Party on, America
Ceremonies are important, even during economic crises
Adam Roberts
Issue date: 1/26/09 Section: Opinion
Usually when an American university gets a new chancellor, it celebrates with an induction ceremony. But instead of having an inauguration, Chancellor G. David Gearhart is forgoing tradition and using the $50,000 to give scholarships to 50 students.
It's hard to argue with his logic. It clearly shows he really is committed to putting "students first," and I'm sure the money will be an enormous help.
But I'm not sure it's the right decision.
President Barack Obama's inauguration last week was the costliest in history - an estimated $170 million, including security. Dressing your wife in designer clothing and taking her to lavish balls wouldn't seem like the right message to send in a time of economic hardship, but I didn't hear anyone complaining.
Canceling the inauguration ceremonies would have robbed Americans of a unique, historic moment. The country wanted to celebrate our new president, and it was money well spent.
Vanity Fair is on the same page as Gearhart. The magazine traditionally hosts the most famous post-Oscars party but has announced that it'll be offering a scaled-back version this year in response to the state of the economy. It'll even be "recycling decor" to save money.
Of course, the Academy Awards themselves will continue as planned in all their extravagant glory. The ceremonies alone cost more than $30 million - and let's not even try to think about the red-carpet fashion.
From a strict utilitarian standpoint, it would make sense to cancel the Oscars and give the money to a scholarship fund or to some anti-hunger projects. More than a million Americans lost their jobs in 2008 - they might be able to put that money to some use. Many people are asking if glamorous events like the Academy Awards are tasteful at all when so many poor Americans are suffering.
It's a good point, but this sort of thinking misses something.
After the 9/11 attacks, people questioned whether it was appropriate to have the Oscars. Nicole Kidman addressed that question in her acceptance speech.
It's hard to argue with his logic. It clearly shows he really is committed to putting "students first," and I'm sure the money will be an enormous help.
But I'm not sure it's the right decision.
President Barack Obama's inauguration last week was the costliest in history - an estimated $170 million, including security. Dressing your wife in designer clothing and taking her to lavish balls wouldn't seem like the right message to send in a time of economic hardship, but I didn't hear anyone complaining.
Canceling the inauguration ceremonies would have robbed Americans of a unique, historic moment. The country wanted to celebrate our new president, and it was money well spent.
Vanity Fair is on the same page as Gearhart. The magazine traditionally hosts the most famous post-Oscars party but has announced that it'll be offering a scaled-back version this year in response to the state of the economy. It'll even be "recycling decor" to save money.
Of course, the Academy Awards themselves will continue as planned in all their extravagant glory. The ceremonies alone cost more than $30 million - and let's not even try to think about the red-carpet fashion.
From a strict utilitarian standpoint, it would make sense to cancel the Oscars and give the money to a scholarship fund or to some anti-hunger projects. More than a million Americans lost their jobs in 2008 - they might be able to put that money to some use. Many people are asking if glamorous events like the Academy Awards are tasteful at all when so many poor Americans are suffering.
It's a good point, but this sort of thinking misses something.
After the 9/11 attacks, people questioned whether it was appropriate to have the Oscars. Nicole Kidman addressed that question in her acceptance speech.
Be the first to comment on this story