In practice makes perfect

In theory, the Honorary Lecture Series under development by the Columbia College Student Council will offer undergraduates the opportunity to go to the sort of high-profile Columbia events from which they are often excluded. In practice, students may not find the speakers or speeches exciting or relevant enough to warrant their attendance. Such was the dilemma seen by students in attendance at Dean Michele Moody-Adams’ pilot lecture, “Theory and Practice,” last Friday. While the idea of having a lecture series geared toward undergraduates is commendable, the series itself cannot be so if does not arise organically from student interest.

The point behind the series is that, in the past, undergraduates have not been able to get into certain events on campus. In publicizing it, CCSC cited ServiceNation, the Bill Gates-Warren Buffett talk, and the World Leaders Forum. Aside from the fact that interested students can find a way to get into the World Leaders Forum, it should be noted that none of these events were any less exciting because not every student could attend. The entire campus pulsed with excitement when then-Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain came for ServiceNation, though only a very small minority of undergraduates were randomly assigned tickets. Still, there is value in a series of lectures by non-Columbia affiliates that every interested undergraduate can attend.

That value is only really there, though, if students are interested. Moody-Adams’ lecture, for example, was reasonably well-attended, in large part because it was mandatory for all Contemporary Civilization students. Yet, it seems contradictory to mandate attendance at the pilot lecture for this program. It was designed, after all, to increase students’ ability to choose whether to attend events. Students shouldn’t be required to come to these lectures—they should want to because the speakers aren’t on campus every day, because the topic holds some deep relevance to their lives or the world at large, or because there is a unique reason to hear that speech by that speaker at that time. Furthermore, a lecture in a series should be just that—one voice in a larger, overarching discussion. Moody-Adams’ speech, despite good intentions, failed in these respects.

CCSC has already indicated that speakers will be chosen based on student nominations. This is a positive start, but these nominations need to be constructed into a thematically consistent series that engages and excites students. With all due respect to Moody-Adams, a mandatory speech by the dean of Columbia College is in no way equivalent to a speech by a high-profile speaker that only 200 undergraduates can attend. The Honorary Lecture Series has tremendous potential in theory, but whether it will work in practice is yet to be seen.