When University of Arizona Associate Professor Sandra Soto gave a graduation speech last week, she was heavily criticized for sharing her “political beliefs” regarding SB1070. Critics said that a graduation speech is no place to espouse your political views. And while I agree with that idea, no a student should not have to listen to campaigning or political rhetoric on their graduation day, I also believe that putting Soto’s speech in this category is a disservice to us all.
One of the benefits of working in higher education is the room for discourse. I find myself consistently challenged and enlightened by my colleagues, both on my campus and through social networking. I have always viewed it as part of my job to extend this challenge to students — to ask them to explain their thoughts, their feelings, to see what their understanding is of a given situation. It is through this discourse that we aid our students in becoming more thoughtful citizens who are able to clearly express their thoughts and feelings, who are able to make persuasive arguments, and become individuals who can objectively look at both sides of the coin.
If you listen to her remarks, you will find that the moments when she discusses SB1070 are actually a small part of her speech. And I have to ask myself, if she was a white man would the reaction have been different? Would people have rallied behind her remarks, or lauded her for being a necessary critical voice if she was a professor in the sciences? What would her colleagues have said if she chose to not address this legislation which will greatly impact higher education? So, when Associate Professor Soto expressed her concerns about the potential effects of SB1070 on her area of expertise, Chicana cultural studies, she was not politicizing. She was not speaking from a self-serving place. Instead, she was fulfilling her role as an educator by showing students another side of the issue, and reminding the rest of us that, agree or disagree, our responsibility is to continue the conversation.
