We recognize the importance of intellectual discourse, both among the student body and within the editorial board at The Observer. A diversity of perspectives strengthens our work and challenges us to think critically. However, given the weight of the argument presented in last week’s “Invite Trump to speak at commencement” editorial and the significance of the topic, we believe it is important to clarify that the editorial does not speak for all of us at The Observer. As some members of the dissenting opinion, we have both a moral obligation to speak out and a historical obligation — ensuring those who venture into the archives of The Observer will see record of an internal debate.
Notre Dame certainly has a rich history deeply rooted in tradition. Many graduating seniors answered that exact prompt when applying to this University four years ago. From touchdown push ups to visiting the Grotto during Welcome Weekend, there are many traditions that, to borrow Fr. Pete McCormick’s language, “sustain us.” Inviting the recently-inaugurated president is not one.
In explaining Notre Dame’s reasoning for not inviting Trump in 2017, former University President Fr. John Jenkins said, “regardless of one’s political views, if you’re the elected leader of the country, we invite you to Notre Dame. However, if you don’t meet a certain bar in terms of just moral decency, that’s why we invited Mike Pence. There’s a decency, I think. A genuine decency.”
If there was a time to write an editorial about upholding tradition and promoting discourse by inviting the elected leader of the country to speak at commencement, it was in 2017. But now, the “storied tradition” has already been broken.
In 2017, then-Vice President Mike Pence was invited to speak at graduation instead of Trump. Before that, the University had limited interactions with Presidents Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon. Though President Bill Clinton was invited and spoke while still on the campaign trail, and President John F. Kennedy spoke at commencement as a congressman, neither president spoke during his term. If the tradition has been broken before, there is no need to uphold it when our current president is “personally repulsive,” as our colleagues wrote. These exceptions show that we are not forfeiting this tradition by passing over Trump. We hope that this and many other traditions at Notre Dame are stronger than the influence of one man.
Moreover, we should not tether this decision to the notion that it has been done before. Notre Dame should know, after taking action to close the historic Zahm Hall when serious behavioral concerns boiled over.
The editorial argues that rather than normalizing Trump’s behavior, inviting him would “force him to confront an audience that is not unconditionally adoring, that expects a level of propriety and reflection worthy of the occasion.” Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot rise to this level of decorum we expect from our commencement speakers.
This is a man who has referred to fallen American soldiers as “suckers” and “losers,” who has called immigrants “animals,” and who has implied he would not mind gun violence against journalists. During one of his last town hall opportunities to speak before the 2024 election, Donald Trump decided to stand quietly on stage for 30 minutes, dancing to “Y.M.C.A.” rather than taking questions from the audience. If he cannot engage seriously with dissent mere weeks before an election, why should we expect him to do so at our graduation?
Inviting Trump would not be an exercise in civic discourse. It would grant him another opportunity to speak unencumbered to a ready audience. As the president, Trump is one of the freest men in our country to say his opinions without consequence. Allowing him to speak at this great University does nothing to encourage responsibility or reflection, nor does it heal a polarized America.
It is impossible not to notice the way American politics have changed since Trump was first elected. Donald Trump is not the only controversial president, but he is certainly unique in his ability to sow division.
Our colleagues argued that inviting Donald Trump would both uphold a tradition and promote engagement across political differences. We acknowledge that these are important values, and important values at Notre Dame specifically. But not only would this invitation fail to truly enforce those values, it implies that we value tradition and discourse more than we value the moral character of our speakers. If we abstract the decision-making process from choosing the individual to choosing the office they represent, that decision will be arbitrary and uninformed.
Trump’s actions during his first weeks back in office, targeting political opponents, civil servants and immigrants, mark a moral decline from where we started in 2017. His rhetoric and policies have become increasingly vindictive over the last eight years. Traditions make a statement, but perhaps choosing to end a tradition makes a more powerful one.
The title of commencement speaker has always been an honor, regardless of the college you graduate from. While we should aspire to select an engaging figure to represent us on graduation day, we should not be forced to sacrifice our moral decency to do it. The 2025 graduates don’t deserve their commencement to be turned into a battleground for political protest and unproductive dialogue. They deserve so much more.
