying more for an hour of their time than a tenured professor might make in a year. Seriously, did Katie Couric really need the $110,000 she received for speaking at the University of Oklahoma’s graduation ceremony in 2006?

While not all speakers are paid, the questionable practice of handing out honorary degrees is just another form of coin for celebrities — some of whom never graduated from college themselves — who are also looking to bolster their public image. If they’re lucky, their speeches will become YouTube hits and land on one of the many Top 10 Best lists circulated on the Internet.

But the sad thing is that the end result of these cynical, self-serving relationships between colleges and speakers is often little more than the usual dull, forgettable dross that we’ve always known. Forget “Pomp and Circumstance.” It should be known as “pompous circumstance.”

Even the best speeches are of dubious value. They might be somewhat enlightening, inspirational even. But there are only so many variations on the timeworn themes of “follow your passion,” “don’t be afraid to fail” and “make a difference.” Are the beer-soaked crowds even listening?

That’s not to denigrate the sincere efforts of UC Irvine students who this year waged an all-out campaign to snag the biggest fish of all — a sitting United States president. But let’s see how many of them will be able to muster a quote from President Obama’s commencement address the day after he delivers it later this month.

That’s why comedians like Stephen Colbert and Charlie Day are such popular commencement speakers these days. As funny as those guys are, however, their appearances are still just obvious ploys by colleges attempting to spin their images. The schools get major bragging rights, and the kids are momentarily entertained. But ultimately, these well-rehearsed stand-up routines also detract from the real purpose of such occasions, which is to celebrate the accomplishments of the graduates.

The graduation theatrics have begun to generate increased scrutiny. One recent Newsweek piece, for instance, advocated ending “the arms race for an A-list commencement speaker” and a ban on the custom altogether.

Or at least we should rethink it. Keep the speeches in-house — administrators, teachers, student leaders, distinguished alumni — and short, about 10 minutes tops. No fees or fake degrees. And try some unconventional choices. What about a janitor who has worked at the campus for decades? I’ll bet someone like that has seen some seriously interesting stuff.

And when it’s over, he can instruct the graduates to stand, pick up the plastic red cups they’ve been trying to conceal under their robes, and deposit them in the nearest trash can before picking up their diplomas. Now I’d pay to see that.

PATRICE APODACA is a former Newport-Mesa public school parent and former Los Angeles Times staff writer. She lives in Newport Beach.