All the excitement about Mel Gibson's recent speech in Sanders Theatre last Tuesday saddens me. I cannot understand why so many supposedly intelligent Harvard students cared so much to see a man whose remarks contained not one whit of intellectual thought. As soon as I first read in The Crimson that Gibson would be coming to Harvard, I thought to myself, "What could Mel Gibson possibly have to say?" I tried to keep an open mind that he may have something to say of substance, but Gibson soon proved my fears to be totally correct.

First, I will admit right off that I did not go to Gibson's speech. However, after reading the Crimson article ("Gibson Gives Offbeat Speech," News, Nov. 13 1996) and talking to several friends, I think I have a pretty good idea of what went on. Gibson had no point to make, no themes to discuss and no message to send to the Harvard youths that could grow up to shape the world. Instead he was flippant and crass. He littered his speech with profanities that I don't need to quote here. Now, I don't mean to sound overly pious, but I believe that usually when a man must stoop to using profanities it is because he does not have the intelligence to express himself in any other way. Does Gibson not even have the least bit of decorum to restrain himself when speaking in such an atmosphere, to such an audience? Then Gibson rudely instructed an audience member to bring him coffee, and after seeing she was attractive, Gibson--a married man--asked her to bear his children. How insulting.

After the speech, I approached a friend of mine who had gone and asked him to tell me what had happened, prefacing my question by saying that I really wanted to know since I couldn't imagine anything worthwhile Gibson would have to say. My friend replied that because I was badgering him so much that Gibson was not intelligent, he would not tell me anything as my "punishment." When I asked another friend the same question, prefaced with the same remarks, she snapped, "Look, they asked him to come, so he came, that's all," thus admitting that he really didn't have much to say. Why are these people so defensive? I think it's because they know that Gibson's "speech" was a mockery of the Harvard tradition of the exercise of reason and intellect, but they don't want to admit that they were suckered into going. They know that the emperor wears no clothes.

The Crimson article mentioned that the audience was "predominantly female"; obviously a lot of women were drawn not by Gibson's intellect but his sex appeal. What's next? Will Pamela Anderson Lee be invited to talk about how grueling those "Baywatch" shoots are, so hundreds of Harvard's male under-graduates can ogle and drool? This is supposed to be Harvard University, the finest school in this hemisphere, if not the world. It has been host to many speakers of first-rate intellect who came to impart their knowledge and wisdom to the students. Mel Gibson doesn't belong here; he belongs in People magazine. Shame on the Graduate School of Education for bringing him here and wasting Harvard's precious resources. And shame on the students who went to see him and are embarrassed to admit that the emperor is wearing no clothes. --Justin Elliot Jones '97