SC State Students Said No To Racist Commencement Speaker
SCSU Students Said No To A Racist Politician For Commencement Speech
South Carolina State University did something that too many institutions in this political moment have been unwilling to do: it listened to its students.
The historically Black university invited South Carolina Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette to deliver its spring commencement address. Reporting now indicates that at least one member of the university’s Board of Trustees pushed President Alexander Conyers to extend the invitation, raising new questions about how and why the choice was made. Even Evette herself has said she didn’t understand why she was invited back in December because she was publicly anti-DEI then, and nothing about her positions has changed. In other words, none of this was unclear or newly discovered.
Students objected loudly and publicly. They organized, they spoke out, and they made it clear that handing the ceremonial mic to a lawmaker whose record they view as hostile to Black communities felt like a betrayal on what is supposed to be one of the most meaningful days of their lives. And in a rare show of responsiveness, the administration reversed course and withdrew the invitation, citing “safety concerns.”
These are Black students at a Black institution built precisely because Black people were excluded from white institutions. These graduates don’t want to look back and remember their commencement speaker was a racist white woman politician aligned with efforts to dismantle DEI, restrict how race is taught, and roll back the very kinds of protections and opportunities that made their education possible in the first place. Commencement is supposed to be a moment of affirmation, not contradiction. It’s a day where the institution reflects the dignity of the students it’s sending out into the world, not one that forces them to reconcile their achievement with a message that undercuts it.
In a rare show of responsiveness, the administration reversed course and withdrew the invitation. That decision absolutely matters at a time when colleges and universities across the country are bending themselves into ideological pretzels to avoid political backlash and protect state funding. In this case, South Carolina State chose to side with its students. It chose to recognize that commencement is not just a public relations opportunity or a bipartisan photo op, but as a sacred institutional ritual that should reflect the values, experiences, and dignity of the graduates themselves.
In an era when administrators are increasingly making decisions driven by legislative retaliation, budget cuts, and political targeting, South Carolina State demonstrated what institutional courage can look like. It reminded everyone that HBCUs, in particular, have a long history of being accountable to Black students first, not to the political whims of those who often misunderstand or openly antagonize them.
And now, right on schedule, comes the backlash.
Some South Carolina lawmakers are now pushing to strip funding from South Carolina State University altogether after it rescinded the invitation to Evette. This is not a call for review, dialogue, or oversight. It is a direct effort to use the state budget as a tool of punishment. According to reporting, a group of Republican lawmakers has urged that the university receive no state funding in the next budget cycle, escalating what began as a campus dispute into a high-stakes political confrontation.
The message behind that move is unmistakable. Institutions that make decisions out of alignment with the political preferences of those in power risk financial retaliation. In this case, a student-led protest and an administrative response have been reframed as institutional defiance, and the proposed consequence threatens the resources that sustain the university’s operations, programs and long-term stability.
This kind of response is not simply reactive. It is strategic and transforms a localized disagreement into a broader warning to other public institutions. It signals that autonomy has limits and that those limits are enforced through funding. When lawmakers move this quickly from disagreement to defunding threats, they are not just addressing one decision. They are attempting to shape how universities behave going forward.
For HBCUs, the stakes are even higher. These institutions often rely more heavily on state funding while simultaneously serving student populations that are directly impacted by the very policies being debated. That creates a constant tension between institutional mission and financial vulnerability. When funding is used as leverage in this way, it forces administrations to weigh not only what is best for their students, but what they can afford to defend.
Even if the invitation to Evette wasn’t malicious, it was predictably combustible. Anyone familiar with HBCU campus culture and the current political climate could have anticipated the response. Students at these institutions have always been politically aware, historically grounded, and deeply protective of their space. The idea that they would quietly sit through that choice was never realistic.
So the question isn’t simply “who in the administration would do this?” It’s: what priorities were they operating under? Was this about maintaining proximity to power? Was this about signaling political neutrality in a moment that doesn’t allow for it? Was it about protecting future funding relationships? Or, was it about assuming students would fall in line for the sake of ceremony?
Those are the questions that matter. Because this wasn’t just a bad call. It was a decision shaped by the same pressures that are distorting higher education nationwide. What happened at South Carolina State doesn’t have to be a conspiracy to function like a setup. In the current political climate, all it takes is a predictable flashpoint and a political apparatus ready to weaponize the response. Invite a polarizing figure. Wait for students to respond. Then use that response as justification for calls to defund.
We’ve seen variations of this strategy play out across the country. State legislatures are passing sweeping anti-DEI laws that force universities into compliance or risk losing funding. Governors are targeting institutions for perceived ideological nonconformity. Boards of trustees reshaped to align with political agendas. Public universities are being pressured to eliminate programs, silence faculty, or rewrite curricula to avoid controversy.
HBCUs sit in a particularly precarious position within this ecosystem because they rely heavily on state funding. Yet their mission, which is educating, affirming, and centering Black students, often places them at odds with the very political forces that control their budgets. That tension is not new, but it is intensifying. And moments like this one become opportunities for those forces to test how much control they can exert.
That’s why this story matters beyond a single commencement speaker. It reveals how easily administrative decision-making, especially when shaped by political pressure, can create openings for external actors to step in and punish institutions. It shows how quickly student voice can be reframed as institutional failure. And it underscores how fragile institutional autonomy becomes when funding is used as leverage.
So what do HBCUs do with that reality?
They have to get sharper. That means recognizing that decisions like commencement invitations are not just ceremonial; they are political signals. It means ensuring that students are not an afterthought in choices that directly affect them. And it means taking a hard look at governance, especially the role of boards of trustees, because this moment shows how easily political priorities can enter through those channels. Board members often carry political affiliations, donor relationships, and ideological agendas that can shape institutional decisions in ways that don’t reflect the campus community.
HBCUs have to be clear about how those decisions get made, who has influence, and where the lines are. They need stronger transparency around high-profile choices, clearer boundaries between governance and day-to-day institutional judgment, and a shared understanding that protecting the institution’s mission must come before appeasing political pressure. It also means building stronger alignment between leadership, boards, and campus communities so that external actors cannot exploit internal fractures or use governance structures to override the will of students.
It also means preparing for the backlash in advance. Because it will come. There will be more invitations that double as flashpoints. More controversies that seem spontaneous but unfold along familiar lines. More threats are tied to funding, governance, and public perception. The goal is not always to win the argument. Sometimes the goal is simply to force institutions into reactive positions where they are easier to control.
South Carolina State, at this moment, chose to listen to its students anyway. That choice should be applauded. The question is how many institutions will be allowed to do the same the next time this happens.
SEE ALSO:
NYC Finally Addressing ‘Deed Theft’ After Ignoring Black Homeowners
Black Folks Shouldn’t Feel Sorry For Candace Owens. She’s Not A Victim
SCSU Students Said No To A Racist Politician For Commencement Speech was originally published on newsone.com
