Condoleezza Rice pulls out of giving Rutgers commencement speech


Ground zero in the “War on Women”, particularly African American women.



It is also the front line of America’s new favorite war-the war on different opinions and viewpoints. When did we, as Americans, become so afraid of a viewpoint that isn’t our own. I don’t agree with all-or even most-of the politics of Condoleezza Rice. But how can anyone deny that she is a talented person with a lot to offer new college graduates? Whether or not I agree with someone politically shouldn’t disqualify them from giving a speech in my presence. It shows me an ever increasing dumbing down of America. Seems too many people believe "its okay for you to speak to me so long as I already agree with everything you say.


But of course universities will all tell you that they are dedicated to the open and free exchange of ideas. Of course, in today’s America, the ideas have to agree with theirs.


It was Rutgers where some undergraduates, including James O’Keefe, demonstrated the absurdity of some of the schools policies. They visited the school’s diversity dept. as members of the Irish Heritage Society to express their “discomfort” because LUCKY CHARMS cereal was being served in the cafeteria.
“and we think that this that promotes negative stereotypes of Irish Americans.” O’Keefe expressed particular objection to the “green-cladded gnome” on the cereal box.
Rutgers removed LUCKY CHARMS from their cafeteria.
here is a link to the you tube they made of the hilarious visit to the Rutgers Diversity officer.


That is an interesting viewpoint, although I don’t understand it. Why do you think the controversy was because she was female and/or African-American? Do you think Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney would have been any less controversial?


Yes, exactly. I think Condi Rice missed a golden opportunity to go in there and deliver her speech with grace and composure. Heck, I would have even worked in a bit about "the strength of American democracy lies in the freedom to express a wide variety of opinions…I am proud to have defended that tradition and I am proud to be standing here exercising that freedom, along with all of you….” Or maybe tone it down a bit, “I am proud to stand here at Rutger’s invitation and I hope you’ll join me in celebrating the freedom of exchange of ideas that is so fundamental to our shared democratic values.” Clearly I am not a speechwriter, but you get the idea. What better occasion than a graduation ceremony to explain why you think this is a great country of opportunity, freedom and diversity? Who better to do it? Those kids need to see examples of people just like her (whether or not you supported the war). It is about an exchange of ideas. I think she should have had a little more fire in the belly! :cool:


Actually, I don’t. I actually think it is about silencing viewpoints, particularly on college campuses, that are not in agreement with those of the progressive movement.

But we have seen and heard in recent years the charge, even in Congress, that opposition to the President Obama is because of his race. We have also seen and heard recently at least one member on Congress attack Justice Thomas in a bigoted and racist way, and Governor Palin attacked in a vulgar way by a progressive television pundit.

So, it appears there has been a double-standard of late, and my intention here, in a tongue-in-cheek way, was to offer the same type of accusation as the progressive movement has been practicing. Therefore, if we follow the progressive paradigm, the progressive students and faculty at Rutgers must have opposed Sec. Rice’s appearance on the grounds that she is an African American female, and a conservative one at that.

Consider this; if Ambassador Susan Rice had been invited to speak at a university, and conservative students had held a sit-in and protest against her because of her involvement in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack, do you think the progressives inside and outside of the media would have presented the event in that way? Would would we be hearing about those “racist. bigoted, sexists”?



Possibly, given the whole “Anyone opposed to President Obama is racist” meme which floated around for awhile, and is still occasionally implied. Political spin seems to have replaced political discourse in our country. We are impoverished for it.

I would mention, though, that opposition to Condoleezza Rice was based upon her actions, not upon her views. I imagine the same would be true regarding Susan Rice. A similar example would be if a prominent abortionist, say LeRoy Carhart, was scheduled to be commencement speaker. Opposition to him would be based upon his role in conducting abortions, particularly late term abortions. Opposition to him would not be based on his views. But, I would fully expect opponents to Carhart would be painted as anti-woman and as bigots.


There is no need to speculate about their motive. Their reasons were quite specific and plainly given.

From…“War Criminals Shouldn’t Be Honored”: Rutgers Students Nix Condoleezza Rice from Commencement Speech

Welcome to Democracy Now!,* Carmelo. So, your response to Condoleezza Rice withdrawing from the commencement address?*

CARMELO CINTRÓN VIVAS: Well, first of all, thank you for having me and for covering us. I think that, speaking for the group, we are very happy. On Monday morning, we were—Saturday morning, we were very happy and very pleased when we heard the news that Condoleezza Rice herself decided to back out. We think that that might be even a more powerful statement than the university disinviting her, and we are proud that our direct actions and our pressure were felt and our voices were heard from the bottom up.

AMY GOODMAN: Why did you oppose her speaking at commencement?

CARMELO CINTRÓN VIVAS: Well, as a group of students—and I’m referring to the group of students protesting—we felt that war criminals shouldn’t be honored by our university. Someone who has such a tainted record as a public servant in this country should not go to our university, speak for 15 minutes, get an honorary law degree for trying to circumvent the law, and receive $35,000. We believe that that is wrongful, and that’s not fair to any student graduating or not graduating at Rutgers University

Nothing in there about her being a black conservative.


Liberals complaining about Rice speaking because she is a war criminal is rather similar to conservatives protesting Obama speaking because he is a marxist. In the case of the latter, it would unquestionably be because the conservatives were against black speakers.


So you agree with those who wanted her forbidden to speak?

To deny there is a deep hostility towards conservative blacks and conservative women by those on the Left is akin to denying racism still exists in this country. The difference , of course, is that racism has much diminished over the years while the outright hate and hostility by the Left towards minorities and women who dare advance conservative ideas is on the increase.


The university should be the place for the free, liberal exchange of ideas. Shame on Rutgers!




To label Condoleeza Rice as a war criminal (declared as such by whom?) is to greatly diminish the evil of the true war criminals in our age: Hitler, Stalin, Ho Chiming, and their ilk.

CARMELO CINTRÓN VIVAS is showing her ignorance of history and context. Sad commentary on the education this student received at Rutgers.


I think that you are missing the point. I don’t believe that she was opposed because she is a black conservative. However, if conservative students opposed Susan Rice, even if they spelled out their reasons and those reasons were 100% based on her politics, there would still be accusations, most likely made by (or at the very least reported by) the mainstream media. Just like opposition to the president is labeled as racist by many on the left.




If you’re only in favor of freedom of expression for people you agree with, you’re not doing it right - Mark Steyn


I totally agree. Condoleeza Rice is a war criminal according to some of the Rutgers students? What utter nonsense.


Carmelo is a man. I saw this guy on a cable “news” show when I was on the tredmill.

“War criminal” is pretty harsh but his point was, “Someone who has such a tainted record as a public servant in this country should not go to our university, speak for 15 minutes, get an honorary law degree for trying to circumvent the law, and receive $35,000.”

Same goes for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

It was not about a political view or free speech but about actions when in office and collusion in the misinformation about WMD leading up to our invasion of Iraq and all the harm that came from that.




I think everybody needs to see the bigger picture. The new truth is what maters.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit