Geography Commencement 2008
The commencement ceremony for the Class of 2008 was held on Saturday, May 17, in the Zellerbach Playhouse.

Pictures: page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Return to Commencement 2008 Main Page

Keynote Address: -Professor Harley Shaiken 17 May 2008

Let me start with the warmest of congratulations to parents, relatives, friends and especially our graduates. What a special day, what a joyous occasion, what an important transition. For our graduates, today marks the end of your time at Berkeley and the beginning of what we hope will be new, exciting challenges. Unlike the advertising slogan for Las Vegas, what happens at Berkeley doesn’t have to stay in Berkeley. We hope what you’ve learned here and what you’ve done here guide you far into the future. I was once told before giving a graduation talk that if I couldn’t achieve the eloquence of Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address, at least I should aim for his brevity. This year the Berkeley geography department is 110 years old. This discipline, born in the nineteenth century, provides a unique window for the twenty first century. The breath of geography ranges from exploring linked systems of the natural environment to examining the location and spaces in which people live and work. This department provides its own special touch. The ideas are cutting edge, the debate engaged, the scholarship world-renowned. Research interests range from Nigeria to Guatemala, from Antarctica to China, from South Africa to California, from social theory to climatology. This afternoon I’d like to touch on two themes and then weave them together: politics and globalization. We could be at the edge of important changes in both areas. This memorable day for everyone here is part of a defining historical moment our country is living through. We are in the midst of a hard fought, increasingly bitter presidential election that will shape future directions of the U.S. and will have an outsize influence on what happens in the world. A front page article in the Washington Post this week underscored some dismal news: Americans are gloomier about the country’s future than they have been in 15 years; more than 8 in 10 people feel we are headed in the wrong direction. Those of you graduating today will play a central role in forging new directions. Many of you are part of what has been called the millennial generation, broadly speaking a group of about 80 to 95 million people who were born in the 1980s and 1990s. A new study by the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C think tank, has concluded what you may have been telling your parents for years now that the “views [of millennials] are more progressive than those of other age groups today.” What does this mean? According to the report, you “believe that the government can be a force for good in the economy, and that increased investments in healthcare, education, and other areas are necessary to ensure strong and sustainable economic growth.” Chris Edley, the dean of the Berkeley Law School, points out that “the inbox awaiting the next president of the United States, is unbelievably scary.” He should know because he has helped manage two presidential transitions, Carter in 1977 and Clinton in 1992. He points out that the new president will have the time and political capital to deal with perhaps five large issues. His top choices are: 1) the economy, 2)Iraq and war, 3)terrorism and homeland security, 4)energy and the environment; and 5) healthcare. You might challenge the order or even what’s on the list but the limited number of big issues a new president will be able to deal with is a powerful constraint. The larger issue of globalization—particularly the ways in which the U.S. engages with the world—is central to geography as a discipline and underlies several topics that are or should be on the list. I would like to look at one dimension of globalization: trade. Last year global trade amounted to over $10 trillion, approaching the size of the US economy. Trade offers us choices with remarkably different consequences. Trade can be a force for development or exacerbate highly polarized economies. Trade can raise the living standards of millions or it can enrich the narrowest of elites at the expense of millions. Trade can lay the basis for a sustainable environment or fuel an irreversible and catastrophic global warming. If trade offers choices, politics determines the selection. The debate over trade is almost always portrayed as a struggle between the enlightened forces of free trade and the dark forces of protectionism. This framework is compelling but absolutely wrong. The real issue is how we manage trade and who wins or loses as a result. The flashpoint in the US debate is the issue of labor and environmental standards. Not superimposing US standards on other countries but rather insuring that basic rights for workers are respected and that the environment is a beneficiary not a casualty of growth. Labor rights have ignited a fierce debate over a trade agreement between the U.S. and Colombia that has been much in the news lately. Last month President Bush sent it to congress, congress voted to delay consideration. It will likely be dealt with under the new president’s watch. US trade with Colombia is small, only about $18 billion a year. Yet, the precedent this agreement sets is very large, it will determine how the US integrates with the world. Colombia has had a dismal record on worker rights. Last year more trade unionists were murdered in Colombia than in the rest of the world combined. Over 400 trade unionists have been killed since President Alvaro Uribe took office in 2002, 18 so far this year alone. Proponents of the agreement argue that the number of murders has declined sharply. This is welcome news but the climate of impunity prevails: almost no one has been brought to justice for these killings. Most critics of this agreement favor expanding trade but argue that the point of maximum leverage is prior to signing an agreement, not after. The Colombian government’s inability or unwillingness to address the issue of impunity for these murders insures that ratifying an agreement locks in the status quo. In a highly integrated world, if workers lose rights in Medellin, workers will feel the pressure in Stockton, CA. If a climate of fear pervades labor in Bogota, it will be felt in Santiago, Chile or Durbin, South Africa. To insist that labor protections are at the core of a trade agenda makes economic sense because markets grow as people earn more and enter the middle class; it makes political sense because unions provide checks and balances essential to a democracy; it makes moral sense because trade becomes a force to insure human rights rather than diminish them. As we leave here today, I have little doubt some of you will do great things in the world that are highly visible; others will do equally great things known to a small circle. Whether you become an academic or an entrepreneur, a scholar or an organizer, you will be citizens, many in the United States, some elsewhere in the world, all citizens of the world. The role of scholar and citizen ought not to be separate; our values inform who we are and what we do. Your values, ideas, integrity, and courage can make history; they can change the world. Over these last years, we hope we have helped you develop the tools to understand the world we are all a part of. The Department of Geography has been a special place to embark on this journey in large part because of you. We have often had the illusion that we are teaching you but the reality is we have truly learned from each other. Your questions have challenged us, your creativity has humbled us, your persistence has at times aggravated us, but at the end of the day your idealism has inspired us. We have been privileged to be part of a community together. Let me conclude by returning to Abraham Lincoln and paraphrasing a famed line from the Gettysburg Address. “The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but we hope it will never forget what you do when you leave here.”