Donald Trump's Iranian Bombing Speech: Whom Should We Believe?

“There has never been a military,” boasted United States President Donald Trump, “that could do what took place just a little while ago.” Trump made this statement on June 21 after a group of United States Air Force aircraft and United States Navy vessels bombed Iran to destroy its nuclear enrichment program. Trump defended his action in a televised speech. He promised to attack Iran again if that nation failed to comply with his demands. Force majeure.

Few major speeches have relied as much on the speaker’s credibility as this one. Trump presented almost no evidence to prove that Iran either had or was developing nuclear weapons. If we trust Trump, we might believe him. Do we trust Trump, or the experts? Do we trust Trump to have gathered accurate information? Do we think that competent people surround him?

To be specific, Trump’s key statements offered no evidence whatsoever to support his claims:

“A short time ago, the U.S. military carried out massive, precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime. Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan. Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise.

“Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.”

In this case, any evidence about Iran’s nuclear program is mired in the mysteries of international espionage. This situation differs from, for example, President Franklin Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor speech, when Japan had openly attacked an American naval base. Trump’s speech also diverges from the argument that, “we should trust the president because he has all of the intelligence information.” This was not a unanimous decision. Individuals with knowledge of the situation spoke against the attack. No, the audience response to this speech depends entirely on whether they consider the speaker to be personally credible.

What was missing from Trump’s brief speech? Evidence! He cited no intelligence reports. He quoted no nuclear warfare experts. He gave no facts and figures. Saying “Everybody heard those names” does not count as proof. Since the speech included no facts or evidence to prove that Iran was about to produce nuclear weapons, Trump implicitly asked the nation – and the world – to accept his views purely on trust.

But what about the experts that Trump did not cite? What did they think? In contrast to Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, the president’s chief national security officer, had earlier stated that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons. The joint assessments of the nation’s national security apparatus presumably led her to that conclusion.

Disbelieving Gabbard’s views, Trump told reporters that, “I don’t care what she said.” More to the point, Gabbard was excluded from the final meetings where Trump and his other top advisers agreed to launch the attack. Perhaps bowing to pressure, Gabbard later backtracked. Quite odd. 

As a former college debater, I spent most of my academic career teaching classes in debate and public speaking. I was trained to debate with evidence and reasoning. Yet, Trump’s speech notably contained no evidence. Not bad evidence - no evidence. Can such a speech persuade people? Of course it can! Public speaking teachers from the ancient Greeks and up to the present have noted that the speaker’s credibility is the greatest persuasive factor. An important research article by my late professor and mentor Kenneth Andersen and his colleague, Theodore Clevenger, Jr., showed that credibility is a function of how the audience perceives the speaker’s expertise, goodwill, and dynamism.

With that in mind, despite my mistrust of Gabbard’s personal motives, I, for one, am somewhat more inclined to trust the intelligence establishment than political leaders. It would be valuable to hear directly from, for example, the CIA’s professional Iran specialists.

Let’s look at some examples. From the Vietnam escalation (the Gulf of Tonkin clash), to the Iraq war (did Iraq actually have chemical weapons? None were found), and on to the present, the United States' leaders have too often let political expediency overcome facts. Trump’s terrible record among fact checkers reinforces my mistrust. (As of this morning, PolitFact has rated hundreds of Trump’s statements, with a summary of 3% True, 7% Untrue, 11% Half True, 19% Mostly False, 39% False, and a stunning 18% Pants on Fire.) Thus, more than half of the statements that PolitiFact checked were untrue. That is bad even for a politician.) Of course, conservatives who think that fact checkers are left-wing Marxist stooges will care little about a fact-checkers' statistics. 

So, let us continue with Andersen and Clevenger’s theory. PolitFact leads me to doubt Trump’s expertise and good will. His enthusiastic speaking style, however, surely helps his uncritical target audience find him credible. Although Trump presented no evidence, perhaps his skillful identification with conservative voters leads them to trust him. Average Americans (like me) have no direct access to the nation’s intelligence findings; therefore, we find ourselves wallowing in a game of trust or mistrust. Truth or Dare. No, I do not trust the Iranian government. But can we trust the American president?

We Americans, and the world at large, find ourselves evaluating this momentous occasion according to our personal, subjective evaluations of President Trump’s credibility: our own judgment of his expertise, goodwill, and dynamism. Trump left us unaided by any of the evidence that he, unfortunately, failed to cite.

Maybe Trump figured that he did not need to prove his points. Plenty of Americans trust him implicitly Furthermore, basic wartime psychology will lead many Americans to support the decision to bomb Iran. Still, I wish that Trump had stated his proof. Perhaps he had no proof to state. Maybe the bombing raid and subsequent speech were merely a political ploy to distract the public from recent controversies about immigration or Trump’s infamous military parade. Maybe Trump has prevented World War III. Maybe he has triggered World War III. Who knows? The inexorable march of history will eventually judge who was right.

by William D. Harpine   

__________

Research Note: I didn’t only teach public speaking. Priding myself on being a communication generalist, I also spent several years teaching college classes about group discussion and group decision-making. The most basic principles of effective group decision-making are to solicit opinions from all viewpoints, to welcome dissent, and to give special attention to people with whom we disagree. If we suppress dissent, we often suppress truths. One-sided discussions are bad discussions. That is well proven. Now, pundits often ream social scientists for offering uncertain, inconsistent, or poorly proven conclusions. In contrast, the evidence about how to conduct effective group decision-making has been thoroughly established. In Trump's case, certainly, members of the professional intelligence community needed to be involved.

Readers who want to learn more about the decision-making processes that lead to the often-unwise decisions to start wars might look at these two classic books:

Why Nations Go to War, by John G. Stoessinger

Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, by Irving Janis

Or, for that matter, any college textbook about group discussion or group psychology.

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain

Barack Obama's Father's Day Advice

Barack Obama

In his lengthy 2008 Father’s Day speech, President Barack Obama offered much wise advice, some of it pointed, to the nation’s fathers. As a wise speaker, however, Obama remembered to look at the big picture. A wise speaker on a ceremonial occasion always looks beyond the immediate event. So, what struck me the most is the way Obama reminded his audience – his true audience was the entire nation – his message was that our main duty as fathers is to provide a better world for our children:

“And what I’ve realized is that life doesn’t count for much unless you’re willing to do your small part to leave our children — all of our children — a better world. Even if it’s difficult. Even if the work seems great. Even if we don’t get very far in our lifetime.”

Can we think about that on Father’s Day? What things can we do, maybe small things, to make life better for the next generation? Certainly, my mother’s father thought hard about that – as an immigrant who never learned much English, he sweated away in a steel mill so that his children and grandchildren could become engineers, soldiers, lawyers, and college professors. He helped make America great. My own father thought about the future as he volunteered to provide legal services for elderly people who had been cheated out of their Social Security benefits. Let us all try to make the world a little bit better place.

Happy Father’s Day. Congratulations and thanks to dads all over the land. 

by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain

Copyright @  2025 by William D. Harpine  

 

Abraham Lincoln Raised The Flag: A Speech of Principle. A Speech for the Ages

Lincoln at Independence Hall

Liberty and justice for all. Those stirring words conclude the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Today, on Flag Day, June 14, 2025, some Americans celebrated by watching President Donald Trump’s massive military parade in Washington, DC, while others participated in thousands of No King demonstrations that protested Trump’s executive orders and aggressive anti-immigrant policies. Still, Abraham Lincoln, speaking off the cuff, gave the greatest of all speeches about the American Flag. He called the nation to unite on our founding principle: the principle of liberty. He spoke at Independence Hall in Philadelphia as the new flag, with a new star for just-admitted Kansas, made its formal first appearance. 

Let us, then, look into history, not to current events. to understand our conflicts and our hopes. In his speech about the American Flag, Lincoln urged the nation toward unity in the face of impending disaster. Can we learn his wise lesson? Or are we doomed to repeat bitter history? For, while facing an oncoming struggle, Lincoln resorted, not to the nuts and bolts of picayune policy discourse, but instead to the higher principle of liberty. In Lincoln’s speech, a higher principle bound the United States. That principle created the nation, and, Lincoln hoped, that principle would hold the nation together.

Liberty Bell, Independence Hall

Conflict, indeed, is nothing new. When Lincoln, who had just been elected president but not yet inaugurated, helped raise the United States Flag on February 22, 1861, he urged unity in the face of division. 

As the United States faces conflict and hostility today between opposing factions, we stand in a hard tradition. For, less than two months after the speech, the South Carolina militia attacked Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, and the Civil War began. Before the war ended, more Americans would die than in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm added together.

In his speech, Lincoln stood, not on factions, but on historical principle:

“I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.”

Indeed, reflecting on the United States’ long endurance as a united republic, Lincoln looked, not to the clutches of circumstance, but to a great moral principle: the principle of liberty:

“I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time.”

Liberty. Lincoln did not speak for the liberty of the fortunate, but for the liberty of all. Lincoln talked about how American liberty promised freedom and justice for everyone, for eternity. Noble words. Have we forgotten them?

“It was that which gave promise,” Lincoln asserted, that, in the passage of time, lift a great “weight,” not just from Americans, but also “from the shoulders of all.”

Lincoln again stressed the great principle of liberty. He emphasized that the Declaration of Independence, United States of America’s founding document, rested on principle, and that principle gave Lincoln hope:

“This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world, if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful.”

Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”

One Searing Phrase: Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” Speech

Yes, history does show that the consequences turned out to be awful – beyond awful. All the same, Lincoln made that principle – the principle of liberty – his guiding light above all political decisions:

“But if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it.”

Consider the questions that Lincoln did not ask. Points of economic and political disagreement? How to improve the economy? Lincoln didn’t ask those questions. He asked no questions about political patrons, nor did he say an evil word against his opponents. His simple question was whether we could unite on the great principle of liberty. In fact, his greater question was whether all people throughout time could enjoy liberty. 

Do similar issues face us today? In Lincoln’s time, the southern states considered liberty to be a God-given right of White men, while Black men and women could be held in forced labor and cruel chattel bondage. Today, we are debating about the freedom and liberty of those who wish to immigrate to the land of the free, making their homes here. In 1861, southern leaders felt that freedom for slaves was just as absurd as a plan to make the moon stop rotating around the earth. In 2025, the very concept of freedom for immigrants strikes horror into the hearts of Trump and his supporters. So, have we really changed? Have we changed enough?

Lincoln was not our greatest president because he won a war or because he preserved the union. No, he was our greatest president because he reminded us, with wisdom and eloquence that no other leader could match, that the United States is a nation of principle. Let us never forget. Our guiding principle is neither liberalism nor conservativism, neither tradition or progress. No! That great principle, liberty, created our nation, and only liberty can preserve us.

 Liberty for everyone, liberty for all time. American liberty as a shining example to spread across the earth. A great principle. A great, idealistic, and stunningly ambitious theme. A theme so idealistic that we can hardly grasp it.

Abraham Lincoln was our greatest president. Let us never forget, however, that Abraham Lincoln was, by far, also our most contentious and divisive president. His election prompted a great civil war which, by the time it ended, had cost almost every family in the land a husband, brother, son, or dear one. Only by massive bloodshed was the horrifying injustice of slavery ended. Only after terrible bloodshed could the former slaves enjoy even any hope that they, too, might receive liberty and its blessings.  

In this great speech, Lincoln taught the only lesson we will ever need for Flag Day: Liberty and justice for all. 

by William D. Harpine

__________

Research Note: The great conservative rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver wrote brilliantly about Lincoln’s commitment to principle and enduring truths. In that sense, Weaver insists, Lincoln was a true conservative. Lincoln was a true conservative because, instead of dwelling on immediate circumstances, Lincoln always looked to the higher values. In this speech, Lincoln drew his values from the tradition of the Declaration of Independence. Weaver’s most important book, The Ethics of Rhetoric, should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand the powers of speech.

Copyright @ by William D. Harpine

Image: Photo by Frederick De Bourg Richards, public domain, Library of Congress, via Wikimedia

Commons

Photo of Liberty Bell by William Harpine, copyright @ by William D. Harpine

Simple Steps to a Healthy Art: A Cardiologist Shows How to Begin and End a Speech

Physician holding a heart

“It doesn’t have to be this way.”

So remarked cardiologist Robert Kelly in his TED Talk at the REDxTralee 2024 conference. While encouraging the audience to strive for a healthier lifestyle, Kelly illustrated how a speaker can involve the audience while driving home the speech’s main point.

Kelly began by engaging the audience to demonstrate their own vulnerability. He concluded his talk by giving the audience a simple action to begin their healthier lives. Problem, followed by solution, followed by the first healthy step.


Kelly's Introduction

Kelly involved his audience right away, giving them a practical experience to help them understand the danger of heart disease.

“Now, only if you are able, could I get you again to stand up, please? Brilliant.

“So, there are now about a hundred people looking at me somewhat worried. But for me, your hearts are pumping and you’re all alive. So, I’m going to ask 30 of you to sit down. Now, I have two assistants who are going to randomly pick out the 30, so don’t all sit down yet.”

That simple act of audience participation made the statistics come alive. We can hear public health officials warn us that “30% of Americans will die of heart disease.” But that is just a number! Kelly gave them the experience – he asked 30 people, chosen at random, to sit down. That kind of introduction makes an audience think. Makes an audience see the statistics as more than mere numbers on a spreadsheet.

Having started with a warning, that one-third of the audience might die of heart disease, Kelly gave them a path toward hope:

“And in fact, the great news is, if you follow the steps, it won’t be this way. And so, at this point, you can all sit down. And I’m going to share with you exactly why.”

Wanting the audience to feel positive, however, Kelly then told them that they did not have to suffer the fate of the 30 unfortunate heart patients, that there was hope, that there was a way out. He discussed stress reduction, healthy eating, relationship-building, and exercise.

Only then did Kelly introduce his solution:

“So, I’m here today as a cardiologist and as a health habits coach. And I want to encourage all of you to enjoy a long and a happy life by doing one small step for your heart health every day, starting right now today.”

“Today” was a nice touch, because right now is always the best time to do things, is it not?   

Then, during the bulk of his speech, Kelly advised his audience not to smoke, to reduce stress, to get some exercise, and to eat a more plant-based diet. The genius of his introduction is that he offered the crowd the chance to consider how lifestyle changes could help them. He gave the audience a chance to think past the platitudes. He brought heart health into their own personal experience.

Dr. Margaret Chan Organized Her Public Health Speech for Success

Joe Biden Organized His Holocaust Remembrance Day Speech to Place Values in Context

Kelly’s Conclusion

Unlike many perfectly capable speakers, Kelly did not end by listing points for the audience to memorize. Instead, he asked them to take one simple thing at a time. So, after describing the principles of heart-healthy living, Kelly asked them to take the first step – not all of the steps, just the first – which was to be grateful for what they already had:

“I want you to think of two things that you are most grateful for today. And it’s really important that you feel that gratitude of what that gratefulness is all about. And then you have to celebrate now. Show your high fives, or your thumbs up, or a big smile. I see lots of smiles. And maybe a few ‘yippees’ in the room. Very quiet room. Woo!”

By leading the audience to take one gentle first step, Kelly helped them work through the feeling that a massive lifestyle change imposes too great a burden. Instead, he asked them to take the first step. (Of course, once we take that first step, well, the second step, and the third, and the rest can fall into place, one by one.) Just one first step: 

“So this is one powerful small step that can dramatically improve your heart health. And that might save your life and the loads of people that you have around the room today.”

Final Thoughts

People pay the most attention at the beginning and end of the speech. We all know that. Kelly had begun his speech by offering the audience a personal experience. He ended by asking them to take one simple step. The audience responded. They even cheered a bit. What else could a speaker want?

In general, people learn according to what grabs their attention and relates to their own experience. They act when the action is simple, easy to understand, and easy to do. It helps if they can act right now! Kelly gave everyone a personal experience and one easy step to begin their future healthy lives. Great job! 

by William D. Harpine

______________

P.S. This speech stirred me, since I just got out of the heart hospital myself! It does all seem overwhelming. Terrifying. My idea that “it can’t happen to me” came crashing down. Years of hearing cardiologists telling me that all my test results were excellent vanished into a mist. Years of eating a sort-of-healthy diet turned out to be too little. But one step a day! Be grateful for my blessings and take one step at a time to live a healthier life. I am, after all, grateful beyond expression for my wife and family. Grateful that modern medicine lets me hope for many more years with them. What, dear readers, are you grateful for? 

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image by asawin (PxHere user), Creative Commons license

In Defense of International Students

 

The Earth Is Not Flat

My previous post praised Harvard University President Alan Garber's speech, which defended bringing international students to Harvard. Admitting international students was, he said, "as it should be." Let me take a moment to explain, from my personal experience, why he was so very right. It is not just that international students gain benefits for themselves. They also bring great benefits to their professors and classmates.

Previous Post: “False Conviction Saps True Potential.” Wise Words from Harvard’s President

As our ignorant, xenophobic president, Donald Trump, vigorously (and maybe illegally) suspends visas for Harvard's international students, he leads American education, and American life, down a dark, angry path.

As the White House announced his proclamation, Trump said:

“We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country. Harvard is very slow in the presentation of these documents, and probably for good reason!”

The legality of Trump's document request is highly suspicious under the 4th Amendment and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Those issues are before the courts. 

No, I never taught at Harvard. I happily spent my entire career teaching at excellent state universities. Yes, those universities recruited and admitted students from all over the world. I taught students from China, India, Europe, Russia, Central Africa, and Central America. From everywhere. I taught students who came to the United States to gain an international education. Some of them eventually became more prominent university professors than me.

Some of my students came to the United States to gain the benefits and prestige of an international education. Some came to escape certain torture and death if they returned to their home countries.

The international students were often among the most talented and industrious students in class. They were often inspiring. (I still fondly remember my foreign student who, distressed at receiving a B+ on one of his assignments, ran up to my desk in a panic: “Dr. Harpine! This has never happened to me before! How can I improve?” Of course he ended the semester with an A. With an attitude like that, how could he not?) My international students often conducted advanced research, sometimes, I am proud to say, under my supervision. Some of my international students eventually returned to their home countries, but many – maybe most – eventually settled in the United States and contributed, in their own way, to Making America Great.

Furthermore, my American-born students gained just as much, maybe more, as their international classmates. My American-born students attended class, participated in group projects, and made friends with students from all over the planet. The dedication that the international students showed was often inspiring. Many of them learned difficult subjects while studying in their second or third language.

It is one thing to learn about other cultures by reading anthropology textbooks. It is quite something else to become people's lifelong friends. It is quite something else to experience the humanity and personal qualities that international students shared with their American classmates. Maybe that is the outcome that Trump and his supporters fear the most. What do you think?

by William D. Harpine

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: NASA, public domain

“False Conviction Saps True Potential.” Wise Words from Harvard’s President

Harvard University's 2025 Commencement

“A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.” Proverbs 15:1KJB

Sometimes the gentlest words tell us the most. At Harvard University’s 2025 commencement, University President Alan Garber pointedly reminded students that they had been educated to avoid rigid thinking and ideological devotion. Indeed, he warned the crowd that we take a terrible risk if we grow too sure of our own wisdom. Not raising his voice, not naming names, and avoiding all hostility, Garber challenged the Trump administration, not on its policies, not even on its rhetoric, but on its underlying philosophy (or lack thereof).

Garber defended Harvard University at the same time, and with the same words, that he used to give wise, gentle advice to the newly-minted scholars. On the one hand, commencement speakers want to honor the graduates and offer advice. Garber did that. Still, on the other hand, the United States government has lashed out at Harvard University for political reasons that strike against the school’s entire purpose. (Indeed, if we reject open inquiry and human community, we have rejected the concept of a university. After all, the word “university” comes from the idea of “universality.”) While Garber reminded everyone of the university's purpose, he also reminded the attendees, and the entire nation, that we all require human dignity, intellectual growth, and wisdom. He never needed to mention Donald Trump, for the context made his meaning obvious. 

So, Garber warned the graduates against complacent thinking:

“The world as it is tempts us with the lure of what one might generously call comfortable thinking, a habit of mind that readily convinces us of the merits of our own assumptions, the veracity of our own arguments, and the soundness of our own opinions, positions, and perspectives—so committed to our beliefs that we seek information that confirms them as we discredit evidence that refutes them.”

Anyone who watches Fox News or surfs through talk radio has heard willfully uninformed people spout absolute nonsense with complete self-confidence. Never mentioning those sources by name, Garber quietly rejected their underlying value:

“False conviction saps true potential.”

What a stunningly insightful axiom! For college graduates are potential in the making.


Trump's Attack on Harvard

Irked almost to the point of blind rage, President Donald Trump had placed severe restrictions on Harvard’s ability to recruit international students. Although a judge quickly ruled against Trump’s action, the shockwaves continued to roil the campus. In a sweeping, and possibly, illegal move, Trump canceled almost 1,000 research grants. Most of these were medical studies awarded by the National Institutes of Health. These included research into a TB vaccine, ALS treatments, and Alzheimer’s Disease. Trump justified the cuts by claiming that Harvard was “woke” (whatever that means) and falsely stating that many Harvard students were taking remedial math courses. (A glance at Harvard’s catalog shows that calculus is their lowest-level math course.) He accused Harvard of being antisemitic. (Garber himself is Jewish.) Harvard is reacting by suing the administration. 

Tom Hanks, Truth, and the American Way at Harvard University


What Is the Most Important Lesson University Students Can Learn?

Trump’s actions appear to arise from resentment rather than policy. Trump even canceled grants for artificial intelligence research, which is supposedly one of his priorities. The self-righteousness, the unwillingness to admit error, make it difficult for the Trump administration to see reason, much less to back down. Thus, Garber reminded the crowd that there are worse things than being wrong. He reminded them that it is only when we learn that we are wrong that we allow ourselves to grow, become better, learn new things, and have a better society. Learning, Garber insisted, requires us to take risks:

“Focused on satisfying a deep desire to be right, we can willingly lose that which is so often gained from being wrong—humility, empathy, generosity, insight—squandering opportunities to expand our thinking and to change our minds in the process.”

As Garber reminded the graduates, we too often require society to assure us that we are right.  We seek comfort and support, not wisdom, when we ask people to confirm everything we think.  That is a terrible mistake, for no one is always right. Instead, we must, Garber said, always be ready to revise our beliefs and move forward:

“My hope for you, members of the Class of 2025, is that you stay comfortable being uncomfortable.”

Garber did not urge the graduates to be self-confident. Instead, he urged them to live in intellectual discomfort, knowing that this is the path to personal growth.

Garber did not need to mention Trump. No one in the audience could possibly have missed his point. 


Should Harvard Welcome International Students?

Garber defended Harvard’s commendable practice of enrolling students from around the world. Yet, he made his point by implication. He never mentioned Trump. He did not complain about the government’s injustices. He did not refute Trump point by point. Argument and refutation would not suit the occasion.  Instead, Garber gently countered Trump's underlying values. That, in the long run, made a far more powerful argument. 

Tim Cook's Commencement Speech at Duke University - "Be the Last to Accept It"

Harvard has long enrolled foreign students, but it was no coincidence that Garber had specifically mentioned them at his speech’s outset. Not about to let a good point die out, Garber continued:

“Members of the Class of 2025 from down the street, across the country, and around the world.

“Around the world, just as it should be.”

Just as it should be! Instead of knuckling under to the Trump administration’s foolish idea that “America First” means “America Only,” Garber proudly stood by his worldwide values: “just as it should be.”

That is how Garber established his thesis, which was that true intellectuals never allow rigid, inflexible ideas to take over their lives. He stood up for America: not the America of Jim Crow, isolationism, or injustice, but the America that welcomes the free interchange of ideas, cultures, and people. Garber showed how to counter the false philosophy of fear and exclusion. Garber delivered a calm, gentle, and insightful speech for the ages. I hope that the graduates, who deserve our congratulations, remember his words forever. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Used by permission, courtesy of Harvard University