"Johns Hopkins excludes black speaker from graduation."

Writes Instapundit, linking to a report that says "Neurosurgeon Ben Carson announced his withdrawal as speaker at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine commencement."

What constitutes "exclusion"? If Carson declines to step up and face the protests and criticisms, does he deprive his supporters of the "exclusion" taunt? Obviously, Instapundit doesn't think so.

Carson cites "the national media" attention to his "statements as to [his] belief in traditional marriage" and professes a belief that it is "in the best interests of the students" for him "to voluntarily withdraw," since his "presence is likely to distract from the true celebratory nature of the day." Graduation should be about the students, he says and then gets in his shot, which contains a well-cloaked accusation of exclusion:

"Someday in the future, it is my hope and prayer that the emphasis on political correctness will decrease and we will start emphasizing rational discussion of differences so we can actually resolve problems and chart a course that is inclusive of everyone."

Ironically, it was the lack of inclusiveness on the part of Carson that made Carson seem like an inappropriate graduation speaker. Graduation really does need to be a politically correct occasion, and Carson's withdrawal cites exactly that need. Did Johns Hopkins exclude him? Some people at Johns Hopkins made him feel excluded — excluded by the very nature of graduation. Even as he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, he believes that graduation is about the students' positive feelings. Is Carson hoping that in the future, graduation ceremonies will include speakers that challenge the students' comfortable set of beliefs?

That would be as nontraditional as same-sex marriage!