LHS 2012 Graduation Speech: Principal Louis Gabordi

Thank you, student speakers.  I’m not sure why I always position my talk after such difficult acts to follow.

Good evening, everyone.  I am very pleased to have you all here with us and, in particular that we are joined tonight by quite a few of our elected representatives, including members of our Board of Education, Town Council, and our Mayor, Mr. Rodolico.  And because I have always believed that tonight is a celebration of the graduation from Ledyard Public Schools, and not just Ledyard High School, I am grateful for the presence of a significant number of teachers and administrators from each of our schools.  Thank you all for coming.

I know because of comments I’ve received that a number of people expect my speech to be focused on my retirement, which begins one week from today.  But tonight is not about me; it is, as it should be, for the purpose of celebrating the success of our students.  And those students are hereby forewarned that my speech this evening includes my issuing the Class of 2012 its final homework assignment from Ledyard High School.

I speak tonight on a subject which is rarely discussed without partisanship, so speakers tend to avoid it on occasions such as this.  I am taking it on because I believe we have come to a critical moment in our nation’s history and because the students before us are among the people in the best position to lead us in the right direction.  I also believe that my thoughts on this are completely non-partisan, and that is certainly my intention.  I’ll begin with a story.

I find myself thinking lately of a 30 minute episode in 1962, 50 years ago, when I was a second grader in Miss Walker’s class at Cunningham Elementary School in Vineland, NJ.  That morning Miss Walker led us in a reading of a short story called “The Blind Men and the Elephant.”  I believe it was actually a folk tale from India, or perhaps what we would call a fable.  As I remember it, the story was very simple:  a group of sightless men were given brief access to an elephant, a creature with which they had had no previous encounters.  Afterwards, they gathered for the purpose of describing the animal.  An argument ensued.  One man who had felt only the tail said an elephant was like a thin rope.  Four men who had each examined only a leg insisted the elephant was similar to the trunk of a tree, and they had each other to support their claim.  The man who felt an ear believed the elephant was like an enormous leaf.  He who had touched the tusk envisioned a large spear of a creature, and the trunk had made the remaining man recoil because it resembled a large constricting snake.  Each man insisted on the absolute accuracy of his concept of the elephant because, after all, he had felt it with his own hands.  They parted with each one pleased with his own belief and certain of the foolishness of the others.  Was each man completely wrong?  Certainly not.  Was each man completely correct?  Just as certainly not.  Each had acquired a portion of the truth.  If they had decided to combine their observations, the group would have been able to advance everyone’s understanding of the elephant.  Instead, their unwillingness to consider perspectives with which they had no experience hurt them all.  Some of you may have begun to sense where this is going.

I cannot tell you how often I have thought of this simple story in the last fifty years, but I can tell you that I do so with increasing frequency.   I am reminded of it when I read certain letters to the editors in local newspapers, or see particular political ads, or watch some televised debates (which long ago ceased to be debates in the truest sense).  There are also magazine articles, talk shows, radio commentators and personal conversations which all remind me of that morning with Miss Walker when I first learned how incomplete and inadequate one’s perceptions can be.  This is dangerous stuff, it seems to me, this business of refusing to even consider seriously a point of view which is different than our own or based on circumstances with which we are unfamiliar.  Why do we have this tendency?  It grows, I think, from placing winning above collective wisdom and the desire to do the most good for the most people.  What people seek to win varies widely: a feeling of superiority, election to a powerful public office, the satisfaction of victory after an argument, or an increase in readership or listening audience.  I suppose there are times when this is harmless, but I also believe there are times when it threatens some of the most fundamental principles of American democracy.

Most of you have probably been part of a classroom or club activity in which members of a group are asked to react to a controversial statement.  Someone states an opinion, and students are asked to place themselves somewhere on a continuum.  “If you strongly agree,” the teacher might say, “stand near this wall.  If you strongly disagree, stand on the far wall.  If you have a mixed opinion, place yourself somewhere between them.”  The extremes standing near the walls are sometimes known as opposite poles, and what we are seeing today in America is often referred to as “increasing polarization.”  In other words, those people of mixed feelings standing between the extremes are fewer and fewer.  Worse still, instead of people at opposite ends trying to persuade each other, as is usually the case in the classroom activity, a great deal of creative energy is spent trying to keep people from even considering the possibility of modifying their opinions. This is not just my conclusion; it is the conclusion drawn from many surveys of American citizens.  Increasingly, a politician risks his or her career in public service by merely appearing to be open to listening to the thoughts of those who are of a different opinion.  And this, it seems to me, has made an endangered species of people who were once believed to be the heroes of American democracy.  These heroes were called statesmen, men and women able to get their peers to focus on what was best for all Americans by helping them appreciate the idea of “common good” and the need to move our country forward.  They found imperfect solutions, but they believed that partial solutions were better than no progress at all.  This was made possible by willingness to compromise, however painful that can sometimes be; and compromise requires, of course, that we listen to and take seriously what others have to say.  People have always had issues that were dear to them and on which they would not budge; I am not being critical of that.  But today, those non-negotiable issues have multiplied, it seems, to the point of producing what we call “gridlock” and pushing our would-be statesmen to the margins. This new reality is lamented daily throughout America and it is a result of compromise being out of the question.  This harms us; it diminishes us.  It stymies the progress of our nation and makes us weaker and less noble, and I hope you agree with me that it has to stop.  More specifically for my purposes tonight, you have to stop it.  And so your homework assignment, LHS Class of 2012, which is so easy to state, is to join every other American high school’s Class of 2012 and help our country find a solution.  And while this assignment lacks an exact due date, it will take time, so you must get started now, or at least as soon as your relatives go home.  I know that it is a responsibility that falls on all of us but, let’s face it, you’ll have way more time than the guy who was a second grader fifty years ago.  To help you get started, I offer a few suggestions which I hope you consider:

Register to vote, if you haven’t already, and vote in every single election you can.  It is a precious right, and one for which people are likely dying somewhere in the world as I am speaking to you.  Free and open elections provide us with at least the possibility of ensuring statesmanship in our elected officials, but only if we show up. I also doubt there is a better way to say thank you to our military veterans.  Our elections are usually held close to Veterans’ Day.  Let that make clear to you the connection between what veterans did for us and why they did it.

Educate yourselves on the beliefs and public records of each candidate.  Then vote only for people who seem genuinely interested in what is best for all of us, rather than just a select group of supporters.  If it becomes clear that you were mistaken, vote them out next time.

Try never to vote for anyone based solely on the letter in parentheses that follows the name on the ballot.  Making assumptions about a candidate’s philosophy based entirely on that “D”, “R”, “I”, or any other letter is a type of prejudgment which America can not afford. You may choose all candidates of a particular party; that is up to you.  But educate yourselves so that you don’t feel the need to rely solely on that designation.

At least once a week, try to access opinions on a subject of national importance from several sources.  Vary your sources, but make sure that some of these are ones with which you will almost certainly disagree.  These opinions will not be difficult to find. If you speak with, listen to, or read only those people with whom you agree, you may just be talking to the three other men who examined the elephant’s legs.

Related to the last point, share your political opinions, but listen more.  You already know what you think.  After, reflect on your own opinion.  What you have heard might cause you to change your mind a bit, or it may make you hold your opinion more strongly.  If you find that you do each of those regularly, please consider running for political office.  It is striking to me that if, say, a senator changes his or her mind based on experience, it is seen as a sign of weakness.  Why?  In education, we call observable changes in behavior due to experience “learning.”

When you are bored in public and conditions are safe, pay more attention to human beings than Angry Birds.  I don’t believe I have ever been in a long line at the DMV without someone trying to strike up a conversation with me.  I learn a great deal about other people, their needs, and how they think simply because I am willing to.  Doing such things habitually will prove helpful in many careers (it certainly has in mine), but it is absolutely essential as you mold yourselves into states-men and -women.

Now all of the above, I know, is only a scratching of the surface.  Use your ability to think critically; accept or reject what I’ve said here today based solely on its merits, not because it was I who said it, or because your friends all agree, or a because a loud, confident radio host says so repeatedly, or because of a need to feel part of a group.  Read, think, listen, reflect, and change your opinion when it seems reasonable to do so.  As the poet Taylor Mali famously wrote, “A mind is like a parachute; it functions only when it is open.” I know that keeping an open mind is difficult, especially when all around you are voices trying to close it.  But this business of American democracy, of responsible citizenship, is hard work, and it won’t get any easier.  But I urge you to make it a labor of love, and to feel blessed by your employment in it. 

And so, again, my young friends, you have your assignment.  You may begin.

Click here for the speeches by , , and  .