What is going on with commencement speeches this graduation season?
The ritual of delivering an address to graduates dates back to the 17th century. I’ve studied them for years. I’ve even written a couple. Their reputation for originality and effectiveness is mixed, but they’re largely non-controversial and occasionally even quickly forgotten.
This graduation season is new territory. I have never seen an audience boo a commencement speaker. This year, though? It’s happened several times. And from the coverage I’ve seen, each incident has one thing in common: Artificial Intelligence.
In the absence of full transcripts (I looked), this NPR article provides a round up of the “greatest hits”. Honestly, I am baffled by the choices these speakers made. We all know the general mission statement of a commencement address, right?
But some of them almost seemed singularly focused on broaching the subject of AI without any regard for context.
My personal favorite? Big Machine Records CEO Scott Borschetta, responding to boos: “Deal with it… It’s a tool. Make it work for you… You can hear me now or pay me later.”
Their reaction may be rude, but it’s not difficult to see why the audience responded this way. One poll shows that 89% of graduates fear AI taking entry-level jobs. And that poll was preceded by a chorus of headlines about the uniquely challenging job market for new college graduates.
I think it comes down to empathy. I talked about this with 33 Conversations host Michael Abney in an episode recorded before commencement address season. In that discussion, we talked about the empathy element.
My experience has been that there is a “push and pull” dynamic in play. Executives and experts understandably need to project and protect a sense of authority. It’s key to credibly packaging and presenting your expertise. However, the side effect of that is sometimes giving up the ability to fully meet the audience where they are.
So why does this keep happening?
Not all audiences and speakers are the same. But the profound mismatch between how the speaker views AI and how their audience views AI is constant. That is an enormous liability in communications and public speaking - theirs and potentially yours.
What fixes it is not a rewrite of either side’s perspective. You certainly can’t rewrite the audience’s POV, and you shouldn’t rewrite yours.
What does help? Proper framing. It would have been so much better to meet the audience where they are. I actually believe Schmidt came the closest when he offered: “The question is not whether AI will shape the world. It will.”
That left the door open for so many possibilities: choosing to inspire, for example. He could have offered his take and why he believes that human intelligence is irreplaceable. Alternatively, he could have given a warning paired with advice on how to navigate enormous challenges.
Instead he followed up with: “The question is whether you will help shape artificial intelligence.” That sounds like these fearful graduates will be in servitude to AI - whether they like it or not.
In fairness, I don’t know what came after that, but I can be reasonably sure that’s all the graduates heard. And often that’s all that matters.
Wherever you’re speaking at commencement or one-on-one, if there’s a gap between your expertise and your audience’s lived experience, it can be bridged with empathy.
Note: This post was adapted from my newsletter, Content Insights. Subscribe here.