Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

OMG, UNBELIEVABLE: Wellesley College 1969 Student Commencement Speech of Hillary D. Rodham
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:jNWMQlcpuVsC:www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html+Hillary+Clinton+(Wellesley+commencement)&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 ^ | Circa 1969 | Wellesley web site

Posted on 02/15/2003 7:47:35 AM PST by Liz

Wellesley College 1969 Student Commencement Speech Hillary D. Rodham May 31, 1969 Ruth M. Adams, ninth president of Wellesley College, introduced Hillary D. Rodham, '69, at the 91st commencement exercises, as follows:

In addition to inviting Senator Brooke to speak to them this morning, the Class of '69 has expressed a desire to speak to them and for them at this morning's commencement. There was no debate so far as I could ascertain as to who their spokesman was to be -- Miss Hillary Rodham. Member of this graduating class, she is a major in political science and a candidate for the degree with honors. In four years she has combined academic ability with active service to the College, her junior year having served as a Vil Junior, and then as a member of Senate and during the past year as President of College Government and presiding officer of College Senate. She is also cheerful, good humored, good company, and a good friend to all of us and it is a great pleasure to present to this audience Miss Hillary Rodham.

Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of the Wellesley College Government Association and member of the Class of 1969, on the occasion of Wellesley's 91st Commencement, May 31, 1969:

I am very glad that Miss Adams made it clear that what I am speaking for today is all of us -- the 400 of us -- and I find myself in a familiar position, that of reacting, something that our generation has been doing for quite a while now.

We're not in the positions yet of leadership and power, but we do have that indispensable task of criticizing and constructive protest and I find myself reacting just briefly to some of the things that Senator Brooke said. This has to be brief because I do have a little speech to give.

Part of the problem with empathy with professed goals is that empathy doesn't do us anything. We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible. What does it mean to hear that 13.3% of the people in this country are below the poverty line? That's a percentage. We're not interested in social reconstruction; it's human reconstruction. How can we talk about percentages and trends?

The complexities are not lost in our analyses, but perhaps they're just put into what we consider a more human and eventually a more progressive perspective. The question about possible and impossible was one that we brought with us to Wellesley four years ago.

We arrived not yet knowing what was not possible. Consequently, we expected a lot. Our attitudes are easily understood having grown up, having come to consciousness in the first five years of this decade -- years dominated by men with dreams, men in the civil rights movement, the Peace Corps, the space program -- so we arrived at Wellesley and we found, as all of us have found, that there was a gap between expectation and realities. But it wasn't a discouraging gap and it didn't turn us into cynical, bitter old women at the age of 18. It just inspired us to do something about that gap. What we did is often difficult for some people to understand. They ask us quite often: "Why, if you're dissatisfied, do you stay in a place?" Well, if you didn't care a lot about it you wouldn't stay. It's almost as though my mother used to say, "I'll always love you but there are times when I certainly won't like you."

Our love for this place, this particular place, Wellesley College, coupled with our freedom from the burden of an inauthentic reality allowed us to question basic assumptions underlying our education. Before the days of the media orchestrated demonstrations, we had our own gathering over in Founder's parking lot.

We protested against the rigid academic distribution requirement. We worked for a pass-fail system. We worked for a say in some of the process of academic decision making. And luckily we were in a place where, when we questioned the meaning of a liberal arts education there were people with enough imagination to respond to that questioning. So we have made progress. We have achieved some of the things that initially saw as lacking in that gap between expectation and reality. Our concerns were not, of course, solely academic as all of us know. We worried about inside Wellesley questions of admissions, the kind of people that should be coming to Wellesley, the process for getting them here. We questioned about what responsibility we should have both for our lives as individuals and for our lives as members of a collective group.

Coupled with our concerns for the Wellesley inside here in the community were our concerns for what happened beyond Hathaway House. We wanted to know what relationship Wellesley was going to have to the outer world.

We were lucky in that one of the first things Miss Adams did was to set up a cross-registration with MIT because everyone knows that education just can't have any parochial bounds any more. One of the other things that we did was the Upward Bound program. There are so many other things that we could talk about; so many attempts, at least the way we saw it, to pull ourselves into the world outside. And I think we've succeeded. There will be an Upward Bound program, just for one example, on the campus this summer.

Many of the issues that I've mentioned -- those of sharing power and responsibility, those of assuming power and responsibility have been general concerns on campuses throughout the world. But underlying those concerns there is a theme, a theme which is so trite and so old because the words are so familiar. It talks about integrity and trust and respect. Words have a funny way of trapping our minds on the way to our tongues but there are necessary means even in this multi-media age for attempting to come to grasps with some of the inarticulate maybe even inarticulable things that we're feeling.

We are, all of us, exploring a world that none of us even understands and attempting to create within that uncertainty. But there are some things we feel, feelings that our prevailing, acquisitive, and competitive corporate life, including tragically the universities, is not the way of life for us. We're searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living. And so our questions, our questions about our institutions, about our colleges, about our churches, about our government continue.

The questions about those institutions are familiar to all of us. We have seen heralded across the newspapers. Senator Brooke has suggested some of them this morning. But along with using these words -- integrity, trust, and respect -- in regard to institutions and leaders we're perhaps harshest with them in regard to ourselves.

Every protest, every dissent, whether it's an individual academic paper, Founder's parking lot demonstration, is unabashedly an attempt to forge an identity in this particular age. That attempt at forging for many of us over the past four years has meant coming to terms with our humanness. Within the context of a society that we perceive -- now we can talk about reality, and I would like to talk about reality sometime, authentic reality, inauthentic reality, and what we have to accept of what we see -- but our perception of it is that it hovers often between the possibility of disaster and the potentiality for imaginatively responding to men's needs.

There's a very strange conservative strain that goes through a lot of New Left, collegiate protests that I find very intriguing because it harkens back to a lot of the old virtues, to the fulfillment of original ideas. And it's also a very unique American experience. It's such a great adventure. If the experiment in human living doesn't work in this country, in this age, it's not going to work anywhere.

But we also know that to be educated, the goal of it must be human liberation. A liberation enabling each of us to fulfill our capacity so as to be free to create within and around ourselves. To be educated to freedom must be evidenced in action, and here again is where we ask ourselves, as we have asked our parents and our teachers, questions about integrity, trust, and respect.

Those three words mean different things to all of us. Some of the things they can mean, for instance: Integrity, the courage to be whole, to try to mold an entire person in this particular context, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence.

If the only tool we have ultimately to use is our lives, so we use it in the way we can by choosing a way to live that will demonstrate the way we feel and the way we know. Integrity -- a man like Paul Santmire. Trust. This is one word that when I asked the class at our rehearsal what it was they wanted me to say for them, everyone came up to me and said "Talk about trust, talk about the lack of trust both for us and the way we feel about others. Talk about the trust bust." What can you say about it? What can you say about a feeling that permeates a generation and that perhaps is not even understood by those who are distrusted? All they can do is keep trying again and again and again. There's that wonderful line in East Coker by Eliot about there's only the trying, again and again and again; to win again what we've lost before.

And then respect. There's that mutuality of respect between people where you don't see people as percentage points. Where you don't manipulate people. Where you're not interested in social engineering for people. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences. And the word "consequences" of course catapults us into the future.

One of the most tragic things that happened yesterday, a beautiful day, was that I was talking to woman who said that she wouldn't want to be me for anything in the world. She wouldn't want to live today and look ahead to what it is she sees because she's afraid. Fear is always with us but we just don't have time for it. Not now.

There are two people that I would like to thank before concluding. That's Ellie Acheson, who is the spearhead for this, and also Nancy Scheibner who wrote this poem which is the last thing that I would like to read:

My entrance into the world of so-called "social problems"
Must be with quiet laughter, or not at all.
The hollow men of anger and bitterness
The bountiful ladies of righteous degradation
All must be left to a bygone age.
And the purpose of history is to provide a receptacle
For all those myths and oddments
Which oddly we have acquired
And from which we would become unburdened
To create a newer world
To transform the future into the present.
We have no need of false revolutions
In a world where categories tend to tyrannize our minds
And hang our wills up on narrow pegs.
It is well at every given moment to seek the limits in our lives.
And once those limits are understood
To understand that limitations no longer exist.
Earth could be fair. And you and I must be free
Not to save the world in a glorious crusade
Not to kill ourselves with a nameless gnawing pain
But to practice with all the skill of our being
The art of making possible.


TOPICS: Announcements; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: 1969; commencements; hillary; transcript; wellesley; wellesleycollege
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last
To: Liz
Das Kapital was a political tome with a new (though erroneous) theory of economics.

Hillary's address has all the weight of a Miss America speech by a communist sorority sister trying out for cheerleader.

81 posted on 02/16/2003 11:31:29 PM PST by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth
Marx's tome was not only an economic theory but a passionate exhortation, "Workers of the world, unite," while Hitlery exhorts, "Students of the world unite."

As a guideline for analyzing a mindset bent on the manipulation of the populace, Das Kapital - and Hitlery's speech - succeed quite well.

82 posted on 02/17/2003 3:27:09 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: scott7278
Intelligent? Absolutely not ....

Hitlery and Bill's cunning political instincts - wrongly perceived as intelligence - have served them well. These two connivers have never had an unscripted moment in their entire lives.

83 posted on 02/17/2003 3:31:11 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Liz
2004 is HILLARY'S big decision. None of the dem candidates can pull her numbers.

If she waits until 2008, she might have to deal with Powell or Rice!

Both could make her look like a fool in a debate. She knows it's now or never.

She needs her right to destroy America more than the rapist did!

She will not enter the fray until the the dwarfs trip over themselves.

At the convention in Boston, they will fawn over her, and she will take the bait!

Oh yeah... the Clintons are connivers, but they are also conivores

84 posted on 02/17/2003 4:06:11 AM PST by johnny7 (You know, the American voter is stupid. -HRC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: pollwatcher
Hitlery on Nixon: "Impeachment did not have to be for criminal offense but only for a course of conduct that suggested an abuse of power or a disregard for the office of the President of the United States." ..."that a person's course of conduct, while not particularly criminal could be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress." "...the office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than that of the average citizen of the United States."

Both Hitlery and her conniving husband's actions are ten thousand times more egregious than anything Nixon was ever accused of doing. The Clintons got away with enormous crimes against the state.

Hitlery exploits American history. In fact all elected officials are held to a higher standard of conduct than the citizenry b/c they have the power of the purse. Actions by elected officals that would not rise to the level of jaywalking by an average citizen, are prosecutable when committed by someone in office.

Case in point: If you or I received a valuble gift by someone who had interests on Capitol Hill, it would not be a crime. But a Senator or Congressman accepting the very same gift would be breaking the law.

Moreover, public servants - unelected persons employed in public offices in a township or county - cannot accept even a cup of coffee from someone doing business with that office.

85 posted on 02/17/2003 4:08:13 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Liz; cavtrooper21; Paul Atreides; cake_crumb; WhirlwindAttack; Grampa Dave; Mudboy Slim; ...
<< Trust? Integriity? Respect? >>

For me any details that may or may not be contained within it are swept away by the enormity of the sheer asininity and puerile infantilism of the whole diatribe.

Such morbid asininity and puerile infantilism, that is, as are dupicated and exceeded only by this frumpish psychopathologically-predatory recidivist's Elena-Ceausescu-cloned co-serial-rapist's lifetime of egomaniacly-imperialistic criminality.
86 posted on 02/17/2003 4:32:26 AM PST by Brian Allen (This above all -- to thine own self be true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz; pollwatcher
<< Both Hitlery and her conniving husband's actions are ten thousand times more egregious than anything Nixon was ever accused of doing. >>

True.

<< The Cli'tons "got away with" enormous crimes ..... >>

Thus far, it seems.
87 posted on 02/17/2003 4:35:54 AM PST by Brian Allen (This above all -- to thine own self be true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Liz
How did you get this? I thought Wellesley wouldn't make this public. Don't forget that she and her commie friends lobbied to speak and she was not Valedictorian nor
salutatorian. Traditionally a student did not speak at graduation. Also, I believe that the speach she submitted to the faculty was not given and instead she went into a diatribe against Senator Brooke.
88 posted on 02/17/2003 5:35:31 AM PST by Jimmy Valentine's brother (Let the US and British led weapon inspections in force start now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jimmy Valentine's brother
You got the wrong info. Wellesley apparently has not allowed Hillary's thesis to be released (no doubt on her orders).
89 posted on 02/17/2003 5:41:44 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Absolutely. With them I wish it could be sooner!
90 posted on 02/17/2003 7:32:58 AM PST by Marysecretary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: cubreporter
The word "articulable" is in my Miriam Webster but "inarticulable" is not. The prefix "in-" seems to be an improper usage in this case and it would seem the phrase "not articulable" is the preferred usage.

Smartest woman in the world? Feh.

91 posted on 02/17/2003 10:19:47 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Methinks that speechwritting effort went to POT!
92 posted on 02/17/2003 10:37:18 AM PST by G Larry ($10K gifts to John Thune before he announces!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Liz; timestax
"Words have a funny way of trapping our minds on the way to our tongues but there are necessary means even in this multi-media age for attempting to come to grasps with some of the inarticulate maybe even inarticulable things that we're feeling".

I believe she's admitting that she really doesn't know a damn thing and is insecure of this fact.This is one mindless word drool of a speech, but I digress.


"Within the context of a society that we perceive -- now we can talk about reality, and I would like to talk about reality sometime,(Oh right, I bet she would) authentic reality, inauthentic reality, and what we have to accept of what we see -- but our perception of it is that it hovers often between the possibility of disaster and the potentiality for imaginatively responding to men's needs".

What??? I'm not sure what she's saying; did she know what she was saying? This is "Pure Gobbledy-Gook" all the way around.What does this wretched woman know about reality, except in relation to Manipulating other peoples reality,hmmm? MAY VINCE FOSTER R.I.P.

93 posted on 02/17/2003 10:41:32 AM PST by Pagey (Hillary Rotten is a Smug , Holier-Than-Thou Socialist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Is this the much waited for Commencement Speech?

I find it intriguing. The woman is a walking contradiction. She married a man that was opposite everything she believed. A womanizer, untrustworthy, disrespectful, and lacking any integrity.

She appears to hate the fact that men ruled the world, and yet had to submit to the leadership of her husband to accomplish her goals.

Which now begs the question, which will destroy the other first?
94 posted on 02/17/2003 11:11:01 AM PST by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swheats
Is this the much waited for (Hillary) Commencement Speech?

According to recent First Lady biographers, this speech got Hillary's picture in Life magazine, which, at the time, I believe was considered a big deal.

95 posted on 02/17/2003 11:55:26 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Pagey
....."responding to men's needs".......

Yeah, that oughta sit well with FemiNazis.

96 posted on 02/17/2003 11:56:57 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen
Wow!
97 posted on 02/17/2003 1:52:51 PM PST by cavtrooper21 (Why walk when you can ride?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Intelligent? Absolutely not ....

Hitlery and Bill's cunning political instincts - wrongly perceived as intelligence - have served them well. These two connivers have never had an unscripted moment in their entire lives.

I would love to have the chance to be a moderator at a debate and give her what she thinks are the questions -- real softball questions.

Then I would show no mercy on her, announcing like a coffee commericial, "Ma'am, did you know that those are not the real questions?"

It would then be like Chris Farley on SNL reacting to the coffee switch.

98 posted on 02/17/2003 2:19:04 PM PST by scott7278 (Peace had it's chance, now it's bombs away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
Thanks for that info...appreciate it. Oh yeah, she's the smartest woman in the world allright. Hah,heh,heh...
99 posted on 02/17/2003 2:56:19 PM PST by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
I think I might be tempted to choose Demi over Hillary, just from a purely testosterone point of view.....
100 posted on 02/17/2003 3:28:48 PM PST by cavtrooper21 (Why walk when you can ride?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson