Your Commencement Speaker Decision Is Damaging Your Alumni Strategy

As evidenced by the many cap and gown photos on every social media platform, commencement season is upon us. When speaking with a fellow administrator, I referenced it as the most wonderful time of the year. She joked that it’s the time that settles every administrator's fury, the time that cements our why before we’re tempted to burn the campus buildings where we faced our greatest challenges this academic year.

Beyond the face of the momentous occasion, there’s another piece of this we should examine. Graduates are booing their commencement speakers. It's not random. It’s happened at The University of Central Florida, Middle Tennessee State University, and The University of Arizona. There might be more booing to come. While some of you might balk at what you read as poor manners, I urge us to dig in to the issue at hand. In a lot of ways, the wrong choice of commencement speaker says: We decided this without you, and your institution prioritizes power over understanding who you are.

The problem isn't just ill-fitted speakers. It's commencement committees deciding in an echo chamber. It’s emblematic that we aren’t properly managing risk. It’s wasting an opportunity to cultivate trust.

Commencement committees include senior leaders who select speakers based on prestige, network proximity, their understanding of the mission, and their understanding of who can speak to the graduates needs. But they're not making a choice for themselves. They're making it for people in their early 20s with different reference points, concerns, and expectations about what institutional leadership looks like. They are making the decision for 20-somethings who face a different future than executives did decades ago.

What's At Stake?

First, commencement is a foundational moment in the alumni relationship. How an institution shows up that day communicates whether it sees its graduates as they are, or as it wants them to be. When speakers miss the mark, graduates dismiss the speech and question whether leadership understands them at all.

A misaligned speaker says: We decide for you, not with you. Graduates internalize that message and carry it forward. That's the story they tell about your institution for decades. It shapes volunteer engagement, donation patterns, and how grads think and talk about their university.

Second, When we choose commencement speakers, we often grant them honorary degrees and hope they become an ambassador for the institution. We hope that they feel compelled to contribute philanthropically. When speakers are misaligned, you've handed a potential supporter a reason to question institutional judgment. The honorary degree alienates the person, rather than bringing them closer. You've sabotaged the exact relationship you were trying to build.

Why this is hard (and why you need to do it anyway): Inclusive process creates conflict. Your board will resist. A dean will insist on someone they have a close relationship with. The path of least resistance is to keep the echo chamber intact. But doing that costs you far more than one difficult conversation with the people mentioned. It costs you institutional credibility with the generation you're trying to cultivate.

Who Needs to Be In the Room

• Who actually knows this graduating class? (Career services, student affairs, academic advisors)
• Who represents the demographic and ideological diversity of the class?
• Including diverse voices only works if you've actually redistributed decision-making power. Otherwise, you've just created theater—input that pretends people are heard while leadership decides anyway. So the real question: Does a committee have real authority, or just advisory status?
• Are recent grads (5-10 years out) in the room? (Far enough to have perspective, close enough to remember the generational values)
• Do you have someone who can think beyond the institutional reputation? (Every administrator has incentives; you need at least one person without a vested interest in "playing it safe")

This sequence moves from knowledge → diversity → power → continuity → independence. Each one makes it obvious that there is no shortcut.

How to Make a Good Choice

What problem is this speaker solving? (Inspiration? Practical advice? Validation? Entertainment? Be specific. "Good speaker" is meaningless.)

What's the speaker's relationship to risk, dissent, or discomfort? (Can they handle hard questions? Or do they need a friendly crowd?)

What relevant things has this speaker said or done in the last 3-5 years? (Prestige is old information. Relevance requires current data.)

The meta question underneath all of this: Are you picking a speaker to inspire graduates, or to reassure the audience that the institution is serious/prestigious/aligned with power? Those are two different optimization problems. Most committees are solving the second one, claiming to solve the first.

How to Break the Pattern:

Break out of the echo chamber. Ask: Is this speaker talking about transformations they'll profit from, or transformations they'll experience? Graduates can tell the difference. They're living the consequences. The speaker isn't.

When your board resists, frame this as risk management, not idealism, not appeasement. This is about protecting your institution's reputation and your eventual cultivation strategy. A misaligned speaker damages both. That's the conversation that moves decision-makers.

If this year's commencement went sideways, your 2027 speaker decision starts now. Don't wait until next spring when your options are limited and your committee defaults to what's easy.