Streisand Effect Redux: Clayton (NC) High School

Leen Hijaz giving her speech

Last week, Curmie wrote about Jonas Hole, who gave the salutatorian address at his graduation ceremony at D’Iberville High School in Biloxi despite being misgendered by his principal.  This time, the student graduation speaker to make national headlines is Leen Hijaz, who wasn’t allowed to finish her valedictory speech at Clayton (NC) High School, outside Raleigh. 

Well, that’s not quite accurate.  First off, it was technically a “welcome speech” as opposed to a valedictory address per se.  Curmie isn’t sure why that matters, but perhaps it does.  Secondly, it appears that she was able to finish the part of her remarks that had been pre-approved by the administration.  It was only the add-on at the end that caused controversy.  You will no doubt be shocked to learn, Gentle Reader, that Ms. Hijaz is not the first-ever adolescent to disobey the strictures of authority. 

Anyway, school principal Melissa Moore Hubbard stomps onto the stage and pushes Hijaz away from the podium, allegedly threatening not merely to withhold her diploma, but to deny her graduation.  And what heinous invocation of Satan himself did Hijaz utter?  Well, this:

Before I leave the stage, there is one more thing I have to say.  Every single person here has a voice, and we are privileged to have the freedom to use it when so many people around the world are struggling and suffering to be heard.  Whether it’s the millions suffering in Palestine, Sudan, Congo, Afghanistan and so many other countries around the world, or the families being torn apart by ICE, these are not distant issues. They are happening right now as I speak. My point is, we’re not given a voice to stay silent.

(She does repeat a couple of phrases; she explained in a TikTok post the next day that the principal had been yelling at her, causing her to “stutter.”)

You will note, Gentle Reader, that her words were a description of reality.  Are the young adults of the near future going to face a world in which the crises she describes are all too present?  Yes.  Are we, as Americans, however much we might feel constrained by this or that censorial asshat, “privileged” in terms of financial stability, educational opportunities, and constitutional guarantees of free expression, when compared to the inhabitants of much of the rest of the world?  Yes.  Is it appropriate for those with the ability to use their voices for the sake of the common good for them to do so?  Yes.  Are there millions of people in those specified locations (and many others) who are “struggling and suffering”?  Yes.  Are there families being torn apart by ICE?  Yes.

Hijaz argues that “Nothing [she] said was political; it was pure awareness.”  Curmie agrees.  There is no condemnation of Israel for events in Palestine, no insistence that the US intervene to stop the Ebola outbreak in Congo, and so on.  Yes, the line about ICE comes rather close to a comment on that agency’s cowardice, intentional cruelty, and perfidious over-reach, but those descriptors are Curmie’s, not hers.  She may (likely does) agree with Curmie, but all she said was an objective truth.

For her deviation from what we suspect was the pabulum of the approved script, she was shunned by the powers-that-be, or at least so she claims.  The superintendent and several other bigwigs put their hands in their pockets rather than shake her hand when the apparently-not-actual-diplomas were distributed.  Her friend who gave her a hug onstage was similarly told that her diploma would be withheld.  As if denying the high school valedictorian (who graduated a year early, by the way) a piece of paper matters in the least, right?  

Curmie is pretty sure he hasn’t seen his high school diploma in decades, although it might be in one of those boxes he salvaged in 2022 after selling what had been his father’s house.  It’s the transcript that matters, and we’re talking about a valedictorian here; she’s planning to attend the University of North Carolina, and it’s a pretty fair bet she’ll get her degree.  (The school now says she did get her diploma; we trust her friend did, too.)

What’s on display here is the puerile petulance of an all-too-prevalent strain of high school administrators: those whose self-importance completely outshadows any actual competence they might once have had.  Even threatening to withhold a diploma is an act of petulance, a last gasp of self-entitled relevance, and, as someone pointed out on Reddit, an excellent way of turning a minor incident into embarrassing headlines on a national scale.  And that sure did seem like a lot of applause from the audience when Hijaz went off-script.  Maybe reading the room would be a good thing. 

OK.  Let’s grant that deviating from the approved script broke the rules, but in this case, even though it was intentional, was the equivalent of going 57 in a 45 when you’re the only one on the road, not of stealing the car.  Talk to her privately after the event, express displeasure, and move on.  But something Hijaz said on TikTok really stood out: “Obviously, if I said what I was going to say at the end of my speech, if I submitted it to the school, they would have disapproved it immediately, because of how racist they are.”  The first part of that sentence is rather predictable.  Whether it’s true, Curmie can’t say, but young Leen seems a bright lass, and she knows the environment better than we do. 

But attributing Hubbard’s over-reaction to racism seems a bit much.  Curmie has no doubt that Hijaz faced actual racism at multiple points in her academic life.  When she references “all of the stuff that I personally have experienced as a Muslim Arab girl going to school here in Johnston County,” Curmie gets it.  But whether this particular incident in linked to racism is another matter.  As Curmie has said repeatedly for a very long time, all racism is stupid, bur not all stupidity is racist. 

Curmie suspects that if Suzy Creamcheese (bonus points if you catch the Frank Zappa reference, Gentle Reader) had the audacity to stray from the censored pre-approved script to actually say something in a graduation speech, Hubbard’s reaction would have been the same.  It may also be worth noting that whereas Hijaz claims she lives in “a very white area,” US News and World Report lists the minority population at 61%, so there may be some questions of perception here.  (To be fair, she also says “we do have a lot of diversity, still.”)  It’s also important that Hijaz’s comments about racism come after the graduation ceremony.  They are controversial in and of themselves; those tacked on to the end of her speech were not.  You know what was problematic?  The three (Christian) prayers at a public school event.

What Hijaz definitely did not do was to “make it all about [her]self,” as she claims Hubbard accused her of doing.  There are two variations on the theme of irony at play here.  One is the radical misinterpretation of an attempt to represent in some small way the millions of people who, through no fault of their own, are de facto silenced by their circumstances: the exact opposite of her intentions.  The other, of course, is censoring comments about how people ought to be free of censorship.  <Sigh.>

Finally, of course, there’s the Streisand Effect.  As suggested above, the Reddit post about the incident shows two things: overwhelming support for Hijaz rather than Hubbard, and frequent mentions of the simple fact that no one outside the immediate audience would have paid the slightest attention were it not for the attempt to silence a student, a valedictorian, at her own graduation.  Leen Hijaz’s actions are not above reproach, but she’s unquestionably the more sympathetic figure in this episode.  Forward-Bank8412’s comment on Reddit reads, “Streisand this shit, internet!!”  Curmie is just doing his part…

The Dilemma of Graduation Speeches

 

It’s graduation season.  Curmie’s Facebook page has been awash for a fortnight or more with celebratory posts from friends who attended festivities for their sons and daughters, grandkids,  or students.    (A lot of  Curmie’s former students are teachers now.) All this got Curmie thinking about the exercises themselves, especially the speeches.  These have provided source material for Curmie several times, whether they were delivered by graduating seniors (here, here, and here) or guest speakers.  This year, though, it’s more about the speeches that didn’t happen.  Curmie wrote about that phenomenon before, too.

This time, though, we’re not talking about a single disinvitation, but several.  An article by FIRE’s Sheridan Macy and Charlotte Arneson highlights several incidents.  Curmie had mentioned the situation at Utah Valley in passing a couple of weeks ago, but Macy and Arneson added Rutgers, Georgetown Law, Drexel’s College of Computing and Informatics, NYU, South Carolina State, Southern California, MIT, George Washington, CUNY Law, and Stanford.  (Note: a couple of these were from previous years.)  Roughly half of the attempts to deny a podium are ultimately successful.  That’s kinda scary.

Predictably, FIRE isn’t happy about these variations on the theme—disinvitations, speakers “voluntarily” withdrawing, denial of student speeches, etc.  On the one hand, it’s difficult to argue with FIRE’s contemplation of 1st Amendment implications, or indeed with their conclusion that “in making these cowardly decisions to revoke invitations or limit student speech, universities often only succeed in creating new or additional controversy while eroding already crumbling student and faculty trust in university administrations to protect speech.”

This is especially true at, say, Utah Valley, where prospective speaker Sharon McMahon, despite pronouncing herself “gutted” by the murder of Charlie Kirk, also provided some context, quoting some of Kirk’s more bigoted proclamations, and writing “These aren’t sound bites taken out of context. Millions of people feel they were harmed, and the murder that was horrific and should never have happened does not magically erase what was said or done.”  That was enough, of course, for Republican pols like Rep. Burgess Owens to be sore offended and to try throwing his weight around.  And the UVU administration caved.  Of course.

More understandable but still problematic is the situation at South Carolina State, an HBCU that invited an avowed opponent of DEI initiatives, GOP Lieutenant Governor (and gubernatorial candidate) Pamela Evette.  There are a couple of issues here.  First, why would Evette be invited to begin with?  She certainly seems a strange choice for an HBCU.  Was there some sort of political positioning going on?  To show ideological diversity?  Was the university under some sort of threat, whether stated or implied?  Was the invitation really from SCSU, or did Evette sort of invite herself and expect the university to go along?

Second, it appears that there wasn’t even a public announcement that Evette was to be the speaker before a student-generated petition gathered some 20,000 signatures (that’s over six times as many folks as there are students at SCSU!), and President Alexander Conyers backed away from the invitation, citing security concerns, just as had appeared as the official reason for disinviting McMahon at Utah Valley.  

Is that the real reason?  Possibly, but Curmie isn’t betting the ranch, and FIRE has even less faith than Curmie on this one.  It certainly seems that “security concerns” are the contemporary version of “potential for disruption,” a phrase that has been used as an excuse for 1st Amendment violations for years, especially but not exclusively at the high school level.  More importantly, Evette isn’t buying the rationale, either, and is threatening to withhold some $35 million in state funding to the university.  FAFO on one side; self-righteous pettiness on the other.  Jolly.

OK, so one university buckled to pressure from the right, and another one buckled to pressure from the left.  We’ve also seen prospective speakers cancelled or otherwise censored because they unreservedly support Israel (Georgetown Law), and others because they condemn Israel (NYU, Southern Cal, MIT).  FIRE is right about the need for free speech.

Except.

Inviting someone to speak at graduation is different than simply bringing them to campus for a speech.  In every other case, students can simply not attend (unless the handful who may be required to do so as a course requirement).  Missing one’s own graduation is a different matter.  And if there’s one thing you can take to the bank, Gentle Reader, it’s that politicians are incapable of doing what is expected of ethical adults, and a lot of other folks are, too.  

It is perfectly fine if a graduation speaker is controversial, but the speech shouldn’t be.  Congratulate the grads, tell a couple of jokes, give some advice about negotiating the steps ahead, and say something a little inspirational without talking about politics or religion or the other topics you avoid at Thanksgiving dinner because of your weird Uncle Howard.  Then shut up and sit down.  Curmie is not a fan of the death penalty, but he’s willing to make an exception for graduation speakers who go more than 15 minutes (unless there is a lot of applause or laughter that slow things down): no one is there to listen to you, dude.  (“Dude” in the previous sentence is, of course, non-gender-specific.)

Curmie stopped going to graduations at his former employer, opting instead to use that three hours or so to reduce some of the pressure of Grading Hell, after one particularly outrageous speech given by some fairly high-ranking state official (comptroller, maybe?).  Not only did she address the assembled graduates as students of our arch rival on three occasions (yes, really!), she pretty much concentrated on why everyone in the room should vote for Republicans.  These people, pols of whatever stripes, can’t help themselves.  You can tell them not to alienate half their audience.  They nod agreement, then do it, anyway. 

If I’ve invested four (or more) years of my life and accumulated a few tens of thousands of dollars in debt to get a degree, I don’t want to have my celebration marred by someone spouting political opinions with which I disagree.  Even if, as was the case when Harrison Butker spoke at Benedictine College two years ago, it’s a reasonable assumption that a significant majority of the students and their families will agree with the speaker, there’s a difference between “significant majority” and “unanimity.”  Why alienate anyone at their own graduation ceremony?

I don’t want to listen to the political rhetoric of people I agree with, either—not at graduation.  I might think that person over there is racist, or homophobic, or anti-Semitic, or too Woke to be palatable, or whatever, but give them a bit of grace on their special day, at least.  One of the playwrights Curmie wrote about in his dissertation said it beautifully when I interviewed him: “we are more alike than unalike.”  We’re all facing the future together; maybe we should act like it.

Of course, especially at the post-secondary level, if the school has done what they should have done, i.e., developing skills of critical thinking, the assembled graduates will be fully capable of recognizing the flawed logic, the unsupported assertions, and the oh-so-casual omissions.  You’re not going to recruit anyone to your side, and the people who already agree with you just want you to shut up so they can go celebrate with their families.  There are plenty of opportunities to express your political opinions.  Don’t misuse a forum just because you can.

One last thing: apparently a couple of universities have instituted a policy whereby the speakers will be on stage, but their speeches will be pre-recorded and played on screens behind them.  This, of course, makes no sense whatsoever; all it does is advertise the school’s distrust of the person they hired to give the address, and prevent any real interaction between the speaker and the audience.  There’s no need for speakers to appear in person if their comments aren’t going to be live and responsive to the reception of the students (in particular).  Censorship and money-wasting: what a happy combination!

Curmie confesses that he can’t remember who spoke at his own graduation, and the only keynote about which he has literally any positive memories was delivered by a faculty colleague 30-something years ago.  Beyond that, nothing has happened in the however many (25? 30?) graduations Curmie has attended would make him mourn the demise of the keynote address altogether.  But if we’re going to have one, and a lot of people think they’re a sine qua non, then we need to avoid the following if at all possible a). the powers-that-be invite a completely inappropriate speaker (all politicians are inappropriate), b). the speaker, whoever that may be, decides that being divisive is a good idea, and c). the protesters fail to grow up.  In other words, this is an insoluble problem.  Alas.

The Case of the Disinvited Producer

Dammit.

I was just about to curl up on the couch for a little nap before spending the evening doing some reading for class tomorrow. And then I came across this story, which unquestionably thrusts now-former Ronan, Montana High School principal Tom Stack into the running for a Curmie award. I thought about letting it slide, given that idiot school administrators are pretty thick on the ground across the rest of the country, so the fact that one popped up in Montana isn’t exactly news.

Stories about graduation speeches generally bore me nearly as much as the speeches themselves do. Why I’m writing is simple. Although this story is news to me, it’s been lighting up the right-wing blogosphere, and virtually only the right-wing blogosphere, for several days. And whereas I can’t stop those folks from claiming that no one on the left cares about censorship when it happens to someone on the right, I can at least provide evidence that such a claim isn’t true. So I do need to write this and get it up on the blogsite.

Here’s what happened: Oscar-winning Hollywood producer Gerald Molen was invited to address the seniors at Ronan High. When he arrived at the venue, he was disinvited by Principal Stack. As the graduation ceremony apparently wasn’t until June 4 and Molen was already describing the incident in the past tense on May 26, we can assume that this wasn’t a graduation speech per se, but perhaps a Senior Day activity of some sort. This particular detail doesn’t matter.

Here’s what does: Molen, whose Hollywood credits include the likes of Schindler’s List, the first two Jurassic Park movies, and Twister, had, in his own words, invested “three weeks of preparation, research and re-write after re-write.” He planned a presentation which

…dealt with my hopes for their futures. It was a cheerleading presentation that allowed me to remind them of their individual greatness and opportunities for the future. My intent was to inspire and motivate those looking for an encouraging word and message of hope beyond the walls of the institution they were leaving to the next chapter in their young lives. It spoke to the contributions and greatness of their teachers, administrators, parents and peers but with an emphasis on their ability to conceive, to believe and to achieve. But I guess I was wrong about teachers and/or school administrators.

Since my career had centered around the motion picture industry, I had set out to challenge them with the thought that they might each write their own movie script. A script that would have them as the writer, director, producer and star. A script filled with step-by-step goals of proper preparation and scenes depicting them as lawyers, doctors, captains of industry and/or having careers as they saw themselves in 20 or 30 or 40 years in the future.

Sounds pretty ominous, right? Well, you see, Mr. Molen is a “a right-wing conservative” (this description courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department), and “some callers” had expressed concerns.

This is in Montana, remember, hardly to be confused with San Francisco. And Mr. Stack is, as Eugene Volokh notes, safe on 1st amendment grounds. But he is certainly as stupid as he is rude. Seriously, if you can’t muster the intestinal fortitude to say no to a couple of “callers” based on the principles of intellectual curiosity you’re supposed to be upholding, if you can’t at least tell Mr. Molen of your decision before he arrives at the end of his 90-minute drive out of common courtesy, if you can’t even look at the text of his speech before making your final decision out of due process, then at least behave professionally because the guy you’re about to insult has the Hollywood Reporter on speed-dial, and your sorry-ass provincialism is going to be national news.

Had Mr. Molen simply not be asked to begin with, of course, there would be no problem. And it is, of course, Mr. Stack’s prerogative to invite or disinvite whomever he chooses. That makes his decisions legal and constitutional. That’s a long way from smart. Finding an excuse for his behavior is impossible; finding an explanation is hard enough. Perhaps in asking Mr. Molen to speak to the students, Stack didn’t know in advance that his guest was (gasp!) a conservative. In other words, he didn’t do his homework. Perhaps he thinks that in Montana, of all places, no one wants to hear a conservative (because he, Stack, doesn’t?). Perhaps one of those complaining callers has compromising photographs of Stack with barnyard animals. Or perhaps, as Jack Marshall has suggested, he “made a cost-benefit analysis: mistreating one Hollywood producer whom he probably would never have anything to do with again, versus angering a group of bigoted, narrow-minded parents who could make his life miserable.”

I see no evidence that Molen said or did anything outrageous between the time he was invited and when he was disinvited, as, for example, when Tom Paulin’s fawning commentary on Slobodan Milošević got him disinvited from a speech at Harvard a few years ago. No, this was just a case of a high school principal who lacked the integrity, the intelligence, the moral courage, and the quotidian politeness to do the right thing.

Gentle Reader, if you’ve followed this blog at all closely for any period of time, you’ve seen me wish fondly that someone on “my side” politically or philosophically wasn’t such an ass. Assuming Mr. Molen’s account to be even generally accurate, I really don’t want the likes of Tom Stack representing me.

Mr. Molen, I doubt that you’ll read these words, but if you do, allow me to apologize on behalf of progressives and educators alike. We aren’t all like that. I promise.