Content warning: Article contains mentions of sexual harassment. 

A commencement speaker is a statement by the University of what the graduating class should aspire to. According to that standard, Sheryl Sandberg is an inappropriate choice to provide advice and encouragement to the class of 2026, as she clearly lacks basic moral character. However, the bigger issue with her nomination is what it says about Brandeis: that the institution prioritizes wealth above all else. 

Sandberg’s conduct at Meta alone should disqualify her as graduation speaker. Sandberg was accused of sexual harassment in a recent memoir by former Facebook employee Sarah Wynn-Williams. The book, “Careless People,” also details Sandberg’s mistreatment of her employees. She was also placed under investigation for using Facebook’s resources on personal projects. As Laura Limonic ’97 covered in her recent Letter to the Editor in The Justice, Sandberg presided over Facebook while its platform was used to escalate genocide in Myanmar, and while the company sold millions of users’ data for use in political campaigns. 

In his response to an email I sent last month expressing my concerns about Sandberg, President Arthur Levine ’70 stated that her experiences “navigating leadership” as an executive in the technology industry “may offer perspective for students entering a complex world.” If these are the experiences he is referring to, I can’t imagine what valuable lessons the Class of 2026 is supposed to take from them. 

The obvious argument for Sandberg’s value as a commencement speaker is related to her advocacy, both for women in the workplace and for Israel. However, Sandberg’s “advocacy” is almost entirely focused on people very similar to herself, and excludes non-white women, Palestinian people and anyone else who might complicate her understanding of an issue. Limonic’s letter also explained in detail the ways scholars have critiqued Sandberg’s white feminism — essentially that Sandberg’s book, “Lean In,” fails to provide a coherent feminist theory and instead reinforces patriarchy and racism. The idea that women can get ahead by just working harder is false, ignores the additional barriers faced by women of color and encourages women to compete with each other instead of taking aim at the sexist systems that uphold male dominance in the workplace. 

Sandberg’s recent documentary, “Screams Before Silence,” while addressing important issues, falls short of advocacy that might qualify her to speak at graduation. The film centers on Sandberg herself: her experience visiting Israel, her questions about the gory details of what occurred and her reactions to the victims’ stories, not the individuals affected. She excludes any mention of the massive scale of violence inflicted upon Gaza, even as the documentary’s timeline extends well into Israel’s assault on the territory. At a minimum, in failing to provide any context about the extremely complicated issues it involves, the documentary is not an intellectual work that exemplifies Brandeis’ standards.

There are a wide variety of opinions about Israel on this campus. Nonetheless, I don’t know many Brandeis students who became prouder of Israel while it murdered 40,000 Palestinian people and caused nearly 350,000 more to face catastrophic levels of food insecurity. Sandberg, on the other hand, stated in 2024 that she became a more proud Zionist in the year after Israel began its assault on Gaza. It is unclear why President Levine and the Board of Trustees would choose a graduation speaker who would reignite tensions over Israel-Palestine on this campus, especially after the debacle that was Brandeis’ handling of these issues in 2024. 

From “Lean In” to the present, Sandberg has exhibited a tendency to ignore the oppression of and violence against non-white people. She is, at the very least, a highly irresponsible and misguided advocate, making her incapable of providing useful advice or perspectives to a diverse graduating class. Brandeis claims that “global engagement” is a tenet of our education here, but has invited a speaker to our graduation ceremony who has repeatedly proved her inability to “engage” with people unlike herself.

I have not brought up anything in this article that those making the commencement decisions didn’t know. They were aware of the harassment allegations leveraged against Sandberg and of the failures of her “advocacy” work to address the diverse reality we live in. They knew that her nomination would not be well received (and if they didn’t, her selection was severely under-researched). They picked her anyway, because she is wealthy. 

Her wealth matters to them for two reasons. Firstly, they’re hoping she’ll make a significant donation to the University — we all know Brandeis needs the money. Worse, having a wealthy, business-aligned speaker at graduation is crucial to the image Brandeis is trying to project. Brandeis’ administration has ceased to contend that you should come here to learn, think, read or write. It is now only attempting to attract students by making the case that coming here is a sound financial investment. A Brandeis degree, they argue, will prepare you to do what Sandberg has done in her life: ignore people who aren’t like you, exploit people beneath you and, most importantly, hoard wealth.

I understand the decision has been made to turn Brandeis into an apolitical, white-collar vocational school in an attempt to save it from the decline of liberal arts institutions. But when my class applied to Brandeis, that decision was still a couple years in the making. Many of us applied looking for an education. We were hoping to come to an institution with a meaningful commitment to social justice — to be educated in a manner that made us better people, and the world around us better for it. It has been a challenging four years to be a student at Brandeis who is genuinely committed to truth, critical thinking and learning for learning’s sake. Choosing Sandberg for our graduation adds insult to injury and is not representative of the class of 2026.

Here's my request of the administration: Rescind Sandberg’s invitation and pick a professor or other local leader to speak at commencement. It does not matter if the speaker is rich or famous — it matters that they are thoughtful and kind. It matters that they endeavor to understand people who are different from them. It matters that their work adds to, instead of detracting from, Brandeis’ history of improving the world. 

Short of that, I have some questions for President Levine and the Board of Trustees that the senior class deserves legitimate answers to. What qualifies Sandberg to be a graduation speaker? Do you think mistreating and harassing employees shows leadership or excellence in business? Why do you think it is appropriate to invite someone who has been credibly accused of sexual harassment to speak to the graduating class? Why would you choose a speaker whose advocacy for Israel was certain to be painfully controversial on campus? What values has Sandberg demonstrated that you would like shared with the class of 2026, or that you think would be positive for the class of 2026 to emulate? 

Please provide your answers in a public, written format. If you are unable to answer these questions, I hope you will reconsider your commitment to a commencement speaker you cannot defend.