Staff Editorial: Some speakers fall short of potential

Gray Collins ’25

Due to the extraordinary generosity of alumni endowments, we have the immense privilege to listen to various guest speakers throughout the year. From lectures on American history to STEM talks, EA students get the unique opportunity to hear from a broad range of professors, authors, and other intellectuals and learn from their perspectives and experiences. However, a small number of these speakers fall well short of the standard expected by students, teachers, alumni, and our broader Episcopal community.

On balance, the informative and inspirational lectures still far outweigh the poor showings. To give a glimpse of the immense potential realized by many of our speakers, I would like to shout out a few exemplary talks from the past couple of years.

Last year, the Walter W. Buckley Jr. ’55 American History Lecture Series brought in Annette Gordon-Reed, a Harvard professor. A decorated author and one of the country’s preeminent historians, she won the Pulitzer Prize for History and the National Book Award for Nonfiction for her work The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family. The topic of her speech, the relationship between founding father Thomas Jefferson and enslaved laborer Sally Hemings, was previewed in US history courses the prior week, providing students with the context necessary to understand Professor Gordon-Reed’s groundbreaking research. Furthermore, her public speaking skills made the information easy to follow, likely a result of her many years as a college professor. Lastly, students selected by the history department were able to ask questions and discuss topics with Professor Gordon-Reed, as she was open to inquiries and passionate about spreading her knowledge to students.

In 2022, Danielle Feinberg, a visual effects supervisor for Pixar Animation Studios, came to campus as part of the Clare Foundation STEM Speaker Series. She was able to seamlessly weave complex computer science techniques with her own journey as a female in the male-dominated STEM world. Her description of building the forest floor in Brave (2012) and the Land of the Dead in Coco (2017) combined advanced mathematics with her emotional and artistic vision, giving EA students with vastly different interests something to learn. Feinberg also gave a TED Talk with over 3 million views (“The magic ingredient that brings Pixar movies to life”) on a similar topic, further demonstrating her engaging speaking style and highlighting the incredible opportunity that EA students received by having her speak.

These two speakers sparked curiosity in many students and certainly fulfilled all of what a lecture at EA should be: engaging, informative, and meaningful. Unfortunately, a minority of speeches have not lived up to those expectations. The concerns from students and teachers about certain speeches mostly fall into two camps: topic and presentation.

First, the STEM speaker who talked about the Girls Auto Clinic last year is one example of the poor topic choices that harm many speakers. Two current seniors specifically mentioned that the speech, which highlighted the nail salon in the auto body shop and did not address any scientific concepts, reinforced negative stereotypes about women and was largely irrelevant to any classroom studies or future STEM careers. Additionally, many students found a 2022 speech about “e-history” subpar because the only goal of the talk seemed to be selling the author’s latest book instead of exciting students about a new topic. In my experience, students love when topics are relevant to their future lives, informative, and motivated by genuine interest.

Next, lecturers too often come to campus without a definitive script, visual aid, or firm idea of what they will say. The clearest example of this was at the end of November when many students came away from a speaker disappointed and even angry. My peers expressed disappointment because when a student gives a chapel speech, they are expected to turn in a well-written and practiced speech to Father Gavin ahead of time. Yet, the speaker mentioned that they were unsure what to talk about the night before. Additionally, the presentation did not explain what cleft palate is, a key point to mention for a speech centered around that condition. Further, a teacher pointed out that no specific script was used, and the slideshow was implemented in a confusing manner (over seven minutes passed before we reached the second slide).

As a result of the shortcomings, during one of these rare poor speeches, you can look around the Chapel and see students dozing off or whispering their critiques to one another. In the class after the talk, teachers will tacitly show agreement with student opinions about the wasting of an activity block or improper use of generous alumni donations. 

One factor explaining this sentiment is that the decision to bring in a speaker is made largely outside the Upper School building. According to multiple faculty members, most selections are determined by a combination of the donor, alumni office, institutional advancement office, related department chair, and the broader administration. One teacher pointed out that each party may have a different motivation for bringing in a speaker based on the unique goals of their office. For instance, the alumni and advancement offices are likely obligated to bring in speakers that will satisfy alumni and lead to future gifts, while the administration may want to increase the perceived prestige of the school. Depending on the terms and context of the endowed speaker series, one of these perspectives holds the most sway. However, the perspectives of the two largest stakeholders in the speeches and presentations at EA, the student body and the teachers, are largely not considered in this process.

In researching this article, I spoke with the Senior and Accounting Wardens of the Vestry, leaders of the Young Democrats, Political Solutions, Coding, Classics, and PJAS clubs, as well as dozens of other students from across the Upper School. None had ever been asked for input on what speakers should come to school. Additionally, no teachers I talked with had been asked for their views on potential lecturers.

The good news, however, is that there is a clear course of action to improve the speakers at Episcopal. First, we need to recognize our immense privilege in having speakers at all and celebrate the fact that the good talks (which make up a large majority) are among the most illuminating and motivating experiences we have at EA. Second, the existence of a problem with a minority of speakers must be acknowledged by those with the power to make a difference. Third, genuine consideration should be given to student and faculty voices in the selection process, not a new meaningless survey or ineffective community discussion. Lastly, we should outline clear expectations to the lecturers for what it means to speak in our Chapel space and look over their prepared remarks if possible.

I truly believe that if these concerns, which are shared by a significant portion of the teachers and student body, are heard and acted upon, it will go a long way in making an already great program better. We have seen the incredible potential of speakers through the likes of Annette Gordon-Reed and Danielle Feinberg, we have amazing resources at our school due to our outstanding alumni, and the Episcopal community is eager to help tackle this issue. Why shouldn’t we work together to make speakers at EA better for everyone involved?