This is topic Valedictorian's speech cut short by school district because of reference to God in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
This girl will be on Hannity and Colmes tonight at 9:00. Just wanted to hear some thoughts on this from the board. Also, do you think this would have happened to another religion? I hear the ACLU agrees with the school. I bet they would have been behind someone who wanted to talk about Buda or Allah.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: students are required to submit their speeches in writing ahead of time and they're told if they deviate from the script at all, their microphones will be cut off. The district maintains that's exactly what happened in this case.
This sounds pretty clear cut to me. The girl was told no but did it anyways in order to create a fuss. I think it would have happened with any other unauthorized speech, no matter what faith (or lack thereof) it presented.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:We're told students are required to submit their speeches in writing ahead of time and they're told if they deviate from the script at all, their microphones will be cut off. The district maintains that's exactly what happened in this case.
If that's the case, I'm with the school district. If the school has that as part of the deal of giving time at the mic for EVERYONE.
If not, then I dislike the unequal treatment of students versus others who might speak at the ceremony.
As for the "God" thing, most communities across the nation solve this differently, I think. If it's a district rule, then maybe they need to change their rules to be a little flexible.
Jay, your conjecture about Buddha or Allah doesn't seem to be borne out by what's in the article.
I don't see this as a sign of Christian persecution but rather as super-sensitivity to the whole "religion on campus" issue that has, in fact, led to a patchwork of rules that vary from district to district, state to state.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I agree with Amanecer. As an addendum, I feel that after they shut off the mic, she should have been punted.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Graduation is long enough without people using it as a platform for religion.
If you want to be religious, you have fun with that, but keep it to yourself. People aren't at a graduation ceremony to be converted.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
She earned the right to make her speech, she had the floor, I think they cheapened her award by cutting her off. If she wanted to credit Jesus for her success it seems to me to be her right.
BC
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
High School isn't the real world. There are rules to follow, and she choose to use her graduation speech as a platform to break those rules.
If that's what she wanted to accomplish, she certainly made a bunch of waves by breaking some rules.
Of course, when you break rules, you have to pay the consequences. In this case, the consequences were not getting to finish her speech.
I hope she, and her classmates learned a valuable lesson with relatively minor consequences.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
BC- I would have no problem with her campaigning to change the rules both before and after the ceremony. However when she breaks the rules knowing that she'll be cut off, she's making a cheap political statement and presenting herself as a martyr. I do not think it's her right to turn the rest of her class' graduation into her own little melodrama.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: McComb says the district reviewed her speech beforehand, just like everyone else. But she says they sent it back with the last half chopped off.
"They said it was offensive, it identifies a particular religion," explains McComb. "I really think it's free speech; we're American, we should be able to handle that."
So she submitted it and it was offensive cause she thanks God. She didn’t deviate from what she wrote, just what the atheists approved.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
You think that's something. A local high school around me- their Senior Class President is the speech-giver, not the Valedictorian (who are usually much more worthy to give a speech at graduation). Well this past year's Valedictorian didn't like that rule very much- so in the middle of the ceremony, he/she (can't remember which) got up, stole the microphone and started to give a speech. The person was removed and arrested.
I understand removed- but arrested. Come on.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I didn't read the speech, so it's hard to say, but it sounds like the school district has an overly "religion avoidance" approach. I don't see how that justifies breaking the rules and then whining about it afterward when you receive the stated consequences - Aalthough I guess I'm jumping to conclusions there. It's possible she's going on Fox to say that she deserved what happened, and, while she doesn't agree with the changes to her speech, she owes people an apology for her behavior. Of course, then Hannity would probably cut off her mike.
Also, the valedictory address isn't supposed to be about the person giving it so much as it is supposed to be about the entire graduating class.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Administrators who vetted an early draft of McComb's speech cut six references to God or Christ, and omitted two biblical references. They also deleted a detailed reference to the crucifixion of Christ.
Sounding more like the speech crossed the line.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think she should start a website: www.bannedgradspeech.com or whatever. That way everyone who wanted to give a speech they were denied access to could start off their speeches with "blahblah bannedgradspeach dot com, go there for my real speech. Now here's the administration approved version for kids!"
I don't know, I think protesting a policy you don't agree with by violating it is a tried and true method of protest. People have been doing it for centuries. To act all hurt and surprised afterwards is a little devious, she had to of known exactly what she was doing.
I think that censoring speeches, for anything other than, say, excessive swearing or lewdness, is wrong. I personally might not want to hear a speech that brings up God in such a manner, but if the President of the United States can do it, why can't a high school graduate? What kind of lesson is that to send newly graduated seniors into the world with? Hey, stand up and fight for your rights! But first, sit down and shup up.
Giving a speech that specifically mentions Jesus Christ or any other Christian or any other religious figure at a HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. This whole thing strikes me as a massive overreaction.
Edit: Alright, the excessive mentioning and detailing of the crucifixion of Christ was probably over the line, but the biblical references aren't necessarily, or the mention of God. Without the exact text of her full speech, which I have to imagine is available somewhere, we'll never know for sure. But just generalizing it that way, other than that one thing, doesn't sound like it crossed the line to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Meh, she'd have done better to simply refuse to give her speech - simply get up, say she wasn't allowed to say what she wanted to, she's not going to give someone else's speech, and sit down.
It was probably constitutional to cut the mike, but it's a stupid policy to begin with.
As to violating policy for protest, I hear tell a bunch of people plan to do that if a flag-burning amendment is passed. If she thinks this violates her rights, she's on just as firm a ground to do what she did.
The best thing said so far is this by Bob:
quote:If not, then I dislike the unequal treatment of students versus others who might speak at the ceremony.
How many graduation speakers would show up with a requirement that their speech be vetted first and the threat of a mike being turned off?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
It's hard to say if the school was overreacting or not without reading the speech. I will comment on the first amendment issue, though, since Jay's links all bring that up.
As I understand it from the articles linked, the school did nothing to interfere with her constitutionally protected freedom of speech. They let her finish the speech, she could say whatever she liked; they just chose not to provide the microphone for it. There was a thread a few months ago about a radio personality fired for saying insulting things about some group on the air, and it's the same thing: The school or radio station does not HAVE to provide you the means to get your speech heard by more people for you to have freedom of speech.
Personally, I'd be fine with her praising god and talking about her religion's role in her life in her graduation speech - it definitely sounds like that's an important part of her life so I can understand her wanting to share it. But from what all the links have said about the school's policy for pre-approval and editing of speeches, I think they were within their rights to cut the mike when she deviated from what was approved.
--Enigmatic
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How many graduation speakers would show up with a requirement that their speech be vetted first and the threat of a mike being turned off?
I don't think that's at all a fair comparison.
I can think of a few significant differences between say a 17 year old high school student and a 45 year old professional speaker that make putting tighter constraints on the former both more practical and more sensical.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Considering that my high school graduation was marred by a 30-minute baccalaureate address in which the speaker attempted to argue that none of our accomplishments would mean anything unless we took Jesus Christ into our hearts, I'm always glad to see schools recognize that audiences don't need to have that kind of crap inflicted on them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, perhaps the most significant difference is that the 45 year old professional speaker was called in to speak specifically because his message was what the administration wanted to hear.
To go to the ultimate ends of the spectrum, you don't hire a professional speaker like Al Gore or Ann Coulter without knowing what you are going to get. Same thing I'd gather for district officials. They know who these people are and what they are going to say.
Thus, the fact that the 17 year old high schooler wasn't asked to speak, but earned the honor, it changes the situation.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: She earned the right to make her speech, she had the floor, I think they cheapened her award by cutting her off. If she wanted to credit Jesus for her success it seems to me to be her right.
It doesn't sound to me as though she "mentioned" God. She was preaching. It was inappropriate, and all the more so because she knew ahead of time that it wasn't permissible.
The thing about civil disobedience is, you have to be willing to take the repercussions. In this case, the only repercussion was that they carried out the policy that they said they would, and turned off the microphone.
When I first saw the misleading title of this thread, I was horrified. Once I read the article, I was disgusted, and not at the school.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Thinking about it, though, the "I broke the rules I agreed upon and now I'm whining about it, but that's okay because it was for JESUS." thing makes her a perfect spokesperson for the Fox News wing of the Republican party.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Schools are under alot of pressure to not offend anyone. It's the fault of the uber-sensistive people in the world. Try not to be one of them, Jay.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:If not, then I dislike the unequal treatment of students versus others who might speak at the ceremony.
It's pretty well established that public school officials cannot use the graduation ceremony as a platform to promote religion. As I recall, one supreme court case addressed the issue of whether a school can call in clergy to give a religious speech since the school officials aren't allowed to. The answer is no, the school isn't allowed to create a situation where religion is promoted, even it it isn't a school official doing the speaking.
In another situation, (again, from memory) a school provided a microphone for all the students walking across the stage to say something quickly to the audience. The lower court said it was ok for students to make religious references in that case, and the supreme court declined to hear the case.
In this case, it doesn't matter whether it was a school official, a clergy person called in to speak at the ceremony, or the valedictorian. They all would have the same restrictions, since they are representing the school as part of the ceremony. The school made that clear in their policy, and the speaker intentionally violated those rules. By the extent of the religious speech listed, it's pretty clear that this planned bit of proselytizing was well over the line.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Thus, the fact that the 17 year old high schooler wasn't asked to speak, but earned the honor, it changes the situation.
I'd argue that the invited speaker also earned the honor.
Regardless, I don't believe we're arguing about the general principle that she should be allowed to say whatever she wanted. If she chose to make her valedictory address about how Peggy Sue Magillicutty is a boyfriend stealing slut, I'm guessing no one here would think she had the right.
So, it's if this particular speech (which we haven't read but, as I've pointed out, sounds like it crossed the line in at least one place) was okay or if they were too heavy-handed.
Considering that the Peggy Sue situation (and one's much less blatant or bad, but still objectionable...including, say an attempt to prostelytize one's religion) is a possibility, I don't think that the school overstepped their bounds in requiring adherence to a previously approved speech.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, first of all I think that it's odd that the school board has such a major presence at a school graduation and also has the power to censor what people say. At my high school graduation, the only person with the power to cut the mic was the a.v. guy in the booth.
That said, I sympathise with the school board. As an atheist, I do recognise how uncomfortable it can be when someone starts semi-preaching for whatever they believe in a over-the-top manner. I am fairly tolerant, but it can become uncomfortable.
On the other hand, this was the girl's own personal speech and she should be allowed to say what she wants.
However( ), she should have been far more subtle than she was; if she wished to thank God publically she should have been discreet about it. She should have self-censored. If she was truly as smart as she appears her speech would have been inclusive and open to everyone, keeping anything that could alienate the audience to an absolute minimum. Valedictorian's not just about having best marks, the nicest personality and the highest level of involvement in the school, but also having the ability to speak for, (as well as to), her graduating class. This means making inclusive remarks.
I would have to see the speech itself (as written, as censored and as given) in order to judge for certain whether the school board's decision was correct.
Regarding God in speeches: In America, I think this is a particularly touchy subject. When I went to my brother's University graduation, the resident Church guy (sorry, I forget exactly what he was) did give a short prayer, presumably as had been the tradition at this University at Convocation for years.
Now, although this generally irritates me a bit, all the public school or othersuch prayers I have heard, despite always coming from a Christian mouth, are generally open and inclusive. Jesus, for an example, is never mentioned, because no one but Christians has him.
Of course Atheists just gotta sit there and bear it, but I'm generally comforted by the fact that what they say is nice and they're making an effort to be as inclusive as possible.
Some may say this is vapid and empty, but it's not in the least. It's not the particular form of prayer you say, or what you do when you say it, or who you address it to specifically, it's the words you say.
If this valedictorian wanted to give a short discreet thanks or blessing, I say that's perfectly acceptable. If she wanted to preach her religion, then turn off the mic.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If she was truly as smart as she appears her speech would have been inclusive and open to everyone, keeping anything that could alienate the audience to an absolute minimum.
I have to point out that she, unlike thousands of other high school valedictorians, was featured on Fox News tonight.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:How many graduation speakers would show up with a requirement that their speech be vetted first and the threat of a mike being turned off?
I don't think that's at all a fair comparison.
Big surprise.
quote:I can think of a few significant differences between say a 17 year old high school student and a 45 year old professional speaker that make putting tighter constraints on the former both more practical and more sensical.
An I can think of a few significant differences that argue for allowing the student more freedom than a 45-year old professional speaker.
I've seen more professional speakers be offensive at graduations than valedictorians.
The larger point is that if schools are going to treat the speakers as children, then they will act like children. This is supposedly a big milestone of responsibility, and the person representing the actual students is being led around on a leash.
It's a stupid message, but then I'm pretty cynical about graduations in general.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Can I just say that the first link is some pretty poor reporting? Look at this:
quote:They brought that up, and they say they were going to give us some documentation to prove why she could say that in her speech.
They said the documentation was ambiguous. That was when Brittney said she took it upon herself to go ahead and give her speech as written, no matter what the consequences might be.
Who said the documentation was ambiguous? It's not exactly clear. If I read that passage correctly it sounds like the girl submitted the speech, they said she couldn't give it, she and her parents asked for clarification as to why she couldn't give it (perfectly reasonable request) and they're now saying the school couldn't give them clear documentation.
If that's the case, then I can see why she decided to do it anyway and I support her doing what she did. If that read is correct, they couldn't show her good reason why her speech was unacceptable.
If however, that's wrong and there are clear cut rules that ban religious speech and she violated them, then sure, the school was perfectly within its rights. What I'd like to see is the handbook or whatever it is that spells out the rules for graduation speeches and see exactly what is allowed and what isn't. That, and the text of the speech would help me determine what side to come down on here.
I'm all for the school being allowed to set rules and enforce them, but I also believe that if they didn't tell her in advance and couldn't show her good reason why her speech was unacceptable then they just have to deal with the consequences and let her give her speech. That would probably prompt them to make better guidelines for the future. It would be unfair to tell her "Write your speech on whatever you want to" and then change the rules when they didn't like the content.
I know that when I gave my speech at graduation I was never told anything was off limits. Of course, that was back in the dinosaur ages it was so long ago. Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
At my high school graduation, in Texas, I remember that the two student speakers had to have the entire speech written out and then reviewed by a couple of specially chosen teachers. They were actually quite picky and corrected a few things. And the students were told absolutely no deviations, or ELSE. We were all quite impressed.
Oh, but the valedictorian's dad was the guest speaker. Looking back, that does seem somewhat inappropriate. My parents were apparently less than thrilled with the father's speech or the son's speech. I didn't really pay attention, I don't think. But I don't think either of them mentioned Gd.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Depending on the changes they wanted, I would have either stood up and done the "I'm not going to give a speech" thing or dropped out ahead of time. There was enough petty control in my life without that.
Not that I was ever in danger of being valedictorian.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
From the coverage I saw of this (on Scarborough's show on MSNBC) it seems to me that the things she wanted to say were more in the way of proselytizing than in thanking God for his help in her accomplishments. If I had been in the audience, I would have been comfortable with the latter, but most definitely not comfortable with the former. There is a time and a place for proselytizing; a high school graduation at a public high school is not it, in my opinion.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think that by the time one graduates from high school, one should be required to have at least the minimum degree of tolerance necessary to not be seriously offended by someone discussing their views on religion in a graduation speech. My guess is that the students all learned that lesson; the problem was probably the adults and teachers. But if someone seriously thinks that religion in a graduation speech more offensive than it is to see the valedictorian cut off in the middle of the speech he or she earned, I suppose all I can really say is .
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
It would have been cool if she had gone to the mike and said "I have been forbidden from giving the speech I intended to give because I offer praise and thanks to my savior in it, so I invite anybody who would like to hear my speech to come out in the parking lot while I stand in the street and give the speech that I wrote instead of what the Godless Church of Liberalism and the ACLU enforces will allow." I bet there would have been an empty auditorium.
BC
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
You know, they do have religious High Schools, where you are welcome to attend and where I'm sure they're more than happy to let you praise God for as long as you want during graduation.
You can probably even wave your arms and shake.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
The nice part about the Godless Church of Liberalism? The pews all recline.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I don't suppose that someone has released a copy of the proposed speach yet, have they? I think that it would go a long way towards clarifying this matter. As others have said, there is a line between thanking God and preaching. I think that we could have a much more meaningful discussion on this if we knew more about the objectionable material.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay:
So she submitted it and it was offensive cause she thanks God. She didn’t deviate from what she wrote, just what the atheists approved. [/QUOTE]
If you could only have substituted "athiest" for "authority." You don't know what these people believe, so you shouldn't be throwing names around, it doesn't help.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:She earned the right to make her speech, she had the floor, I think they cheapened her award by cutting her off. If she wanted to credit Jesus for her success it seems to me to be her right.
I agree with Bean Counter. She made her decisions, and the school made theirs. I hope that in a few weeks time, the intuitions of mankind with understand that the school was the guilty party in this debacle.
quote:However( ), she should have been far more subtle than she was; if she wished to thank God publically she should have been discreet about it. She should have self-censored. If she was truly as smart as she appears her speech would have been inclusive and open to everyone, keeping anything that could alienate the audience to an absolute minimum. Valedictorian's not just about having best marks, the nicest personality and the highest level of involvement in the school, but also having the ability to speak for, (as well as to), her graduating class.
This is where I disagree. She had a podium and a captive audience, if she had fire in her heart, then she had the duty to put fire in her speech. I don't have to agree with what she says, but I'm glad that she didn't play to the lowest, safest common denominator in her class. If she had capitulated in this speech, she'd be aquiescing for the rest of her life. She knew she would be speaking to a mixed audience, and she had something to say. If she made an error in judgement, if she picked the wrong time to fight her battle, then it was a noble error to make.
Kasie, I know you spot check and lurk. Do you mind chiming in on this thread?
[ June 20, 2006, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You know, they do have religious High Schools, where you are welcome to attend and where I'm sure they're more than happy to let you praise God for as long as you want during graduation.
Actually, the reverse is what should be true. Private schools should be the only schools that can prevent you from from exercising your religion at a graduation ceremony, unless it is in some legitimate way disrupting the activities. The right to do so in government-run schools is guaranteed by the constitution.
I don't think praising God in a graduation speech is disrupting the activities any more than giving wrong, cheesy, or disagreeable advice in the speech is. Unless it is being done in an extreme way - or at the expense of other religions.
[ June 20, 2006, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I would never suggest that someone should meekly submit to authority, especially if the representatives of that authority can't explain their reasons for the decisions they make.
Religious speech is a contentious issue and saying she's got the right is dismissive of a whole set of issues that the school district, principal, and teachers are responsible for keeping in mind. We pay them to do so.
I am willing to assume a lack of clarity on the school's part. Most of the time the rules do break down in the details and if you are looking at a specific utterance and asking "well...why can't I say that" it's probably going to come down to a judgement call and somebody has to make it. And take the heat for it.
To claim that one can say whatever one wants to in a graduation speech is just not correct. The ceremony is for all the graduates and if someone is being truly offensive people don't have to tolerate it. The option of walking out is one thing. The school enforcing its own rules is another way.
You tell the speakers what the boundaries are and what will happen if they cross them.
Then you make a decision.
I am an advocate of free speech, but if you accept the podium under a set of rules, you either abide by those rules, or you suffer the consequences -- in this case, a turned off mic.
The invitation to speak is not an invitation to say anything.
And it sounds like praising God was just fine.
I imagine there's a lot of stuff religion-wise that wouldn't be fine. It's not an appropriate time, for example to condemn homosexuality, or to state how everyone who hasn't accepted Jesus is going to hell.
Then there's a lot of stuff one could say that's on the edge. But still, someone is charged with making a decision, they have to do it quickly.
And it doesn't surprise me that one way to handle this is to require pre-approval.
I would think they'd want to do that for everyone. But it is also possible that you could just explain the rules to more seasoned speakers and tell them that the mic will be turned off if they stray into areas that can't be broached on campus.
I know that it's fun to view this as a "free speech" issue and feel put upon, but I urge people to see the special circumstances. As BC alluded to, she could easily have gone out to the parking lot and given her speech, or to the street corner. There she would have no barriers to her utterances. Her freedom of speech is thus not hindered.
But the podium at graduation is a controlled environment, and she took the stage under a set of conditions that, by her very presence, she was agreeing to.
If she needed to protest it, she had options other than violating the rules that she'd implicitly agreed to.
And BC, if she'd said in the snarky way you suggested, I would hope that at least a few Christians in the audience would not bother going to hear what she had to say.
Even rebukes can be done lovingly. If Christians feed the divisiveness, they aren't following the right example, imo.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It shouldn't be a free speech question. It is a freedom of a religion question.
It is reasonable to have rules regarding what is not allowed in graduation speeches. The question is, given the protection that religious practice is guaranteed in the constitution, why should a public school be allowed to make one of those rules "No praising God in your speech"? Even putting constitutional guarantees aside, why should any school need to restrict that? It isn't offensive, or at least shouldn't be.
Consider if the situation were switched around, and the school said that they would not approve the speech if it didn't include at least some praising of God. Is the school entitled to make rules about what is or is not allowed in the speech? Yes. But it can't just make any rule. "You must praise God in your speech" is not a reasonable restriction to require a student to have. Neither is "You can't praise God in your speech."
[ June 20, 2006, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
After I posted my reply last night I decided that I disagreed with what I had said. I think that (providing the speech was preachy, as it sounds like it was) the schoolboard had the right to edit- perhaps if they did not explain to her why they were editing she could have misunderstood.
However, once she was talking, I do not think that unless it was very offensive ("You're all going to die and go to hell") I don't think the school board should have the right to cut her off. That's just embarrassing and it makes the school board look bad, rather than the kid.
quote: if she had fire in her heart, then she had the duty to put fire in her speech.
I did not mean that she could not say anything of value. If she wanted to talk about social or political issues that had come up in the class, go ahead. She could have probably even put religion in there, if it was a big enough deal. The intelligent speech maker will be able to get his or her powerful message across without alienating part of the audience. There are ways to tailor and self-censor and still give a powerful message.
Of course, perhaps this girl's only powerful message was about God. Even so, she should have found a way to get around her desire to preach and to speak to the group about something everyone can appreciate.
Imagine how awful you would feel if and atheist got up there and started talking about how great his or her life was without God and how she attributes her success to freedom from God, not directly bashing religion, but strongly implying it.
quote:I have to point out that she, unlike thousands of other high school valedictorians, was featured on Fox News tonight.
There's another kind of intelligence required here, where success is not measured by media coverage.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
First off, BC, if she'd said what you wanted her to say, she would have gotten to about " have been forbidden from giving..." before they cut her mic off for deviating from her script, so her call for action would have fallen on, if not deaf, very strained ears.
Second, we don't know what she wanted to say. We don't know what was in her speech. We don't know what the school saw in the draft that was objectionable, or what they feared she might say at graduation.
Let's say that the speech wasn't just thanking God, but true proselytizing, of the "unless you accept Jesus into your hearts, this day is meaningless" variety. Public schools are not a platform for any religion - so the same Freedom of Religion argument could be made in reverse, Tres, from those non-Christians in the audience who felt their own right to religious belief was being lessened.
Even more, if there were things they disagreed with in the speech, and she chose to deviate from the speech, she's now entered territory where they have *no idea* what she might say. She's offbook, not following a script - whatever they objected to in the draft stages may have evolved into something even more objectionable, but they have no way of knowing what will come out of her mouth because she's not following the script she agreed to follow by her very presence, accordin to school rules.
If she didn't agree with the rule, she could have made plenty of fuss previous to the graduation. She called what she thought was their bluff, and they followed through with their policy to her chagrin.
In my opinion, the school was right to cut her off in this situation. Were they right to originally deny her first draft? That's impossible to say, as we haven't seen that draft. But, based on their policies and procedures, they followed through to the letter - if they hadn't, it would be open precedent for other validictorians in the future to have carte blanche at the podium to deviate to their heart's content.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I have to point out that she, unlike thousands of other high school valedictorians, was featured on Fox News tonight.
So, I imagine Brittany Spears is amazingly intelligent then, as she gave an exclusive interview with Matt Lauer. Her intelligence must know no bounds.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: She earned the right to make her speech, she had the floor, I think they cheapened her award by cutting her off.
Being valedictorian is a right and an award? I don't understand either claim. It's a responsibility, one given to somebody who's proven to be a worthy representative.
(I also don't understand Shawshank's post referring to a valedictorian not making a speech. By definition, the valedictorian is the person who delivers the valediction.)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Unless and until the speech is made public, ideally along with the school's stated rules and the specific objections, there's really no point in arguing this. We don't know what was in the speech. We don't know what she agreed to beforehand. We don't know why her speech was edited. All we're doing now is expressing our outrage over what we think might have happened.
I'm not interested in that when I see it on the news, I don't see much point doing it again here.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
This whole situation was handled poorly by just about everyone involved. The school should have been very clear with why they disapproved of certain portions of her speech so that there would be no doubt in her mind. The student should have been a little more respectful of her audience and just left out anything that might offensive. If she wasn't sure about something, she should have gone back and requested more information instead of just assuming she was right. She knew exactly what would happen, so she shouldn't act at all surprised.
Afterward, the school should have released a much more informative statement than they did. Because they did not do that, the story is being spun in many different ways and getting what I think is much more attention than it deserves.
If they had let her finish the speech and it was somewhat inappropriate, then they could lay down some more specific guidelines for the next year. Since they cut off her speech, she should do likewise and try to change the rules for next year's students. It doesn't really need to be debated nationally. If she thinks she was treated unfairly, well, that's life, and that little lesson in itself was probably more informative than anything she had to say in her speech.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:this was the girl's own personal speech and she should be allowed to say what she wants.
Not really. The mistake is thinking that this is the girl's fifteen minutes of fame.
It isn't.
The Valedictorian represents the student body. She isn't an individual; this isn't a thank-you-for-making-ME-great opportunity. The Valedictory speech is given on behalf of the whole graduating class. "We." "Us." "Our." Those are the proper pronouns-- not "I."
In this way, the speech isn't a reward, but an obligation. And she had the obligation to fairly represent the rest of her class' thoughts on graduating.
quote:I imagine Brittany Spears is amazingly intelligent then, as she gave an exclusive interview with Matt Lauer. Her intelligence must know no bounds.
I think Squicky was being ironic, FC.
Still-- bravo to the young lady for sticking to her guns. I would have done it differently, but I hope she keeps that character of conviction throughout her life.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Being valedictorian is a right and an award? I don't understand either claim. It's a responsibility, one given to somebody who's proven to be a worthy representative.
I thought the high school valedictorian was usually the person with the highest grade. That has nothing to do with worthiness at all. At a small school, might not even say much about scholastic ability. At a bigger school, might be the result of getting the best tutors or cheating. No way of knowing if the person is a worthy representative of anything.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm not interested in that when I see it on the news, I don't see much point doing it again here.
This is tantamount to saying, "I'm going to lurk from now on."
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
I've been to five high school graduations in Las Vegas, including my own. Lots of the Valedictorians mentioned God and their faith as the reason for their success. Although it's possible that things may have changed since I went to school there, I'm thinking the girl probably crossed a line (between mention of God and outright trying to convert people). I simply don't believe she was cut off for saying the word "God". Nor do I believe the school was trying to scrub any mention of God or faith from the ceremony.
I have a good friend who was a valedictorian at a Las Vegas school. He says they were pretty clear in their instructions. Deviate from the approved speech...and the mic goes off. Even if what you have to say has merit and isn’t offensive. The girl could have either refused to speak and give her reasons or she could have worked with the valedictorian speech police to mold her message into a more subtle, but approved form.
I think they didn't approve her speech because it was too over the top and when she tried to give it anyway, they cut the mic. I think she’s making herself into a martyr citing some supposed anti-Christian bias. But, despite its reputation, Las Vegas is a very religious town so I have a hard time believing all of the teachers and administrators who were responsible for approving her speech were atheists who refused to even hear the word “God”. But I wasn’t there so I guess I can’t really ever know. Maybe things have changed that much since I went to school there.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
I also wanted to say...but didn't want it all in one long post....As long as the school was reacting to something that was over the line (rather than just the mere mention of religion) I agree with what they did.
I’m all for free speech, but the graduation ceremony is for everyone, not just the valedictorians, so I think it’s proper for the school use a little restraint to keep it pleasant for everyone. People want to see their kid get the piece of paper. They don't want to have to sit through some religious or political rant they may or may not agree with.
An over the top religious speech (aimed at conversion, talking about a particular denomination, hellfire for the nonbelievers, that sort of thing) is in poor taste. In just as poor taste would have been a political diatribe against George Bush or the Iraq war, which would have also not been approved by the valedictorian speech police. I wouldn't want to listen to a valedictorian doing a speech titled, "Abortion should be legal because...", "Bill Clinton ruined the country because...", "The Iraq War was a mistake because..." or "Christianity is BS because..." I know people who held all of those opinions when they were in high school and would have gladly given speeches to that effect to a captive audience if allowed.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:
quote:this was the girl's own personal speech and she should be allowed to say what she wants.
Not really. The mistake is thinking that this is the girl's fifteen minutes of fame.
It isn't.
The Valedictorian represents the student body. She isn't an individual; this isn't a thank-you-for-making-ME-great opportunity. The Valedictory speech is given on behalf of the whole graduating class. "We." "Us." "Our." Those are the proper pronouns-- not "I."
Scott R, we both agree on this issue. I go on to stress what you have: the importance of the fact that this is not only a speech to the graduting class but also for/on behalf of the graduating class in which case she should attempt to include. The valedictorian is a representative of the class and she should use her time to say something not only meaningful but that represents some of the ideas of the graduating class.
What I meant by this comment is that within those bounderies, however, she should have free rein.
EDIT: However, concering character of conviction, I disagree. I think that all the media coverage is going to be a major problem for her in truly understanding what went wrong and why the school felt the need to edit her speech.
I think she needs to step back a little from firing her convictions all over everyone around her and think "Maybe they're not just bigoted anti-free speech people, maybe they actually have a point."
Strong convictions are all very well and good but I think the ability to re-examine strong convictions (I don't mean her religion but her inability to realise why other people don't want to hear her religion) is just, if not more, important.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It seems to me that so far we have one side of the issue. We don't know exactly what was in the speech; we don't know exactly what rules the school has on these things, and whether they are reasonable or not; we don't know exactly what what the school found objectionable; and lastly, we don't if the objections were truly ambiguous, or this is just an excuse by the student to paint herself in a more favorable light.
Much ado about not-so-much, as it currently stands, IMO.
-Bok
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, I was being serious about the Fox News thing. The quote I was referencing was about how she should have been smart enough to respect her audience. This makes a supposition, that it was a fault in intellect that led to her behavior, that I don't think is correct.
It if were her goal to give a acceptible graduation speech, she failed, but if it were her goal to gain attention as someone who could be cast as a persecuted Christian, then she suceeded.
Smarts generally relates to how well one can achieve one's goals, not how worthy one's goals are.
---
As a sidenote, my Catholic high school didn't do straight valedictorian - instead they chose from submitted speeches. I was told to not even bother submitting a speech if I wasn't going to fill it with Christian references, which, because of my rejection of the religion by that time, I wasn't willing to do. As a hypothetical, say I, the top person in my class, wrote a very good speech with Christian references in it in order to get selected and then, when graduation time came, gave the speech without the references. Would they have been right to shut my mic off? I think they obviously would.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:if it were her goal to gain attention as someone who could be cast as a persecuted Christian, then she suceeded.
I have to say, this never even occured to me. I hope it's not the case.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
Here's a little more information from the local newspaper. We still don't know what was actually in her speech (and whether she was merely taling about religion or promoting it), but this article does explain a little more about the district's rules and procedures for graduation ceremonies.
quote:Strong convictions are all very well and good but I think the ability to re-examine strong convictions (I don't mean her religion but her inability to realise why other people don't want to hear her religion) is just, if not more, important.
Meh. Give me a zealot over a wishy-washy handwringer any day.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Hm. Can you have strong convictions about not having strong convictions?
O.o
-- Resident Wishy-Washy Handwringer
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: As a sidenote, my Catholic high school didn't do straight valedictorian - instead they chose from submitted speeches. I was told to not even bother submitting a speech if I wasn't going to fill it with Christian references, which, because of my rejection of the religion by that time, I wasn't willing to do. As a hypothetical, say I, the top person in my class, wrote a very good speech with Christian references in it in order to get selected and then, when graduation time came, gave the speech without the references. Would they have been right to shut my mic off? I think they obviously would.
That's not really an apt comparison in this case though. In your hypothetical, the person is chosen on the basis of what they wrote. To fabricate an entire speech just so if chosen you can use another strikes me as extremely dishonest. It seems that she was chosen on other criteria and the speech was the reward.
Although I'm a Christian, I would be extremely uncomfortable to here someone proselyting for their graduation speech. I don't mind a Muslim giving credit to Allah, a Christian making reference to Jesus, or a pagan giving credit to Nature's forces. Over-the-top stuff though would be annoying to listen to.
However, I think if the schoolboard would have let her continue, that would have been the best course. I think the majority of the audience would have been uncomfortable and exerted a social pressure on future speakers not to pull a similar stunt. Instead, the schoolboard comes out of this looking childish and she, a martyr. So rather than the young adults getting the idea that graduation is not the proper forum for a religious based speech, they see it as The Man trying to control them- which in the long run would definately be counterproductive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that she had a right to say what she wanted to say. I think the school had a right to decline to provide her with a platform to say it. I think, as a Christian, that she is sending entirely the wrong meessage.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BQT, I wasn't tryign to make a direct comparison, merely relate a similar situation that happened to me.
We can postulate a more equal situation, though, if you want. Say the speech came to me because of my class rank, but that I was instructed that it had to contain Christian references. The rest is the same. Again, I think they'd be well within their rights to cut me off.
I don't get the people who are saying they should have let her continue with the speech. They apparently have a very clear, across the board policy on this. I don't get the idea that because she broke the rules that she agreed to, they should let her get away with it. This girl deliberately set outto break the rules that she agreed to and now she's whining about the stated consequences of doing so. I'm not sure how this makes them look bad.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: I thought the high school valedictorian was usually the person with the highest grade.
Usually -- and I imagine that makes the selection process easier at larger schools -- but not necessarily. Certainly at my school, the valedictorian was selected by the administration; GPA was a factor, but not the sole determinant. Character counted for more.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
You really don't see how this makes the schoolboard look bad to the public?
I'm not saying they were in the wrong. I understand the fact that they had a policy, she knew it before hand, etc etc. I'm just wondering if there wasn't perhaps a better way to handle it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This reminds me of my private school interfaith chapel. They featured an agnostic and an atheist seperately in order to be fair. The atheist was quite polite in his presentation of his beliefs the agnostic was intentionally offensive. From what I was told neither of the two had been required to submit their presentations early and that policy had to change after that.
I think the girl in question did her school a diservice but trying to intentionally disobey the protocols she was given. If she did not like the speech she was being forced to give she could have simply said, "I do not agree with the protocols the school board has forced me to observe in regards to my speech's composition." Then sat down.
She would then be on the moral high ground and would certainly look down on men like Hannity that are looking only for pawns to further their agenda.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If we're talking about turning off her mic, then no, I really don't. Have we really fallen so far as a society that visiting people with the acknowledged consequences for their deliberate dishonesty makes you look like the bad guy?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that she had a right to say what she wanted to say. I think the school had a right to decline to provide her with a platform to say it.
Oh, kmboots. Spot on.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: However, I think if the schoolboard would have let her continue, that would have been the best course. I think the majority of the audience would have been uncomfortable and exerted a social pressure on future speakers not to pull a similar stunt. Instead, the schoolboard comes out of this looking childish and she, a martyr. So rather than the young adults getting the idea that graduation is not the proper forum for a religious based speech, they see it as The Man trying to control them- which in the long run would definately be counterproductive.
I disagree, because in the case of the majority not liking it, they would have complained, and this wouldn't have been a big issue. My bet is that the majority actually wouldn't have minded the proselytizing at all. But a distinct minority would have minded it, even if they were used to it, and may have felt social pressure to not say anything, which is ultimately what the point of these regulations is supposed to be.
-Bok
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Hey...
Did they CENSOR her?
Jeez! How sad!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that she had a right to say what she wanted to say. I think the school had a right to decline to provide her with a platform to say it.
Quoted for truth.
quote:I think, as a Christian, that she is sending entirely the wrong meessage.
That Christians will break any rule in order to save souls? I think that's an entirely accurate message. Possibly bad tactics, but very accurate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That Christians should be unconcerned with the rights and comfort of others. That is not, in my opinion, a Christian message. Regardless of how often we send it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Hey...
Did they CENSOR her?
Jeez! How sad!
Yes. It's shameful when a person is expected to obey rules. Next the school will be expecting their students to be responsible and all "grown up" and stuff.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hey Robin -- Grow up.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If we're talking about turning off her mic, then no, I really don't. Have we really fallen so far as a society that visiting people with the acknowledged consequences for their deliberate dishonesty makes you look like the bad guy?
There's a difference between having the right to do something and being right in doing it.
I don't think the school's policy was the one that treated the student speaker respectfully.
In this case, the fault of the school happened when they promulgsted this policy, not when they did it.
But yes, I'm entirely comfortable saying that the school in this case, while within its rights, was not acting well.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The thing I don't get about that is that this specific case showed that the school is right to be wary of their valedictory speakers. I mean, when faced with a situation where the speaker did something that is intentionally dishonest and irresponsible, I'm not sure how you use that to say that the school shouldn't look out for their speakers being dishonest and irresponsible.
Her actions show that she is not worthy of the respect you think they should have given her. So, I'm not sure what you're standing on here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Her actions show that she is not worthy of the respect you think they should have given her. So, I'm not sure what you're standing on here.
The school's policy is disrespectful to the speakers. Which speakers might warrant disrespect isn't known at the time the policy is promulgated.
If such policies are necessary, then they shouldn't have valedictory speakers at all. They can put a little puppet up on the stage and synch it to a standardized speech.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Since the school is providing the platform, they should have some input into what the speakers say. Without knowing what they would and wouldn't allow and without knowing what she was going to say, I don't have any basis for judging whether or not either was (by my standards) inappropriate. We do know that she agreed to deliver a certain speech and then went back on that agreement.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Since the school is providing the platform, they should have some input into what the speakers say. Without knowing what they would and wouldn't allow and without knowing what she was going to say, I don't have any basis for judging whether or not either was (by my standards) inappropriate.
It's the enforcement mechanism I have a problem with. I think dealing with the consequences of an "inappropriate" speech (whatever that may mean) being heard by graduation attendees is the lesser harm than the avowed lack of trust.
quote:We do know that she agreed to deliver a certain speech and then went back on that agreement.
Yes, but to me that's the obvious and less interesting aspect of the incident. I think almost everyone has agreed the school had the right to cut the microphone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How do you think they should have handled it? They trusted her; she lied to get her way. Just letting it go (rewarding her for her lie) could have encouraged people to do this even more. God knows what the next student was likely to say and, having failed to enforce the rules once, makes it more problematic to enforce them the next time.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:The school's policy is disrespectful to the speakers. Which speakers might warrant disrespect isn't known at the time the policy is promulgated.
I think the saying is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
By having a screening process to preview speeches before they are given, the school is able to head off potential problems before they start. By holding speakers to the approved scripts, and notifying them that deviation will be cut off, they are making every effort to prevent further problems.
All of this preplanning is designed to make the graduation ceremony a known quantity from a logistical standpoint, and to be sure there are no surprises on the night of the event.
This student willfully violated a school policy as a form of civil disobedience, it seems, and she suffered the consequence of being cut off. When you perform acts of civil disobedience, you do so knowing that you will face consequences.
The school was up front about their policy, and she followed their policy to the letter up to but not including the moment of her actual speech. She wrote a draft, she submitted it for review, and it was reviewed and edited. The fact that she was still on the program and allowed to get up and speak means she must have agreed to abide by the changes.
Then, she deviated from the script she was to follow.
And that is actually a big thing. In this case, she apparently was trying to go through her original speech, without the revisions. But once a student deviates from the approved script, they could easily say *anything* - what was originally a little proselytizing could turn into a televangelist sermon, as far as anyone could know, because she had gone totally off script.
Not saying that she would have, but that those running the ceremony had no way of knowing anything she would say once she abandoned the script. Instead of risking that unknown, they cut her off.
If the school had edited out text about drugs, sex, violence or anything else, this wouldn't be an issue. The school would have acted the same way. She violated school policy, and got cut off. End of story, no one would have cared.
Instead, because a perceived persecution of the majority is a hot button issue, it has become national news.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How do you think they should have handled it? They trusted her; she lied to get her way. Just letting it go (rewarding her for her lie) could have encouraged people to do this even more. God knows what the next student was likely to say and, having failed to enforce the rules once, makes it more problematic to enforce them the next time.
How do they handle it when adult speakers go outside the agreed-upon scope? There are other ways to punish after the fact.
The mere statement "we will have your script and a finger on the switch" changes the dynamics of the situation for the worse.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If the school had edited out text about drugs, sex, violence or anything else, this wouldn't be an issue. The school would have acted the same way. She violated school policy, and got cut off. End of story, no one would have cared.
I still would have cared, to the extent I care now.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote: If the school had edited out text about drugs, sex, violence or anything else, this wouldn't be an issue. The school would have acted the same way. She violated school policy, and got cut off. End of story, no one would have cared.
Exactly. I'm wondering what the reaction would be if she had been cut off for thanking, say, Satan. Or Hitler.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For adult speakers, they generally withhold the speakers fee. Cutting the mic is not unheard of, though. I can't think of a way to effectively punish a graduating senior.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Adult speakers can be disciplined or fired if they work for the school, or have some or all of their payment withheld if they are hired speakers. How could either of those apply to a student? It's graduation, they can't give her detention or expel her. If they tried to withhold her diploma for it, her parents probably would've sued for that, too, and I think more rightly so. After she gave that speech she was going to walk out of that school for potentially the last time. If they hadn't cut the mike, I sure don't know how they could have punished her after the fact.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If such policies are necessary, then they shouldn't have valedictory speakers at all. They can put a little puppet up on the stage and synch it to a standardized speech.
I don't see how this follows. The students aren't being told what to say. They are being told that there are guidelines to what they can say and that they need to submit their speeches beforehand to ensure that they followed these guidelines. They are then expected to stick to what they submitted. This seems to me to be a clear and pretty fair way to avoid potential problems with the valedictory speeches, such as somone turning it into a prostelytization session. It presents a coherent set of guidelines and courses of action if those guidelines are violated and doesn't infringe (except for some slight annoyance at having to submit your speech for authorization) on those speakers who are going behave responsibly.
While I don't think I've ever had to submit the text of a speech I was going to give, on occasions when I've been asked or sought to speak in front of an audience, I've often had to sit down before hand and go over what I was going to say and issues that the people sponsoring the event would like me to keep away from. I've never seen this as a big deal.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:The mere statement "we will have your script and a finger on the switch" changes the dynamics of the situation for the worse.
I'm not sure that adequately describes the situation here. It's one thing to prevent the speaker from straying from the script at all. It's quite another to specifically tell her not to say "x" statement and then for her to say it anyway.
My guess is that the school's reaction was more about her deliberate disobedience than what she may have said.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Adult speakers can be disciplined or fired if they work for the school, or have some or all of their payment withheld if they are hired speakers.
And if they're neither? I know we had non-recompensed outside speakers at my graduation.
quote:It's graduation, they can't give her detention or expel her. If they tried to withhold her diploma for it, her parents probably would've sued for that, too, and I think more rightly so. After she gave that speech she was going to walk out of that school for potentially the last time. If they hadn't cut the mike, I sure don't know how they could have punished her after the fact.
They have ways of disciplining at graduation if people shout things out during the ceremony or throw things at the stage. Any of those would work here.
Frankly, the best way to discipline her might have been to have the principal get up and explain to the crowd that he's very disappointed that she lacked the honesty to do what she agreed to do. Then simply giver her her diploma in alphabetical order instead of first.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:While I don't think I've ever had to submit the text of a speech I was going to give, on occasions when I've been asked or sought to speak in front of an audience, I've often had to sit down before hand and go over what I was going to say and issues that the people sponsoring the event would like me to keep away from. I've never seen this as a big deal.
I don't see how that relates at all to what I said. I have no problem going over content first.
It's specifically the idea of the sanction for straying I find to be repugnant and counterproductive.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Then why did you say this:
quote:If such policies are necessary, then they shouldn't have valedictory speakers at all. They can put a little puppet up on the stage and synch it to a standardized speech.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because I think the hand on the switch is akin to running a puppet. I thought that would be pretty obvious.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You control what a puppet does, which is not what is occuring here. This is a case of enforcing guidelines, but having the speaker free to say whatever they want within those guidelines.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You control what a puppet does, which is not what is occuring here.
The key to the metaphor is the real-time control aspect.
quote:This is a case of enforcing guidelines, but having the speaker free to say whatever they want within those guidelines.
And I don't like the way the guidelines are being enforced. Further, it's clear that the speaker isn't free to say anything within the guidelines. The speaker is free to give the speech already approved and any deviations that don't make the switch-holder think the guidelines are about to be exceeded.
And if you simply redefine the guidelines to mean "whatever was in her speech and nothing else" then your description is accurate but meaningless, and the puppet analogy is even more apt.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The key to the metaphor is the real-time control aspect.
But there isn't real time control. They aren't controling the speaker at all. The only thing they control is the microphone system, which they are using like a *bleep* switch to head off potentially offensive statements.
And, in the case we're talking about, they said to the girl "Don't say these things.", with the implication that they would be offensive or otherwise unacceptable, and she agreed, but then went ahead and tried to say them anyway. So they prevented her from saying offensive or otherwise objectionable things. I'm not sure how else you would suggest they should have acheived this goal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But there isn't real time control.
It's a real-time on-off switch.
quote:they are using like a *bleep* switch to head off potentially offensive statements.
No, a bleep speech doesn't end the speech entirely.
quote:I'm not sure how else you would suggest they should have acheived this goal.
Forget this girl for a minute. My contention is that the harm done by the system outweighs any harm done by a single speech not going off perfectly. I don't think the goal of making sure no one is offended is worth treating the students so distrustfully.
Trust is often rewarded in these situations. Distrust is, too.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
They are not controlling the girl. She is not their puppet.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Treating the students distrustfully, Dagonee? They let her speak, and she violated their trust. At that point, cutting her off is precisely what she'd deserve in a trust-based system. (Well, that and never being allowed to give a speech again without a compelling reason to believe she'd changed.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: They are not controlling the girl.
Bolding it doesn't make it any more true, Squick.
In the context OF THE GIRL AS A SPEAKER they are exerting absolute control by putting their hand on the switch.
I'm sorry you seem to be incapable of understanding the context of what I'm saying.
Would you like to respond to ANY of my substantive points or just keep bitching about my metaphor?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Treating the students distrustfully, Dagonee? They let her speak, and she violated their trust. At that point, cutting her off is precisely what she'd deserve in a trust-based system. (Well, that and never being allowed to give a speech again without a compelling reason to believe she'd changed.)
The distrust happened months before graduation, whenever they decided on this policy.
Can people please focus on the policy as a general matter, being applied to the thousands of valedictorians who give speeches, and not just to one little brat.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Forgetting the girl is not good practice. When you're designing a behavioral control program, you have to design it to fit the population that it's being applied to. It's important to know the rate of unacceptible behavior you are going to run into when settting things up.
These administrators think that they are going to run into unacceptible behavior and have set up a fairly non-invasive (for the people who aren't going to engage in unacceptible behavior) way of dealing with it. They have avoiding the grey areas and wiggle room that often lead to trouble in these systems.
Now, you are saying that they shouldn't have this system because they should trust their students. However, they believe they need this system and we have clear evidence that in this case it was needed to prevent what they wanted to prevent.
That the girl did this directly refutes your assertion that they should trust all their valedictorians and thus no such system is needed. If you want to talk about differentials instead of categoricals, then by all means, go ahead, but insisting that their caution is misplaced in all cases in the face of one where it clearly wasn't doesn't seem to make sense.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Forgetting the girl is not good practice. When you're designing a behavioral control program, you have to design it to fit the population that it's being applied to. It's important to know the rate of unacceptible behavior you are going to run into when settting things up.
And one girl is not the population and tells us nothing about the rate of unacceptable behavior you are going to run into.
quote:These administrators think that they are going to run into unacceptible behavior and have set up a fairly non-invasive (for the people who aren't going to engage in unacceptible behavior) way of dealing with it. They have avoiding the grey areas and wiggle room that often lead to trouble in these systems.
It's not non-invasive to those who aren't going to engage in unacceptable behavior. It's very invasive.
quote:Now, you are saying that they shouldn't have this system because they should trust their students. However, they believe they need this system and we have clear evidence that in this case it was needed to prevent what they wanted to prevent.
I am saying that the cost of the expected violations is lower than the cost of the distrust exhibited and bred by the policy.
Lot's of schools think it's necessary to keep black armbands, pro-life/pro-choice, anti-gay-marriage/pro-gay marriage T-shirts out of their schools. They can probably point to an incident where one of the shirts led to disruption. Far better to punish the disruptors than to send the message to students that we don't think you're intelligent enough to see conflicting ideas.
quote:[qb]That the girl did this directly refutes your assertion that they should trust all their valedictorians and thus no such system is needed.[qb]
It certainly disputes that assertion. I didn't make that assertion though, so the word "your" is inaccurate in that sentence.
My assertion isn't that speech usurpation won't happen. My assertion isn't that this system isn't needed if one's goal is to make sure nothing inappropriate goes out over the PA.
My assertion, rather, is that the goal of making sure nothing inappropriate goes out over the PA isn't worth the cost of this policy. It is in that sense I think they should trust the valedictorians. Not in the sense that no valedictorian will ever betray that trust. And therefore this incident doesn't refute my assertion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In the context OF THE GIRL AS A SPEAKER they are exerting absolute control by putting their hand on the switch.
No they aren't. They are not controlling what she says. They are not treating her like a puppet. They are holding her to guidelines, with clear consequences if she violates them.
This is important. You made a comparison to putting up a puppet that mouths along with a adminsitration created speech. That's an invalid metaphor and as someone who obstensively prides himself on being very concerned with details and literalness, you should realize this.
The valedictory speakers are not acting as puppets for the administration. They are not saying only what the administration wants them to say. They are, instead, being held to guidelines, so as to forstall inappropriate speeches or, at the last extremity, prevent the student from giving an inappropriate speech, which, as this incident shows, is something that some of them are going to do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:insisting that their caution is misplaced in all cases in the face of one where it clearly wasn't doesn't seem to make sense.
You're right. Once again, I DIDN'T DO THAT.
I said their caution is ill-conceived and counterproductive.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And one girl is not the population and tells us nothing about the rate of unacceptable behavior you are going to run into.
Yes it does. It tells us that incidence of this behavior is non-zero.
Interestingly enough, I'm pretty sure that the adminstrators of this school district are better able to gauge the potential rate of this behavior than you are.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'd like to point out that this is also a special ceremony for many of the people there. Graduation is a huge step and one that their parents hope will be a special time devoted to their kids, not something that can be hijacked by one kid with an agenda. The school can certainly complain to her later, but the damage is done. How the school handles it when it happens it certainly up for dispute, but I'm kind of surprised you're so against them having restrictions at all.
An aside: Do you think the restrictions on speech placed on Hatrack in the terms and conditions are ill-conceived and counterproductive?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:In the context OF THE GIRL AS A SPEAKER they are exerting absolute control by putting their hand on the switch.
No they aren't. They are not controlling what she says. They are not treating her like a puppet. They are holding her to guidelines, with clear consequences if she violates them.
This is important. You made a comparison to putting up a puppet that mouths along with a adminsitration created speech. That's an invalid metaphor and as someone who obstensively prides himself on being very concerned with details and literalness, you should realize this.
First, I do not pride myself on being concerned with literalness. Especially as regards metaphors.
Second, I have now explained exactly what I meant by the metaphor. I stand by the metaphor as appropriate to that meaning. Anyone who thinks the metaphor is inappropriate can simply refer to the many explanations I have now given on the topic instead of relying on the metaphor alone.
quote:This is important. You made a comparison to putting up a puppet that mouths along with a adminsitration created speech.
And now we see the crux of your misunderstanding. I didn't say the administration made her a puppet. I said it was as bad as them making her a puppet, based on the real time coercion/control/whatever-the-heck-you-want-to-call-it of the kill switch.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
It is true that the Speech of a Valedictorian is liable to be a F-U to all the hoops she had to jump through, (or he) so it makes sense to exert control in the sense of keeping things above profanity and vulgarity and singling out people for personal attacks, but as a thanks it should go without saying she is allowed to credit who she wishes, and as the brightest and most successfully student it seems justified that her advice about how to succeed be heard.
BC
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes it does. It tells us that incidence of this behavior is non-zero.
None of my normative arguments depend on the incidence of this behavior being non-zero.
quote:Interestingly enough, I'm pretty sure that the adminstrators of this school district are better able to gauge the potential rate of this behavior than you are.
Yeah, I'd love to see you let someone get away with a statement like that in a gay marriage thread.
Not that your statement isn't likely true. Rather, I don't think it changes the normative argument here.
quote:I'm kind of surprised you're so against them having restrictions at all.
I've said several times that what I care about is the means of enforcement, not the existence of restrictions. <snark removal>
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Yeah, I'd love to see you let someone get away with a statement like that in a gay marriage thread.
I have no idea what that means.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Yeah, I'd love to see you let someone get away with a statement like that in a gay marriage thread.
I have no idea what that means.
I don't doubt it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hi, I'm an adult.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, me, too.
You have aggressively misinterpreted most of what I've said in this thread. Forgive me for deciding it's not worth trying to explain what I mean to you any more. It doesn't work.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And if they're neither? I know we had non-recompensed outside speakers at my graduation.
If there is an agreement about what they will talk about and the start to stray widely from it? Then turn off the microphone.
quote:They have ways of disciplining at graduation if people shout things out during the ceremony or throw things at the stage. Any of those would work here.
I believe those people are commonly escorted out. Yes, that would have worked here as well.
quote:Frankly, the best way to discipline her might have been to have the principal get up and explain to the crowd that he's very disappointed that she lacked the honesty to do what she agreed to do. Then simply giver her her diploma in alphabetical order instead of first.
I think that would have been considerably more humiliating then what they actually did. Would it have done a better job of getting their point across? Perhaps. But it also would have been more distruptive to the ceremony then flipping the switch, sitting her down and moving on.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dagonee, I understand that the means of enforcement is disruptive and feels like there is a lack of trust. What would you suggest as a better means of enforcment?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think that would have been considerably more humiliating then what they actually did. Would it have done a better job of getting their point across? Perhaps. But it also would have been more distruptive to the ceremony then flipping the switch, sitting her down and moving on.
It would have been far more effective at cutting down future attempts, I bet. It's the gut anti-censorship reaction that gives this story legs.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No it's not. It's the poor little persecuted Christian angle. That's the only reason we know about it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dagonee, I understand that the means of enforcement is disruptive and feels like there is a lack of trust. What would you suggest as a better means of enforcment?
ElJay quoted it right above you.
Of course, I care less about the disruption than it seems many others do, so your mileage may vary.
It would also be a good lesson for those in attendance: Your word means something, and the loss of it is painful.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Could be. But I think for the sake of the other students, how this ceremony is conducted should be more important to the people running it at the moment when they had to make the decision then potentially cutting down future attempts.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No it's not. It's the poor little persecuted Christian angle. That's the only reason we know about it.
I've heard of similar incidents relating to anti-war speeches, although I can't remember if the latest one I'm thinking of was at a graduation or not.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
The fact of the matter is that the reaction was excessive by the standards of normal decency, they are meant to pander to the ACLU with its never ending threat of litigation for the better of our eduction since that is where so much money that they are better off having then schools is just laying around.
It is shameful.
BC
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Could be. But I think for the sake of the other students, how this ceremony is conducted should be more important to the people running it at the moment when they had to make the decision then potentially cutting down future attempts.
If it's the smooth process that's most important, than the best suggestion is not to have student speeches.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Why? They have student speeches and smooth running under the current system.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BC, The reaction proceeded according to already established procedures in response to deliberate dishonesty on the part of this girl. I think you may be misplacing the shame here.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Other things to be considered: Even if the principal had disclaimed her speech, she still would have been allowed to make it - thus getting what she wanted in the first place. The school would have been forced into providing a platform for her ideas. Because she tricked them.
The level of disruption would have been even greater - not very fair to the other students who were graduating.
How do they handle the next one? If this is policy - let them finish the speech and then disclaim it - do they do that when the speaker is really offensive? Swearing? Hate speech? Do they let that continue and then talk about how disappinted they are?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Why? They have student speeches and smooth running under the current system.
Good grief.
I know you don't actually care about any of the points I tried to make, but could you at least not pretend I haven't spent the better part of an afternoon saying that I think THIS method of ensuring smooth running isn't worth the cost.
One more time, for the cheap seats: I don't think the goal of having a non-disrupted graduation is worth the cost of having a kill switch on the students' microphone.
Got that? I don't even care if you agree or not. Just stop pretending I haven't said it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*patpats Dag, but not on the spot on his head he's been beating against the wall*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Other things to be considered: Even if the principal had disclaimed her speech, she still would have been allowed to make it - thus getting what she wanted in the first place. The school would have been forced into providing a platform for her ideas. Because she tricked them. The level of disruption would have been even greater - not very fair to the other students who were graduating.
I disagree that the level of disruption would have been greater. Either way, though, I don't think preventing whatever level of disruption would have occurred is worth the message sent to student speakers by a kill switch.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, You may want to realize that other people don't have your priorities. You said that, if they wanted to have smooth running ceremonies, they shouldn't have speeches at all. I pointed out that they already have smooth running ceremonies and student speeches, so obviously, they don't need to abolish student speeches to have this.
I get that you think their system is so bad that it outweighs many, many things. I don't think anyone on this thread agrees with you. The school board in question obviously doesn't. So great, we've got your opinion.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Not at all, the rules constraining her read like articles of surrender to the Left Wing Wacko fringe and their ACLU champions of political correctness. This is what happens when you take money from the federal government, it always comes with the "for the good of everyone" police strings. God save us if they ever pay for health care, the mandatory Calisthenics and coffee colonics will take all joy from life.
This girl fought her fight in the light of day for not a thin dime, they fight in back room for all they can get their grubby mitts on. I can see the villains and heroes quite well.
BC
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BC, where have you found the rules? Have you actually "read" them? Could you post a link so we can see as well?
-Bok
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that the only message they are sending is that they won't be tricked into providing a platform for speech that falls outside of certain parameters. I agree that the assumption that students will try to trick them is a sad one, but it seems to hold water. I think that your suggestion (post speech disclaimer) leaves the door open for speeches that could be a great deal more objectionable.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I don't think preventing whatever level of disruption would have occurred is worth the message sent to student speakers by a kill switch.
But how is that message any different than the message sent when the speeches are reviewed beforehand, which is something you said you were OK with?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If it makes a difference, BC, I get just as annoyed at actors who use their Oscar acceptance speech to push a political agenda.
As here, it's not the time or the place and the point they think they're making, it's because it's inappropriate to the audience and the event.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag, You may want to realize that other people don't have your priorities. You said that, if they wanted to have smooth running ceremonies, they shouldn't have speeches at all.
Please. It was within the context of my priorities that I replied as should have been abundantly clear. ElJay gave a response stating her priorities. My response used mine.
quote:I get that you think their system is so bad that it outweighs many, many things. I don't think anyone on this thread agrees with you. The school board in question obviously doesn't.
Yeah. I get that. I'm having some interesting discussions with several of the people who don't agree with me on this.
quote:So great, we've got your opinion.
Yes, it is great that I got to express my opinion. I've enjoyed listening to the people who have shared their differing opinions but don't let that stop them from listening to mine. Some interesting discussion has arisen from it.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Yes, it is great that I got to express my opinion. I've enjoyed listening to the people who have shared their differing opinions but don't let that stop them from listening to mine. Some interesting discussion has arisen from it.
And some righteous hand-banging to rival a Metallica concert!
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think that the only message they are sending is that they won't be tricked into providing a platform for speech that falls outside of certain parameters. I agree that the assumption that students will try to trick them is a sad one, but it seems to hold water. I think that your suggestion (post speech disclaimer) leaves the door open for speeches that could be a great deal more objectionable.
In the cases I know about, the rules for the speeches are presented from the beginning in an authoritative manner. The kill switch ultimatum simply magnifies that and, I suspect, gives incentive to try to get around it. It becomes "use v. them."
Is should be, "Here's your part in the program and here's the types of things that are appropriate in a valedictory." In that atmosphere, the exchange of speech drafts could be seen as a collaboration, not a check on bad behavior. Have the student catch the spirit of the event and want to participate.
If that can't be done, then I question the value of such speeches at all. But I suspect that, if done in that manner, incidence of speech usurpation would be reduced.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The Valedictorian represents the student body. She isn't an individual; this isn't a thank-you-for-making-ME-great opportunity. The Valedictory speech is given on behalf of the whole graduating class. "We." "Us." "Our." Those are the proper pronouns-- not "I."
In this way, the speech isn't a reward, but an obligation. And she had the obligation to fairly represent the rest of her class' thoughts on graduating.
Scott,
I don't think that the valedictorian represents the student body. If that were the case, they'd pick someone in the middle, or vote on it. It's an honor for an indiviudal student, and I'm not even sure that's it's possible for one student to represent the varied and preformed viewpoints of all high school students. The usual result is a sort of moral mediocrity with hackneyed lines that don't touch anyone, also known as the lion's share of the 2004 DNC speeches. No, she went for it, and I'm proud of her. It was her 15 minutes of fame, and depending on the shape of her life, it may be one of the most important, defining moments of her life.
[ June 20, 2006, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I wonder how many of the Faculty were Valedictorians? Many of them might have benefited from her wisdom as well. It was as clear as glass when the ACLU gave them their 'good boy' pat on the head after the fact who they were concerned with. If lawyers are their masters I shudder at what there classes teach. I am just impressed that a girl of such conviction was able to adapt and overcome and even triumph in this school system.
BC
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That would be ideal. Sadly (and having witnessed and participated in a lot of graduation ceremonies - although mostly at the University level) I think it is unrealistic.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BC, would you be so enamoured of her convictions if you didn't agree with them? What if she decided to give an anti-war speech?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I agree that that sort of collaboration would be (greatly) perferred. In that sort of system, though, what happens when someone says "Okay, one of the things I want to talk about is my religion, and how Jesus was crucified and rose again to save us all" (Phrased in such a manner that it was obviously more than just thanking God for the effect he had on the student's life.) and then doesn't accept "This isn't really the appropriate venue for that, and it's against school policy X as well" as a reason not to do it? Just say there isn't going to be a valedictory speech that year? Do they still let the Salutitory speak, if they normally do?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Many of them might have benefited from her wisdom as well.
...which, according to her statement, is "God's awesome." Such wisdom indeed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I disagree with the collaborative process being better. I mean, I like the idea of a dialogue about why certain things are or are not appropriate, but the valedictory speech should, in my opinion, be an individual effort reflecting that person's perspective. I find it a worse idea to have the administration to say "This is what your speech should be about." than to say "No, we think you've stepped over a line here."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Please. It was within the context of my priorities that I replied as should have been abundantly clear. ElJay gave a response stating her priorities. My response used mine.
And my response used mine. Your whole rant was predicated on you wnating me to use your priorities in my response.
They already have smooth ceremonies and student speeches, so I don't think your "best way" of ensuring smooth ceremonies by getting rid of the student speeches is actually best.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Although, saying "when giving your speech, please remember the school's policies about appropriate language and behavior" does feel much different than "comply with our rules or you will be silenced." The former assumes the student understands the disciplinary policies and is willing to accept the consequences, whereas the latter feels like it's taking away the choice altogether.
If the consequences are severe enough, it should discourage any problems with speeches while perhaps still giving the student the feeling that they are trusted and free to speak.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The problem is that there are no consequences for graduating seniors. Really. They are "outta here!" And they know it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And my response used mine. Your whole rant was predicated on you wnating me to use your priorities in my response.
No, you asked me why. A question that would have been utterly unnecessary for you to ask me if you had ever made an attempt to understand what I've been saying.
Had you said, "They can have a smooth ceremony with student speeches by using the kill switch," I would have responded that I disagree with your priorities. However, you asked me why. My response was based on your unwillingness to attempt to even appreciate my priorities.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:then doesn't accept "This isn't really the appropriate venue for that, and it's against school policy X as well" as a reason not to do it? Just say there isn't going to be a valedictory speech that year? Do they still let the Salutitory speak, if they normally do?
Yeah, if she won't agree to the guidelines, she shouldn't speak. I wouldn't cancel anyone else's speech, and I might recruit another to take her place. And, if she went ahead and lied during the collaborative process and then gave the speech, I'd have then called her on it publicly. At that point, it wouldn't be someone merely circumventing school rules they considered unfair. It would be betraying a working relationship with a particular person - something I find people less willing to do.
I've declined to participate in many activities where the rules constricted my independence too much. In other situations I've gone along.
I've also attempted to circumvent restrictions that I considered a violation of my constitutional rights (remember, I don't think those are in play here), although never by lying. I've been up front that I will not abide by the unfair rules.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The problem is that there are no consequences for graduating seniors. Really. They are "outta here!" And they know it.
The perfect time to learn that adulthood isn't about what one does when one can get away with anything, but what one does when others can't control you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, new possible solution: Create a scholarship for the valedictorian. Condition it on good behavior during the speech - the same control used over adults.
She lost nothing when the flipped the switch.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
She pretended to agree with the guidelines. If they had let her finish her speech, it would have been exactly what she wanted them to do. It would have worked. My guess is that the school has been similarly duped in the past.
Do you think they should have cut the mic if, instead of sticking to her speech, she had started shouting obscenities or talking about how great Hitler was or something along those lines?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:She pretended to agree with the guidelines. If they had let her finish her speech, it would have been exactly what she wanted them to do. It would have worked. My guess is that the school has been similarly duped in the past.
But she wouldn't have gotten on Hannity and Colmes. I suspect she's loving the fact that they cut her mike.
quote:Do you think they should have cut the mic if, instead of sticking to her speech, she had started shouting obscenities or talking about how great Hitler was or something along those lines?
I don't know. The only type of mike-cutting I would approve would be in extreme cases, but I'm not sure how extreme it would have to be.
Whatever the policy is with other speakers is what I prefer. That doesn't preclude mike-cutting, but it does make it rare and it does make it not tied to a script.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Not at all, the rules constraining her read like articles of surrender to the Left Wing Wacko fringe and their ACLU champions of political correctness.
No. The rules constraining her were established by the Supreme Court, by way of the constitution. Dagonee of all people ought to take that into consideration.
However, from what I'm getting from Dag, it's not the rules he's complaining about, but they way there were enforced. If that's true then he and I have very little argument, even though I don't see turning off the mike as being terribly intrusive. If he sees it as intrusive (or more intrusive than making a post speech disclaimer) then we'll just have to have a difference of opinion.
But we don't know enough of the history of this case to really understand how the rules came about. For example, condsider these two timelines:
*************************************** 1.School writes guidelines for speech
School chooses Valedictorian and presents her with guidelines for speech.
Valedictorian presents speech for approval, is told that certain parts must be cut.
Valedictorian tells school that she will not cut her speech.
School decides to cut the mike if she strays from her approved speech, and tells her so.
Valedictorian delivers her original speech. Mike is cut.
2. School writes guidelines for speech, including preemptive rule against straying from the approved speech.
School chooses Valedictorian and presents her with guidelines for speech, including the rule that says the mike will be cut if she strays from the approved speech.
Valedictorian presents speech for approval, is told that certain parts must be cut.
Valedictorian gives no warning, but delivers her original speech. Mike is cut.
******************************
Note that these are only two of many such possibilities, but the flavor is decidedly different. We don't have enough information to draw real conclusions as to what happened.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:I don't know. The only type of mike-cutting I would approve would be in extreme cases, but I'm not sure how extreme it would have to be.
Which is why they have to treat every speech the same way. I'm not saying it is perfect, but it is the same for everyone.
I think the scholarship is a good idea - costs money, but a very good idea.
I suspect that she is loving the attention as well. That isn't something that the school can control, though. I would love (but I know it ain't gonna happen) if during one of her interviews she was asked what Jesus thinks about liars.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Okay, two cents after reading (quickly) this thread.
First: I think the debate over whether or not the school had the right to flip the switch is ludicrous and a little ridiculous. They have control over the entire ceremony: Who talks when, who sings when, who walks when...everything. And just being valedictorian doesn't give you any right to speak. Yeah, you earned an honor and hopefully the administrators at least recognize you at graduation, but you sure as heck don't have a right to talk.
When I spoke at my high school graduation (I was not valedictorian), I had to participate in a contest beforehand. I wrote a speech and then gave it to a panel of judges who selected two speakers based both on their public speaking ability and the content of the speech. Let's be honest, people, some speeches are much more worthwhile than others.
It seems to me this debate is getting muddled up over the religion question. But think of everything that a high school student could possibly say in front of a microphone. I mean, one of the top girls in my younger sister's class was having an affair with a music teacher. Imagine if someone had gotten up at graduation and outted that in front of everyone's parents. Or what if someone started spouting profanity in front of all of the younger brothers and sisters?
The speaker, of course, can engage in 'civil disobedience,' as we seem to have termed it here, at his or her peril, and that's fine. I have mixed feelings about this case. On the one hand, props to her for saying what she believed in. On the other hand, graduation is really important to all of the people seated in that audience, and everyone wants to hear something that is inclusive. When I was chosen, I felt something of a responsibility to the other students to accurately represent the shared experience we'd had in high school. Forget God; it just wasn't the time to talk about me. If I were her, I would have talked about how everyone has people or ideas that were essential to their success: For her it was God, for others maybe parents or influential teachers.
All of that said. If you want to debate whether or not the school should have approved a speech that was religious in nature, well, that's a whole other ball game. In my opinion, that argument has been hashed and re-hashed over and over again. I can understand why the administrators would have removed the God-related material from the speech simply for legal reasons; hell, when I was in high school the choir wasn't allowed to sing Chrismas songs at the holidays. (Though we could sing Jewish songs...go figure.) So on that, to each his own.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
[aside] Just listened to Kasie's commencement speech again, and enjoyed it very much. And she used "we" much more than "I". [/aside]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
The implication of the Supreme Court writing rules for school speechs is that the framers of the constitution included that in there framwork, fearing that one day students might thank Jesus for their success and damn the nation. Revolting...
"BC, would you be so enamoured of her convictions if you didn't agree with them? What if she decided to give an anti-war speech? "
No she would have been allowed to read it, almost certainly.
BC
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No. The rules constraining her were established by the Supreme Court, by way of the constitution. Dagonee of all people ought to take that into consideration.
We have no idea if these rules were in excess of what the Court requires. To be clear, I don't subscribe at all to what BC said in that quote.
However, it is very possible that the ACLU - or, to be more accurate, perceptions of the ACLU - do affect administrator decisions and cause schools to go to far in suppressing speech. I think that the vast majority of the time this is based on others erroneous interpretations of court decisions, not ACLU pressure. But, UVA specifically cited fear of being sued by the ACLU when they denied our magazine. ACLU briefed against us, and someone in the school had been in touch with the ACLU about suing to challenge the funding had we been granted it.
Of course, that decision was ultimately 5-4, so it's not as if they were advocating something far beyond the norms of free speech balancing with the establishment clause. Just thought I'd point out that there are infringements of constitutional rights caused by fear (usually misplaced) of the ACLU filing a suit. In at least one case, such fear did lead to an unconstitutional infringement, one that was thankfully corrected.
(I am not saying this is the ACLU's fault, nor do I agree with the sentiment you quoted.)
quote:However, from what I'm getting from Dag, it's not the rules he's complaining about, but they way there were enforced. If that's true then he and I have very little argument, even though I don't see turning off the mike as being terribly intrusive. If he sees it as intrusive (or more intrusive than making a post speech disclaimer) then we'll just have to have a difference of opinion.
Ah, sweet understanding.
quote:But we don't know enough of the history of this case to really understand how the rules came about. For example, condsider these two timelines:
*************************************** 1.School writes guidelines for speech
School chooses Valedictorian and presents her with guidelines for speech.
Valedictorian presents speech for approval, is told that certain parts must be cut.
Valedictorian tells school that she will not cut her speech.
School decides to cut the mike if she strays from her approved speech, and tells her so.
Valedictorian delivers her original speech. Mike is cut.
2. School writes guidelines for speech, including preemptive rule against straying from the approved speech.
School chooses Valedictorian and presents her with guidelines for speech, including the rule that says the mike will be cut if she strays from the approved speech.
Valedictorian presents speech for approval, is told that certain parts must be cut.
Valedictorian gives no warning, but delivers her original speech. Mike is cut.
******************************
Very good point. The second scenario outlines the policy I really hate: making it adversarial from the start.
In the first scenario, the school should not have let her talk at all until she agreed - signed writing with an oath - to abide by the restrictions. If she refused, no speech at all.
Force the lie to be explicit if she's going to circumvent the rules.
quote:Which is why they have to treat every speech the same way. I'm not saying it is perfect, but it is the same for everyone.
I prefer restraint of speech (and again, I'm not saying it's unconstitutional in this case) to be a rare, not the default solution.
quote:I think the scholarship is a good idea - costs money, but a very good idea.
Thank you.
quote:I suspect that she is loving the attention as well. That isn't something that the school can control, though. I would love (but I know it ain't gonna happen) if during one of her interviews she was asked what Jesus thinks about liars.
Yeah, me, too.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Thanks, Kasie.
Moose, we both know that there is a way to use "we" that is much more presumptuous than a simple "I."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No she would have been allowed to read it, almost certainly.
I wish I could find the reference, but I know I read about a student speaker giving an anti-war speech being cut off in a school setting.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Yeah, BC, I think the idea that an anti-war speech would get approved is a little out there. From what I can tell of hte reaction of the audience -- which seemed upset when she was cut off -- it's in a pretty red area where anti-war sentiments wouldnt' really go over very well. I really think you're seeing this as more political than it actually is.
Then again, you probably caught the girl on Fox News, so I see why you made *that* particular mistake.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I wasn't making any value judgment, Irami -- nor was there any causal/correlative link between the two comments. It was just an observation. It so happens that I don't think her use of "we" was presumptuous. I could also note that there was no mention of god(s). Having read this thread, those were just a couple things that were fresh in my mind as noticeable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dagonee, I think we are mostly in agreement as to the ideal situation. I am somewhat more cynical about how graduations ceremonies often go and the extreme measures that schools sometimes must undertake to ensure that they go smoothly. I might, perhaps, be less cynical if last weekend wasn't commencement here. And our students (I think) are far above average.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hey, boots lives in Lake Wobegon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dagonee, I think we are mostly in agreement as to the ideal situation. I am somewhat more cynical about how graduations ceremonies often go and the extreme measures that schools sometimes must undertake to ensure that they go smoothly. I might, perhaps, be less cynical if last weekend wasn't commencement here. And our students (I think) are far above average.
It's not that I'm not cynical, but that my ideals sometimes whip my cynicism.
I have chosen a field where we will exclude absolutely relevant and probative evidence that would greatly improve the accuracy of a criminal trial simply because we disapprove of how that evidence was gathered.
While I think the murderer going free because of a bad search happens far less often than most people think, it definitely does happen.
And most days, I think the cost is worth the increase in justice and liberty in our system.
A little disruption at a high school graduation doesn't phase me at all. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
So once again it is clear that when BC says "read", he apparently means "assume, and cast aspersions". Assuming my read of his non-response to me is accurate.
-Bok
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hmmmm. Bothers me. Probably because part of my job is to ensure that our go smoothly. Also, 25 years of stage management is rather ingrained at this point.
I think that liberty and justice are certainly worth a bit of disruption. I don't feel the same about student speeches. If the school is providing the mic. I do support their right to have their say if it is their own mic.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Hmmmm. Bothers me. Probably because part of my job is to ensure that our go smoothly.
That makes sense.
quote:I think that liberty and justice are certainly worth a bit of disruption.
The cost absolutely includes innocent lives. There are murders that have been committed by people who would have been in prison absent the exclusion rules. So it's not just a bit of disruption we're talking about.
quote:I don't feel the same about student speeches.
I think that if the speeches aren't worth the possibility of disruption, then they aren't worth hearing at all.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Best graduation speech ever given.
At my brothers Jr. High commencememt ceremony.
The speaker stood up in a over heated unairconditioned packed gym as the principal announced him. There was a smattering of applause.
"Friends. I don't know what to say. I greatly appreciate you thinking of me to speak today, but I don't know what to say. I asked the Principal what my speech today should be about.
He said about...thirty seconds.
Today, in this heat, I think he was over estimating my worth.
Sometimes silence is more powerful, and more appreciated, than words.
Congratulations to you all, and good luck in the future."
He then sat down to thunderous applause.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oh, honey, ninety percent of commencement speeches aren't worth hearing!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I bet the ones that were worth hearing pissed off somebody in the audience. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The impression I got from being on the staff of my high school newspaper is that high school students have almost no free-speech rights in their capacity as students. School officials have very broad power to prevent students from saying anything that might "harm the educational environment."
Probably a bad law, in my opinion, but it is the law of the land.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
She agreed to give one speech and switched back to her original speech. That wasn't brave. It was sneaky. Unfortunately, now she gets to have a real 15 minutes of fame talking about how she has been a victim of religious oppression by the big bad liberals and the PC police.
The news stories about her won't mention that real victims of religious oppression usually end up dead, mutilated, or cast out of their homelands. The worst thing that happened to this girl was that she didn't get to finish her speech. She is still free to worship as she pleases, go door to door recruiting for her church, raise her children in any religion she sees fit, and even switch religions if she wants. She just wasn't allowed to break the rules.
I suppose it's a different debate as to whether the rules are good rules or not. But personally, if I were at a high school commencement watching my child graduate, I’d want to be spared some idiotic religious rant (of any stripe, Christian-right, Christian-left, atheist, Muslim, Wiccan) which I’d probably disagree with, just as I’d want to be spared from some idiotic political rant. Not because I don’t value free speech or respect the right of the people making the speeches, but because that’s not what I’m there for. Really, I’d just want to see my kid walk across the stage and hear the speakers spout the usual platitudes about hope and pride for the new generation.
But that’s me. I don’t like to be sermonized to or talked at. I like my intelligent debates about topics to be in a forum where I can respond and ask questions, not in a forum where I have to sit and listen (like it or not) and my only response can be either clapping or not clapping. (I don’t think I could bring myself to boo at a high school valedictorian; she still did very well in school and probably has a lot of accomplishments that are worthwhile, even if I disagree with what she says).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:No she would have been allowed to read it, almost certainly.
I wish I could find the reference, but I know I read about a student speaker giving an anti-war speech being cut off in a school setting.
I remember a graduation recently (Ohio maybe?) where students who turned their back on the speaker in protest were evicted from the ceremony and threatened with arrest.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On the subject of freedom of speech : Does it make a legal difference if your audience is in some sense 'captive'? That is, it seems to me that there is at least a moral difference between, say, a TV program that you are free to switch off, and a speech at a school function where attendance is more-or-less obligatory. Freedom of speech should surely include the freedom not to listen, and it seems to me that the other students did not have that freedom in this case; therefore, the freedom to say whatever you like should be somewhat curtailed. That's my take on the morality of it; I'd like to know whether there's any legal recognition of such a concept. Dag?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
KoM, I've wondered the same thing about bumper stickers. I mean, if I'm driving along with my kid in the car, and the car ahead of me has obscene bumper stickers that I can't prevent my child from seeing, my right to sheild my child from adult themes has been trod upon.
It seems to me that freedom of speech shouldn't include the freedom to rub someone's nose in the fact that you can get away with saying anything you want to, no matter how offensive.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The more I think about this, the more I wonder about an indvidual sense of honor. The scenario I'm imagining may, I admit, not be completely correct, but as I understand things at the moment, the student was granted the honor of speaking at graduation along with which came a set of instructions and a requirement to have her work approved.
Ultimately, she showed up at graduation knowing what the school's rules were, and what the administration had removed from her speech. She, in fact, had the approved version of the speech.
Personally, I find myself in similar situations frequently. I work for clients who pay me to evaluate things based on a set of criteria that I did not develop. By agreeing to be part of the evaluation team, I find myself writing to a standard, and even having my work edited by a team.
Without going into specifics, there are definitely times where team members have had strong disagreements (okay, they don't rise to the level of our individual relationships with God, but this is a matter of some importance to each of us because it is our profession and we are there as experts.
We also, at times, disagree with the standard we use in the evaluation.
Now, we could choose to violate our tacit agreement and "go to the wall" to make our point, even though that could mean never being invited back. But it has not happened. Not once.
And I think the main reason isn't because we don't care all that much so we let it slide and act like good boys and girls. No, I think the reason is that we all know the rules going in. You do it this way, or not at all. If you don't like it, you don't take the job.
I consider that a point of honor. One among many in my professional life.
Frankly, if I were this child's father, I might be proud of her for taking a stand, but I would also pull her aside and explain how honoring your commitments is extremely important. And that even if it means you have to pass up an opportunity to score one for the team, you have to remember that personal honor -- that people can take you at your word -- is of transcendant importance in life.
I think that's consistent with a Christian sense of morality and values too. In that respect, I would feel remiss as a parent if I didn't make it clear that there are other ways to do things besides breaking your oath or failing to uphold an obligation.
And...sometimes the only thing keeping us in the right is our own sense of what we committed to. Even if the other actors in the drama have broken their word, or have treated us shabbilly, we don't get to use that as an excuse to go back on our word.
I believe that this is especially important for people who want to identify themselves as Christians to the world. If they can be easily labeled as oath breakers, as people who cannot be trusted to do what they say they will do, the impression they leave others with is truly negative.
I might wish the school had a better way of handling it. But I would first and foremost use it as a teaching opportunity for my son or daughter. No matter how proud I might be of her for sticking to her principles, I would make it clear that I also expected that ONE of the principles she sticks to is doing exactly what she says she will do.
And just to let you know I would also show her how proud I was of her, I would offer to hand out copies of her unexpurgated text along with her explanation of events. I would be down in front of the school board, the principal, and the two chosen "editors" (if she wanted me there, of course). And I would help to rally whatever support I could for her to say exactly what she wanted to say.
But the moment she stood up in front of that microphone, wherever the resolution of the issue stood at that moment, that's where she should stand. Period.
This was a no-win situation for the school. She chose to make it worse. She got glory for herself. Not for God. Not for the school. For her.
And I don't count that as good for Christianity, or for the person doing it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:On the subject of freedom of speech : Does it make a legal difference if your audience is in some sense 'captive'?
It greatly depends on the context. For example, students listening to book reports or oral projects are "captive," but a teacher would need to tread very lightly in regulating the topic. Certainly assignment-related restrictions would be acceptable, but someone who allowed a general choice of books about space travel who barred "Out of the Silent Planet" because of religious themes would be very close to or over the line.
A graduation speech is not a public forum or a limited public forum; the speakers are representatives of the school and as such controllable by the school to some extent. People may remember a recent SCOTUS case about a prosecutor denied First Amendment protection for a memo written as part of his job. I imagine the analysis is similar, but not quite the same.
The captive audience is only going to make a constitutional requirement that speech be restricted with respect to certain types of religious speech. Other things that may cause offense - political opinions, jokes, what have you - could be restricted by the school because the audience is captive, but wouldn't have to be.
When a private speaker speaks before an audience somehow made captive by the government, the establishment clause will provide strong support for curtailing certain types of religious speech.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Bob,
Your post reminds me of a John Adams quote:"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Also a Mark Train quote: "* It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either."
It seems to me that while freedom of speech is necessary to protect against government abuses, It was never intended to undermine basic propriety. We've reached a point where freedom of speech has taken on an importance of it's own. Rather than being a protection against abuses, you've got the Howard Sterns of the world who seem to think that pushing speech beyond all propriety is a requirement, rather than a freedom.
And most of society seems to think that since freedom of speech is (pardon the expression) a "God given right," there's nothing we can or should do to limit the Howard Sterns of the world. Ultimately, I think the cumulative damage from free speech will be enough that society will react by putting legal restrictions in place, which is a shame.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:No she would have been allowed to read it, almost certainly.
I wish I could find the reference, but I know I read about a student speaker giving an anti-war speech being cut off in a school setting.
I remember a graduation recently (Ohio maybe?) where students who turned their back on the speaker in protest were evicted from the ceremony and threatened with arrest.
Another example where the school was probably within its rights but wrong to exercise them.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Another example where the school was probably within its rights but wrong to exercise them.
They were within their rights to threaten students with arrest?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
What bothers me is that because she wanted to thank God for her doing well she was told to edit her speech. That is what is ridiculous. The mic cutting and when and who and why with all that is pretty much irrelevant to me. Sure if something is vulgar they shouldn’t allow that, but since she wanted to praise God and thank him for all his influence in her life she was prohibited. And that was wrong. There is no reason why she shouldn’t be allowed to do that. So along the same lines if a student gets up and says they want to thank the lessons of Darwin and what a great influence he was in their grades then that should be cut too. That’s a belief that some people don’t believe in and could be offensive. Why should anything but vulgarity be blocked? That’s really the point of the review.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:What bothers me is that because she wanted to thank God for her doing well she was told to edit her speech.
But that is explicitly NOT the part of the speech that they reportedly objected to, Jay.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:What bothers me is that because she wanted to thank God for her doing well she was told to edit her speech. That is what is ridiculous. The mic cutting and when and who and why with all that is pretty much irrelevant to me.
How on earth are the when, who and why irrelevant? They're central to understanding the actions of the censors.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Glenn...
You should go visit the Lincoln presidential library/museum. There's a section where you can read the things that people said about him in print.
Frankly, in our modern exercise of free speech, we're pikers!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
By the way, do we have a link showing the actual text that was cut? I feel we're arguing in a bit of a vacuum here.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I thought there were an unusual number of dust bunnies in here.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I finally got around to reading the article, and I'm starting to think that she was obnoxious with her references, but my position stands and I support her. God is important to her, even if I'd find her repetition of that fact nauseating. She could probably replace God with her parents, and I'd find it equally nauseating, but after four years of hard work, the young lady should be able to speak from the heart.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Irami, did the article you read give the actual text? Could you link to it?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Meh. Give me a zealot over a wishy-washy handwringer any day.
Reporting for duty. When I come to power, would you like to be sent to the re-education camps, or shall we just shoot you right away and save you all that trouble?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Another example where the school was probably within its rights but wrong to exercise them.
They were within their rights to threaten students with arrest?
If the students didn't leave when told (which is my assumption of the sequence of events - I could be wrong).
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:If the students didn't leave when told (which is my assumption of the sequence of events - I could be wrong).
Ok, if they were told to leave and refused, then I can see using police escort or arrest as a legitimate means of enforcement.
If the students simply turned around and the teachers called the cops (which, from your post, is what it sounded like), I would have a much different take on it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:No. The rules constraining her were established by the Supreme Court, by way of the constitution. Dagonee of all people ought to take that into consideration.
Are you suggesting that a school allowing a student to decide to praise God in her valedictorian speech is in some way preventing someone from exercising their religion (or lack thereof) freely?
If anyone is violating someone's freedom of religion, it is the school violating the valedictorian's by singling out her religion and disallowing it in the speech.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd guess, and this is conjecture only, that if she had ONLY said (in the religious context) "I'd like to thank my parents, and God, for giving me the strength to do this," that it wouldn't have been cut. Or, if she had used an in general feel good quote from the Bible about strength or overcoming diversity, then it too may not have been cut. But the sheer volume, and graphic nature of the speech is probably what led them to cut it all together. I still don't think it was the right decision, or that they went about it the right way, but I also don't think they violated her rights, just that it was a poor decision.
Schools are under enormous pressure to not offend anyone. With the casual way lawsuits are flung around in this country, I don't blame them for wanting to skim anything potentially offensive out of a speech. I think the fault here lies less with this individual school, and more with a society in general that has so heavily scrubbed religion from the mainstream in the last century, that anything that deviates from the secular is considered proselytizing and a violation of the rights of others. One girl talking about her love of God isn't state sponsored Christianity, and it isn't denying the right of worship to anyone. Claiming either of those is ridiculous.
I think this girl knows all of that though, she isn't stupid. I did a net search for her name and actually found it in three different articles about totally separate issues. All of which portrayed her as a smart girl at the top of her class intellectually and socially.
She must have known exactly what she was doing, and knew full well that she was going to be yanked as soon as she veered off course, otherwise why would they have bothered vetting her speech at all? She knew she'd be cut off, and wanted it to happen so she could raise a fuss about the issue afterwards. I'm perfectly okay with that. So long as she is promoting her issue, and not herself, I think it's well accepted form of protest in America, for at least the last hundred years.
Calling her childish for doing this is ridiculous. She committed an act of protest because she was being the denied the ability to say something she thinks she should have had the right and ability to say. How do you expect newly crowned adults to act when you tell them they are free, and then seek to impose what may appear as childish restrictions on them?
If she's still sticking with it, she needs to drop the "I can't believe they cut my mic, what a violation!" attitude and instead go with "I refused to give in to their censorship, and I spoke regardless. I accept that they had to cut my mic, but I think it was wrong, and here's why." The former is too coy, while the latter strikes me as more mature, and respectable.
I still want to see the full text of the speech, and I'd like to see if this is getting any more air time than just a single spot on Fox and is then forgotten.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't think that the valedictorian represents the student body.
Well, you're wrong. Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
If there had been no recent (well, 20+ years worth) fuss about prayer in schools, and then prayer at football games and graduations, and then using the name of God in any public place at any time where someone might hear and be struck by lightning or whatever, would she have written the same speech?
At my own graduation X-years ago, we were all well aware of the fight going on in some districts to not allow prayer at graduation. The class chaplain (yes, we had an elected chaplain) prayed specifically thanking God for the right to pray. Instead of "Amens" he got cheers at the end of that prayer. In any more ordinary year, the prayer would've been something you had to sit quietly through to get to the diplomas. But that year it was something to rally around and fight for ... or against.
It's possible she's aware of the fight and decided to join it with guns blazing ... while if there had been no fight going on, if the freedom to say some of these things had not been challenged, she may not have felt it necessary to go that far. Just thanked God - or not - without thinking much about it. So the fact that they're trying to censor her probably caused her to purposely make her speech that much more provocative.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
1) Every right comes with an equally powerful and usually ignored responsibility. This stretches from the right of religion freedom and the responsibility to not force others to surrender their freedom, to the right of assembly and the responsibilty to assemble without becoming a mob.
She has the right to say what she believes, when she is speaking for herself. Here she was set to speak for the school, and she refused.
She has the right to say what she believes, but I have the right not to listen. Yet here she was in a situation where those in the audience could not leave.
She has the right to say what she believes is the truth, yet she lied in order to say it, so that brings grave doubts to her truthfulness.
2) This does the Christian Evangelical movement more harm than good. Where they are portraying her as an innocent lamb embattled by the bad PC Police, many of us see her as a manipulative kid who tries to push and sneak her beliefs on us.
3) She shows certain lack of understanding her fellow classmates. She says, "My success is thanks to God." That means that everyone else's failure was also "Thanks to God." Its like the winning quarterback saying, "God made me win." The losing quarterback begins to wonder why "God made me lose."
This idea that God has elevated you beyond others can be very dangerous. It can lead to all kinds of ego-centric thinking and actions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So the fact that they're trying to censor her probably caused her to purposely make her speech that much more provocative.
It's a shame that preventing things which are wrong often drives people to commit things which are even more wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Got your flag picked out for burning yet, Tom?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Like I said.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think that the valedictorian represents the student body.
You are right. She represents the best of the student body. And the best of the student body likes Jesus and isn't afraid to say so, and I'm okay with that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:She represents the best of the student body.
No she doesn't.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Apparently, "the best of the student body" is willing to cheat and lie to get her way. That she does so in the name of religion is something I am not okay with.
How on earth does she think that such behavor glorifies God?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: What bothers me is that because she wanted to thank God for her doing well she was told to edit her speech.
It's clear that this is what you think happened, because it's what the misleading title of this thread (which you started) says.
But it's not true.
A graduation speech is not the time to proselytize. Even from the little that's been said about the content of her address, it's clear that she went way over the line.
No one is going to get censored for saying, "Thank you, God, for getting me through this all."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No one is going to get censored for saying, "Thank you, God, for getting me through this all."
People keep saying this, but I know of at least two specific instances where valedictorians were forced to edit a single mention of God like that one out of their speeches. I'd bet that I haven't somehow lucked into knowledge of the only two instances of this ever happening.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
It's fascinating how, when God is involved, everyone becomes very authoritarian and sides with following the rules the school laid down. During Jim Crow, if a bus driver ejected a black person from the bus because they would not sit in the back, would we all be saying "I don't agree with his decision, but he was within his rights to do so"? Or would we be thinking that the rules themselves were bogus?
I'm not defending this particular student however because if she agreed to abide by the school guidelines and did not, then she acted dishonourably. She could have just not given any speech and made her point that way. If you want to break unjust rules, great, but you have to be up front about it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It doesn’t sound to me like all references to God were cut from the “approved” version of the speech.
quote:In the 750-word unedited version of McComb's speech, she made two references to the lord, nine mentions of God and one mention of Christ. In the version approved by school officials, six of those words were omitted along with two biblical references. Also deleted from her speech was a reference to God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciated death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven.
...
District legal counsel Bill Hoffman said the regulation allows students to talk about religion, but speeches can't cross into the realm of preaching. "We review the speeches and tell them they may not proselytize," Hoffman said. "We encourage people to talk about religion and the impact on their lives. But when that discussion crosses over to become proselytizing, then we to tell students they can't do that." Link
I still haven't found the actual text of the speech, though a co-worker of mine claims to have seen it somewhere.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
Dagonee,
I have no doubt that it occurs (too lazy to go back and look, if I implied or said otherwise I wasn't expressing myself correctly).
My issue was that with McComb(given the very limited information we have) it appears she went beyond mere mention of religion--which the school district allows--into proselytizing--which it doesn't--so they chose to edit her speech.
Of course with any of these things, there is a gray area. With gray areas, school districts have to make judgment calls on when a speech crosses the line. And, I honestly don't know where the line should be drawn. Is 5 mentions of God too many? You can mention God once, Christ once, but never, ever mention a bible verse. At the extremes (both of which are wrong, IMO), you get either 1. absolutely no mention of religion allowed (which infringes upon the rights of the speaker) or 2. you get full proselytizing including a "turn or burn" speech and a mention of how to make donations to a specific denomination (which infringes upon the rights of the audience, assuming they cannot realistically leave)
Any solution between the extremes seems like it infringes a little on both sets of rights. And since people have different tolerances for both their rights and the rights of others, it seems like we, as a nation, will be constantly bickering over the gray area. Not to say it isn't worthwhile to bicker over the gray area....at least we have enough freedom to even talk about religion.
I personally wish I could see the speech she intended to give. Do you think they're withholding it for the sake of a lawsuit or something? It would be so much easier if I knew what they actually censored.
(edit spelling)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My issue was that with McComb(given the very limited information we have) it appears she went beyond mere mention of religion--which the school district allows--into proselytizing--which it doesn't--so they chose to edit her speech.
I've already called her a brat (at best). I was responding to a specific assertion that no one would do something.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I found another valedictorian who got cut off. Apparently at his school the speech is given by the student body president, but the valedictorian thought he had a right to give one, so he grabbed the microphone and started to. He was cut off and escorted out. And later arrested for disorderly conduct, which seems like overkill.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: It's fascinating how, when God is involved, everyone becomes very authoritarian and sides with following the rules the school laid down. During Jim Crow, if a bus driver ejected a black person from the bus because they would not sit in the back, would we all be saying "I don't agree with his decision, but he was within his rights to do so"? Or would we be thinking that the rules themselves were bogus? ...
I just don't consider the school district's rule about proselytizing an unjust rule. It seems like a perfectly just and reasonable rule to me, unlike Jim Crow laws. A rule like that protects me from being pummeled by other people's opinions about God in a situation where I can neither ignore them nor debate them. Of course, YMMV.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
My college's graduation speaker was not the person with the highest GPA, but someone chosen by a group of faculty, alumni, and students among about a dozen speeches submitted by students.
Her speech spoke at length about how wonderful the overseas study program was, and how great my college was for giving students that opportunity.
The schedule of required classes for graduation in my major meant that I had no chance at overseas study. And the speech was like a slap in the face to everyone like me.
I was really insulted, in part because I'd heard the other speeches, speeches that spoke to the heart of the common experience we'd had in our years in college. The board chose, to my mind, the absolute worst of the speeches offered. The one that "talked up" the school the most, perhaps, but also the one that excluded the most people.
That, in a nutshell, is my reaction to this speaker. Nothing wrong with loving God, or being Christian, or even- briefly- thanking God for your success.
But when you start going into your religion at length, you keep a lot of people who ought to be able to celebrate the fruition of your common experience at arm's length. You say, "you aren't like me, no matter what you might think."
At the risk of using what some people will rail at as a PC word, that's incredibly insensitive.
The administation was right.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And later arrested for disorderly conduct, which seems like overkill.
Yeah, it really does.
Edit: these are the kinds of cases that cry out for prosecutorial discretion.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
For those advocating that she should be able to say anything that she was moved to say, do you have any examples of any utterances that you would consider out of bounds for a graduation speech?
Is it okay to say anything as long as she really believes it fervently?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Is it okay to say anything as long as she really believes it fervently?
If it is on the subject of her education and she really believes it fervently, and she is the Valedictorian, then yes. If she strings together a series of F-bombs, then the school should be ashamed of itself for putting such high honors on someone who thinks that a string of F-bombs are appropriate for a graduation speech.
The original sin isn't the content of her speech. It's the school censoring her speech, which opened a Pandora's box of tragic actions on both sides of the debate.
[ June 21, 2006, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:I just don't consider the school district's rule about proselytizing an unjust rule.
I fully agree with a rule against using a graduation speech to proselytize.
But it seemed like some were thinking that it didn't matter so much what the school's rules were; that they had them and she broke them was bad in and of itself. That part I don't agree with.
This particular case I don't know about because I don't know what the speech said.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Ha - at my high school it was the school itself which told us that God was with us in our endeavours!
Do any of us know what exactly she said? To the politically over-sensitive, there's a big difference between 'I achieved this thanks to God' and 'Our achievements are thanks to God'. Also, I think what got the school nervous is not just the thought of religious talk in a secular institution, but the suggestion that only those who believe in God will succeed, which I suppose might have been implied.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
And in every State of the Union, the President tells God to bless America.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
(my old high school in Australia by the way)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:then the school should be ashamed of itself for putting such high honors on someone who thinks that a string of F-bombs are approrpiate for a graduation speech
The problem here, Irami, is that you seem to be assuming that academic honors necessarily translate to other forms of worthiness. I'm not at all sure they do, or even that they should. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:then the school should be ashamed of itself for putting such high honors on someone who thinks that a string of F-bombs are approrpiate for a graduation speech
The problem here, Irami, is that you seem to be assuming that academic honors necessarily translate to other forms of worthiness. I'm not at all sure they do, or even that they should.
I'm pretty sure based on previous posts that, were Irami to design the curriculum and grading standards, no one could be valedictorian without other forms of worthiness.
I think it's near impossible to pull that off, and I'm not sure I'd want to, but it seems very consistent from his point of view.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I personally can't imagine not having someone at the switch of the microphone during the entire ceremony.
that they had cause to use it during the valedictorian's speech is sad, and her choice.
that they actually did use it was (and had to be) the choice of an instant. I tend to give greater lattitude to those we as a society charge with making instanteous decisions on our behalf.
She didn't give the monitors the option of weighing her remarks with the luxury of time. They did have that option, took it, and she defied their edits. So, they had to make a decision right then as the events unfolded.
The difference between flipping the switch and not flipping it was pretty much a split second call.
As I said, this is predicated on, to me, the absolute necessity of having someone ready to turn off the mic at a moment's notice for a whole host of possible reasons.
So, even if they chose wrong in this instance, I think their decision was reasonable under the circumstances that they were placed in by this girl's actions.
She may have earned many things, but she did not earn the trust or respect of the school to the point where they could simply let her say whatever she wanted to.
I'm thinking, say, of how her situation might compare to that of an honored guest speaker with fame and renown. There, they might be loath to shut off the microphone no matter what the speaker said.
But what's her track record?
If I were in charge of a program at which children were going to speak, I'd put them on a 7-second delay if I could. But if not, then I'd make sure I could cut the mic quickly.
It's not that they aren't wonderful people, but I wouldn't feel like I knew enough about them to put my butt on the line so they could have unfettered use of government equipment and access to the crowd gathered for whatever event it was.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:that they actually did use it was (and had to be) the choice of an instant. I tend to give greater lattitude to those we as a society charge with making instanteous decisions on our behalf.
The main pragmatic reason I'm against it, because there's no recourse for when it's done poorly - mainly because I don't think you can place much blame on an instantaneous decision-maker.
Again, though, I seem to think the harm caused by a disruption is much less than everyone else. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I know I was offended enough by my baccalaureate address that, years later, it's left me angry and deeply suspicious of ANY mention of religion by public officials before a captive audience.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'm pretty sure based on previous posts that, were Irami to design the curriculum and grading standards, no one could be valedictorian without other forms of worthiness.
If the high school can't trust it's best student to give a speech, then it's not much of a high school, in my esteem.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: And in every State of the Union, the President tells God to bless America.
Which is a plain violation of the establishment-clause right of atheists, so what's your point?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I'm pretty sure based on previous posts that, were Irami to design the curriculum and grading standards, no one could be valedictorian without other forms of worthiness.
If the high school can't trust it's best student to give a speech, then it's not much of a high school, in my esteem.
And yet, she proved herself to be untrustworthy by her actions. Her choice. Not theirs.
Is the school responsible for her lack of personal honor too?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:that they actually did use it was (and had to be) the choice of an instant. I tend to give greater lattitude to those we as a society charge with making instanteous decisions on our behalf.
The main pragmatic reason I'm against it, because there's no recourse for when it's done poorly - mainly because I don't think you can place much blame on an instantaneous decision-maker.
Again, though, I seem to think the harm caused by a disruption is much less than everyone else.
I personally would love to see the thing handled the way you suggested -- or even better yet, walk up, take the mic away in mid-sentence, tell her to go sit down because she violated the agreement she made with the school, and continue on with the program.
If people are going to act like children, then they deserve to be treated like children.
But I dont' see any of the school's options as nearly as good as the one that just has the girl either doing exactly what she tacitly agreed to, or simply refusing to speak under the conditions she obviously couldn't live with.
(which, is what I believe you posted earlier as the best option...I should probably go look to see if that's exactly what you said, but I'll just hope I got it right...) Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But I dont' see any of the school's options as nearly as good as the one that just has the girl either doing exactly what she tacitly agreed to, or simply refusing to speak under the conditions she obviously couldn't live with.
Yep. I agree.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm still not convinced her speech counts as proselytizing.
I'd need to see the actual text before making that kind of judgement, and while I know that one of the definitions of proselytizing is to espouse one's beliefs, usually it is referring to an active attempt at conversion.
I don't think anyone here can claim that that was her intention just from inferences made to the content of the speech, without seeing the actual speech itself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The implication of the Supreme Court writing rules for school speechs is that the framers of the constitution included that in there framwork, fearing that one day students might thank Jesus for their success and damn the nation. Revolting...
Instead of, you know, trying to read the minds of dead Founding Fathers-what would that be? Telenecropathy? Necro-telepathy? Or just a good ole fashioned seance?), maybe we should use the rules included in the US Constitution.
You know, the thing they all got together and said, "OK, this is the law of the land. In it is included the ability to change. Everyone vote...OK? OK. Done."
It's very, very tiresome when people take a modern political issue and say, "The Founders would not have agreed with this," as though that's the final word.
The Founding Fathers were not so stupid as you would like them to be. The Founding Fathers, like any halfway intelligent student of history, knew that the nation and its cultures would change, and needed a government that could change with it.
Within the US Constitution is the US Supreme Court, whose job it is to interpret laws written by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch. Maybe, just maybe, the Founding Fathers would be more concerned with respecting the legal power of one third of the US government than they would narrowly applying their own, centuries-old points of view.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well said, Rakeesh!
They have a job to do. It's a part of our system of government. Sometimes their decision will please, sometimes it wont. But unless they themselve violate the Constitution in making that decision, it is legitimate.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Instead of, you know, trying to read the minds of dead Founding Fathers-what would that be? Telenecropathy? Necro-telepathy? Or just a good ole fashioned seance?), maybe we should use the rules included in the US Constitution.
I agree, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says or implies that schools aren't allowed to let students decide to praise God in their graduation speeches. If the Supreme Court has gotten to the point where it can somehow find that in the Constitution, then I think we have gotten to the point where we just need to write some clarifying amendments.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Is it okay to say anything as long as she really believes it fervently?
If it is on the subject of her education and she really believes it fervently, and she is the Valedictorian, then yes.
So if, hypothetically, her speech was about how she was able to excel because of her superior, white, genes, that would have been fine? Or about how she was able to do well despite having to attend school with Jewish and Muslim students (who should really not be allowed to go to school with Christians) - you think she should be allowed to give that speech?
Just wondering where (or if) you would draw the line - short of the "f-bomb".
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:In the 750-word unedited version of McComb's speech, she made two references to the lord, nine mentions of God and one mention of Christ. In the version approved by school officials, six of those words were omitted along with two biblical references.
This makes me even more upset with the girl. The edited version still allowed her to have six references to God or Jesus. That's quite a bit. I mean, no one really needs to thank God six times in a speech. It seems to me that the school was actually trying pretty hard to give her as much freedom as possible by just omitting the extreme stuff while still allowing her to say how her life has been affected by religion.
quote:Also deleted from her speech was a reference to God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciated death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven.
How is this not proselytizing?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm surprised there haven't been more editorials discussing this topic and coming up with the same ideas we've had here; whether it was up to the Valedictorian to include her whole audience or not. Most of the articles focus on free speech, or not.
Sounds to me like there is no argument. She still hand the chance to mention God a number of times.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Bob, I'll fully admit that she lied, but she had to choose between sufffering the degradation of hiding her beliefs or committing the sin of lying to the administrators. There is not a purely good choice here. It's a tragic problem. In this particular situation, in these circumstances, I find her decision to be the most compelling.
quote:So if, hypothetically, her speech was about how she was able to excel because of her superior, white, genes, that would have been fine? Or about how she was able to do well despite having to attend school with Jewish and Muslim students (who should really not be allowed to go to school with Christians) - you think she should be allowed to give that speech?
Sure, again, if these were her choices, I'd call into question what we are teaching in our schools.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:she had to choose between sufffering the degradation of hiding her beliefs or committing the sin of lying to the administrators.
Not speaking about one's beliefs every waking second is not the same as hiding one's beliefs, so I don't know why you are limiting this to only two possible choices. Once again, she was allowed to proclaim her beliefs six times, which I think is still way more than necessary.
quote:Sure, again, if these were her choices, I'd call into question what we are teaching in our schools.
Well, the schools most definitely should not be teaching that "God's awesome" or that through God is the path to salvation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No one made her "hide" her beliefs. There is a wide space between hiding your beliefs and not shoving them down the throats of a captive audience. She was perfectly able to talk about her beliefs - on her own time and with her own microphone. All the school did was decline to provide her with a platform to spout her own beliefs. They declined to sponsor her preaching. Which they had every right and a responsibility to do. A responsibility, I would add, that I am glad you don't hold - given that you seem to think that racist speeches are an appropriate activity for a school to sponsor.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Has anyone seen the speech yet? Anywhere? A link would be great.
Judging from what's been reported so far, I do not believe the school was trying to eliminate God, as seems to be the default anti- position here. If what's been reported is true, that her original 750-word speech contained "two references to the lord, nine mentions of God and one mention of Christ", two biblical references, and a "reference to God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciated death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven", then I gotta say yes, she was preaching. No, she was witnessing.
Consider: my columns run between 700 and 800 words. That's how much speech we're talking about.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I can't find a transcript. But since the speech she gave was a modification of the approved format if a transcript is ever released its probably a transcript of the "School Approved" version, rather than the version she gave.
I do not find it impossible that after being asked to restrain her remarks Brittney McComb probably became indignant and made even MORE religious references in her speech thinking she would get away with it.
This all reminded me of a high school graduation that John McCain attended. Lots of people in the audience students/parents heckled McCain during his remarks. They were all criticisms of his support of the war in Iraq. People stood up and turned their back on McCain during his specches duration. The Valedictorian even got up during her speech and made a 1 minute rant about how wrong it was to have troops in Iraq, and how evil this administration was etc etc. McCains entire speech was about empowering oneself through scholastic achievment, and he made no reference to his political views. I was very impressed that before passing out diplomas the head of school got up and made short remarks about how he was ashamed of the treatment that had been given to Senator McCain and that though people can disagree they ought to respect each other. He said "Its easy to yell out criticisms like cat calls when you are hiding in a group of people. Only a brave person stands so that everyone knows who you are when you speak." That got alot of applause.
It really sounds to me like Brittney McComb was being allowed to thank God for her accomplishments. She was simply being censored from turning her speech into a revival meeting. It really does not look like the school board was trying to remove any expression of religious belief.
Its perfectly understandable that Christians must be "willing" to bear witness of Christ at all times and in all places. That does not mean it ought to be done in the same way constantly. There is not "ONE WAY" to bear witness of Christ. And in this situation it seems that Brittney McComb was bearing witness in a somewhat inappropriate manner. The speech of a graduation seems like a place where one can certainly thank God, but not a place to preach a sermon on the gospel.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Well, the schools most definitely should not be teaching that "God's awesome" or that through God is the path to salvation.
And we shouldn't be teaching that Christians should be ashamed to talk about the importance of God in their lives.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
As we have still not seen the original speech, we don't know that she was told that. "God" was apparently not utterly excised from her speech, only toned down to an arbitrary, non-preaching level.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:And we shouldn't be teaching that Christians should be ashamed to talk about the importance of God in their lives.
For the most part, people have no problem with that, as long as there aren't implications about the importance of the lack of god in our lives.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Well, the schools most definitely should not be teaching that "God's awesome" or that through God is the path to salvation.
And we shouldn't be teaching that Christians should be ashamed to talk about the importance of God in their lives.
Again, there is a wide gulf between saying, "as a public school we don't provide a platform for preaching any specific religion", and causing someone to be ashamed about their faith. How are you failing to understand this?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Are you suggesting that a school allowing a student to decide to praise God in her valedictorian speech is in some way preventing someone from exercising their religion (or lack thereof) freely?
If anyone is violating someone's freedom of religion, it is the school violating the valedictorian's by singling out her religion and disallowing it in the speech.
You're forgetting the establishment clause. The issue is not whether her freedom of religion is being infringed. It's whether the school, as a branch of the government, is allowed to establish articles of faith, or a mode of worship. The SCOTUS said that the school is not allowed to do so, and in a separate case, said that the school is not allowed to allow surrogate representatives to do so on it's behalf. In this case, the valedictorian is representing the school, so she is bound by the same restrictions.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:No one is going to get censored for saying, "Thank you, God, for getting me through this all."
People keep saying this, but I know of at least two specific instances where valedictorians were forced to edit a single mention of God like that one out of their speeches. I'd bet that I haven't somehow lucked into knowledge of the only two instances of this ever happening.
No, I'm sure it does happen. As you've pointed out, most likely due to misunderstanding and paranoia.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: The fact of the matter is that the reaction was excessive by the standards of normal decency, they are meant to pander to the ACLU with its never ending threat of litigation for the better of our eduction since that is where so much money that they are better off having then schools is just laying around.
It is shameful.
BC
What is shameful is that these American schools allowed someone with such terrible grammar as this to pass English, let alone graduate at all.
It seems that most people don't agree with you, BC.
Then again you must be use to that, you keep coming back.
Ann Coulter is beyond all common decency at all times, but that doesn't stop you from liking her. Let's be honest for once, BC...your objection to this has nothing to do with common decency, and everything to do with your politics.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: And we shouldn't be teaching that Christians should be ashamed to talk about the importance of God in their lives.
It looks to me from the quote above that the school encourages students to talk about the importance of God in their lives.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
It comes across as proselytizing to me rather than just a mention of God or two (or three or four). I'm sure she was earnest about her feelings, but I can see why the school decided not to provide a platform for her.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It comes across as proselytizing to me rather than just a mention of God or two (or three or four). I'm sure she was earnest about her feelings, but I can see why the school decided not to provide a platform for her.
My primary concern with drawing this distinction is whether we will cut off a bunch of personal experiences.
I've heard graduation speeches about how school spirit, volunteering, education in general, or even books have helped the speakers find purpose, peace, or joy in their lives.
If she had kept only personal portions of her speech, would it have been OK as a true anecdote?
Compare this with the last section of the speech in the link (I tried to make sure all my changes are marked, but you can refer to the original):
quote:The summer after my freshman year, I quit swimming. I quit trying to fill the huge void in my soul with the meager accomplishments I obtained there. After quitting, this amazing sense of peace rushed over me and I noticed, after 15 years of sitting on the story-time rug, this teacher standing above me, trying to help me: God. I disregarded His guidance for years, and all the while, He sought to show me what shape fits into the cut-out in my soul.
This hole gapes as a wide-open trench [that I had] filled with swimming, with friends, with family, with dating, with shopping, with partying, with drinking, with anything but God. But His love fit[]. His love [was] "that something more" [I had desired]. [I found it] unprejudiced, ...merciful, ... free, ... real, ... huge and ... everlasting. [I was moved by the thought that] God's love is so great that he gave His only son up to an excruciating death on a cross so His blood would cover all [my] shortcomings and provide for [me] a way to heaven in accepting this grace.
I now desire not my own will, but the will of God for my life -- however crazy and extravagant, or seemingly mundane and uneventful that might be. Strangely enough, surrendering my own will for the will of God, giving up control, gave me peace, gave me a calm I can't even begin to express with words.
Four years ago, recognition as one of the valedictorians for our senior class would have been just another attempt to fit the circle into the square cut-out. But because my heart is so full of God's love, the honor of speaking today is just that: an honor. Without it, I would feel just as full and purposeful as I do at this moment.
And I can guarantee, 100 percent, no doubt in my mind, that as I choose to fill myself with God's love rather than with the things society tells me will satisfy me, I will find success, I will always retain a sense of self-worth. I will thrive whether I attend a prestigious university next fall and become a successful career man or woman or begin a life-long manager position at McDonald's.
Because the fact of the matter remains, man possesses an innate desire to take part in something greater than himself. [For me, t]hat something is God's plan. And God's plan for [my life] may not leave [me] with an impressive and extensive resume, but if [I] pursue His plan, He promises to fill [me]. [God has said to me, in] Jeremiah 29:11, " 'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future.' "
Trust me, this block fits.
Does this make it less proselytizing and more of a relation of personal experience?
To what extent beyond a single "Thank you God" is it ok to relate an important event in one's life?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That was too much, IMO, and I would expect them to cut it off right away.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Yep, too much. She's essentially relating her conversion own conversion at the start, not something that particularly interests me:
quote:I disregarded His guidance for years, and all the while, He sought to show me what shape fits into the cut-out in my soul.
This hole gapes as a wide-open trench when filled with swimming, with friends, with family, with dating, with shopping, with partying, with drinking, with anything but God. But His love fits. His love is "that something more" we all desire.
She goes further is saying that anyone who does not have God is incomplete- lesser- than the person who does. Now this may be a perfectly valid personal opinion, but when spoken to an audience of mixed people it's a sermon.
And she ends, not only with "This block fits for me" or "I have found the block for me" but the far more general comment intended for everyone: "Trust me," she says- implying we should follow her words and conversion with the kind of faith she devotes to her God- "this block fits." Not just for her, for all of YOU, too.
She goes beyond her own experiences to deliberately generalize her experience in order to convince her audience. That is proselytizing.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The good speech- well-written, thoughtful, and powerful. Christianity put her on the road to being a valedictorian. I couldn't have produced-- and I possibly would have been scared to try to produce-- anything of its caliber at my graduation. I also wasn't a valedictorian, and it's a distinct possibility that those facts are linked.
As an aside, I read an article a few weeks ago about how Hitler and Totalitarianism came to power because its opposition was hand-wavvy humanism and liberalism. It doesn't matter how right these virtues were, because they weren't expressed with clarity, courage, and honesty.
I found the quote. It's from a book of Mortimer Adler essays, "We are losing our moral principles. But the vestiges of them remain to bother us and to interfere with a thoroughgoing commitment to amoral principles. Hence we are like confused, divided, inefffective Hitlers." the payoff is indicated: "In a contest between Hitler and people who are wondering why they shouldn't be Hitlers, the finished product is bound to win."
In my estimation, this girl is a finished Christian product, and if secularists can't muster an intellectual and emotional opposition to her, it's not her fault that her testimony is so persuasive.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And she ends, not only with "This block fits for me" or "I have found the block for me" but the far more general comment intended for everyone: "Trust me," she says- implying we should follow her words and conversion with the kind of faith she devotes to her God- "this block fits." Not just for her, for all of YOU, too.
So, if that's the problem, does the rewrite to just her experience correct the problems you see?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Except that her testimony is not persuasive. It's just a rehash of the "god shaped hole" argument, which fails on the same basis as the weak anthropic principle. If you already feel that the hole in your soul (or psyche, as the case may be) is god shaped, then no doubt only "God" can fill it.
For those of us who can fill the hole with something other than god, the argument is meaningless. So essentially she's just preaching to the choir.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Maybe I'm a sucker for a good felt testimony. I've seen so many ones that were the product of indoctrination or ignorance or to give up a habit that when one like this comes along, I actually appreciate it: A good old fashion realized apprehension of God's hand in this world.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
To Dagonee: No. Teshi said it very well here:
quote:She goes further is saying that anyone who does not have God is incomplete- lesser- than the person who does.
This is the whole basis of her speech. Changing the references to first person pronouns doesn't change that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I guess you all know my opinion, so I won't even bother to give it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is the whole basis of her speech. Changing the references to first person pronouns doesn't change that.
Then I have a serious problem with the whole concept of valedictorian speeches.
If I can listen to some jock go on about how school spirit was such a powerful factor in his life, or listen to people tell me this was the best four years of our lives when the only thing that kept me from killing myself was the knowledge that on June 23, 1988 I would be free, then other people can listen to this girl relate her powerful transformative experience. And, if they can't, then I say trash the whole damn idea of valedictories.
If we're going to have content-based discrimination, then I'd rather just not have non-necessary government-sponsored speech. And make no mistake, it's discrimination based on the content of the speech. You may think it justified discrimination, and it might not be actionable under the first amendment, but that doesn't make it non-discriminatory.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Does the use of the phrase "career man or woman" in this section bother anyone else?
quote:And I can guarantee, 100 percent, no doubt in my mind, that as I choose to fill myself with God's love rather than with the things society tells me will satisfy me, I will find success, I will always retain a sense of self-worth. I will thrive whether I attend a prestigious university next fall and become a successful career man or woman or begin a life-long manager position at McDonald's.
If she's talking about herself and her experiences, what is that referring to? Is she leaving open the possibility of gender reassignment?
I'm also just a tad uncomfortable with her options listed as "a success" or "manager at McDonald's"
Allowances must be made for this being the speech fo a high school student, but, frankly, I heard a speech given by a high school kid recently at a major statewide meeting and it beat this one hands down. AND it was about the role of God in her life -- and how that related to doing good things in the world, and not sitting back to watch the bad stuff happen.
It inspired, and didn't belittle.
This speech, frankly, pales in comparison.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:So, if that's the problem, does the rewrite to just her experience correct the problems you see?
To an extent. Instead of being offensive, your re-write version is merely completely inappropriate, in my opinion, as a valedictorian graduating speech.
I said earlier on in the thread how I felt that such a speech should not only be to the graduating class, but on behalf of it. I do not get the sense that she was attempting to talk about the time she'd had at school or the graduating class at all. This personal religious experience would be great if she had been asked to speak in church, or even if she were speaking only for herself- say, in a speech contest. However, where she stands in front of her class, relating her religious conversion is highly inappropriate and self-congratulating.
She doesn't even mention the time they spent at the school!
But, no, it's not actually offensive anymore.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I said earlier on in the thread how I felt that such a speech should not only be to the graduating class, but on behalf of it.
I don't think that's possible. Certainly at my school, graduating class of 750, it wasn't.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:This is the whole basis of her speech. Changing the references to first person pronouns doesn't change that.
Then I have a serious problem with the whole concept of valedictorian speeches.
Even leaving out religious issues, you think valedictorians are entitled to belittle their audience?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I disagree with your assessment that the modified speech belittles the audience.
However, if I accept your definition of belittling, then all the standard speeches belittle a large, identifiable section of the audience, too.
Therefore, if I accept your premise, then I reach my conclusion: ditch them all.
I can tolerate disagreement about whether this speech belittles or not. But I won't tolerate a different standard for judging other speeches. And, if this speech belittled those who don't share her beliefs about filling holes in souls with God, then almost every valedictory I've ever heard belittles someone.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: However, if I accept your definition of belittling, then all the standard speeches belittle a large, identifiable section of the audience, too.
quote:I've heard graduation speeches about how school spirit, volunteering, education in general, or even books have helped the speakers find purpose, peace, or joy in their lives.
Sorry, it's not on the same level. Most valedictory speeches will exhort the audience to find something: "school spirit, volunteering, education in general, books, sports, friends, family" or whatever, but find something and work at it to give your life purpose. She only offers God as the solution to her incompleteness. She even belittles "swimming...friends...family... dating... anything but God." She makes it clear that these things aren't adequate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sorry, it's not on the same level. Most valedictory speeches will exhort the audience to find something: "school spirit, volunteering, education in general, books, sports, friends, family" or whatever, but find something and work at it to give your life purpose.
You misread what I posted. The speeches I'm talking about each gave ONLY ONE of those things. Not all.
quote:She only offers God as the solution to her incompleteness. She even belittles "swimming...friends...family... dating... anything but God." She makes it clear that these things aren't adequate. (emphasis added)
In the modified version, she makes it clear these things weren't adequate for her.
Further, the very idea that someone has to find "something" to give one's life purpose is saying that a lack of purpose isn't adequate.
You don't get to have it both ways. Either no one gets to suggest that those not doing what they are saying are somehow inadequate, or everyone does.
(And, again, I'm not granting that her speech does that.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, after having read the speech, I think it does cross a certain line...but I'm still not certain it was wrong of her to try it.
I think she is certainly preaching the faith. But it's a fine line between expressing appreciation for the role that God played in her life, and trying to impart that role on others'lives.
I think it is a very powerful speech, in a way, about her transformation. But it also sounds a bit like a God infomercial.
I think she would have been better off scaling it back a bit, but the basic core of the speech was just fine.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I've never attended a church service where someone stood up and tried to convince everyone there that they would be better off if they gave up believing in God.
It only seems fair a religious person shouldn't give a speech at a secular event trying to convince the people in the crowd that their lives are incomplete without God.
Not only did she break the rules, but to me, it's just plain rude. If the speech were about her, and she mentioned going to church, fine. When the speech is about God it's a sermon.
Sermons belong in church, and I'm sure hers would have been more than happy to allow her to give her speech there. They eat that kind of stuff up.
Here's a little something Miss Christian might have considered before deciding to break the rules.
quote: 1 Peter 2:13-15 13 Therefore subject yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to the king, as supreme
14 or to governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evildoers and for praise to those who do well.
15 For this is the will of God, that by well-doing you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men
Or, you could just break the rules and get your mic shut off.
I'm sure Peter would have put that part in, if he'd thought of it at the time.
[ June 25, 2006, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: MightyCow ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not only did she break the rules,
This part I've agreed with from the beginning.
quote: but to me, it's just plain rude.
The rudeness only arises out of the rules being broken. Assuming it is not rude to talk about oneself at all, then it is not rude to talk about how God has changed one's own life.
If people are interested to know why this incident might provoke such strong reactions, it's because many people are resisting the implication that speaking of their faith is considered rude in a situation where it is not considered rude to speak of other profoundly personal things with which others might not agree.
quote:Sermons belong in church
Sermons belong anywhere it is considered OK to venture an unsolicited opinion on a topic of one's choosing.
If we want to make this country a place where there is no such place outside a group of people known to agree with the speaker, let's just make sure we apply that rule to all types of opinions.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
1) I agree with Dag that we should not lock Sermons away in church. If so then what else can the church do by preach to the choir.
2) The wall between Church and State must remain firm. It is not their to attack the church, but to protect the people who don't belong to the church.
Suppose we eliminate it for Valedictorian speeches. What happens when the Lutheran principal or superintendent in a mostly Lutheran school district either chooses the valedictorian or edits their speeches to insure that a Lutheran sermon is given instead of a dangerous Mothodist one?
"Ms. Jones, you can't give Johnny an A. That would make him Valedectorian. He Jewish and we need a good strong Christian message at the graduation."
3) I still disagree with the speech. She is saying "God loves me. That is why I got the good grades. He must hate the rest of you."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What happens when the Lutheran principal or superintendent in a mostly Lutheran school district either chooses the valedictorian or edits their speeches to insure that a Lutheran sermon is given instead of a dangerous Mothodist one?
"Ms. Jones, you can't give Johnny an A. That would make him Valedectorian. He Jewish and we need a good strong Christian message at the graduation."
It is this type of possibility that makes me leery of government-sponsored expressions of private speech in general. What if the local <choose unpopular cause> teen activist is about to become valedictorian? Same thing is possible.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan Raven,
While by process of elimination one could conclude that is what she's saying, I've known or heard of few even fanatical religious zealots who actually think in such plain, malicious terms.
I think it is more likely she hasn't really realized the full implications of her ideas.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Having looked at it, the speech no longer seems offensive to me; it's subtly insulting to her, and I think the people smart enough to be insulted by it would also be smart enough to realize she's actually belittling herself.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:You misread what I posted. The speeches I'm talking about each gave ONLY ONE of those things. Not all.
Dag,
No, I understood that you meant that speeches you had heard referred to only one thing. I simply haven't heard any speeches that were so single minded, so I took your examples and added my own (and hers) into my example of exhorting the audience to find something to motivate them. In my experience, that's the typical valedictory speech: "Here's what motivated me, now you go find something that motivates you. -> (examples)"
Tom,
That's one way to look at it. Except that she certainly doesn't see it that way. And further, I think it's clear that because she doesn't realize that she's belittling herself, she does think that she's belittling others.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If someone wants to voice her opinion in public, that's fine. She can stand on the street corner and sermonize to her heart's content. In a graduation ceremony, where the other students are required to be there, a student should not push an agenda on a captive audience.
It would be equally wrong for her to sermonize about how euthanasia is a great thing that everyone should support, or how it's wrong to have pets, or that Caucasians are an inferior race who should not be allowed to breed.
Tell your story and be done with it. It's not a persuasive speech, you're not trying to convert your classmates to your ideals, whatever they might be.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:she does think that she's belittling others.
This shows an almost complete misunderstanding of what she was saying.
quote:In my experience, that's the typical valedictory speech: "Here's what motivated me, now you go find something that motivates you. -> (examples)"
I've NEVER heard a speech talking about "what motivates me" that intends to send the message "go find something for yourself."
At most, it suggest other things that are part of the same category, which is just a way of giving a single example with different specific means of implementing the same thing.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It's not a persuasive speech, you're not trying to convert your classmates to your ideals, whatever they might be.
I'm pretty sure that every commencement speech I've been present to hear has been a persuasive speech trying to convert me to some sort of ideals or set of beliefs. One tried to convince the audience that ours was the greatest generation in 100 years, and that we would go on to achieve great things if only we believed in our ability to do so. One said the opposite, and suggested we not be impatient, that success requires time more than self-confidence. One tried to tell the audience that it was not as cool as it thought it was. One claimed it was a good idea to travel across the world and go exotic places. But all of them seemed to view the speech as one final chance to persuade us all to think and act a certain way in our lives. Proselytizing such beliefs is pretty much the entire point of graduation speeches.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
MightyCow,
quote:In a graduation ceremony, where the other students are required to be there, a student should not push an agenda on a captive audience.
Students are not required to be there. Speeches such as this one all push an agenda on an audience, captive or otherwise.
Of course I'm not saying students should leave or be subject to proseltyzing, I'm just pointing out your hyperbole.
quote:Tell your story and be done with it. It's not a persuasive speech, you're not trying to convert your classmates to your ideals, whatever they might be.
Very, very few stories aren't persuasive towards something. Furthermore, Valedictorian speeches are supposed to be persuasive-to try and persuade others to emulate the valedictorian. And also to tell their story-yes, they are not solely the mouthpiece of the Almighty Political Collective-and the school's.
It is interesting that you are willing to be so militant in restricting the content of speeches of others, yet that type of perceived intolerance is one of your biggest problems with those speeches.
What if the valedictorian feels the core of her story is how she was converted to a religion? Not necessarily Christianity, either, although that's the popular devil for these sorts of things. Unsurprising, given American demographics, really.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
If you took out God, and replaced it with School Basketball Team, should she still have been censored?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:If you took out God, and replaced it with School Basketball Team, should she still have been censored?
Then I would probably agree with what Tom said that instead of being offensive to me, it's really a bit insulting to her. To say that the basketball team was important to her and that it provided some answers to her life is understandable. To suggest that basketball is going to solve everyone else's problems is just downright silly.
...
I thought Dag's changes were pretty good. I don't think it would be much of a problem if it was clearly showing that this was her personal experience. However, I think quoting scripture is always going too far.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:What if the valedictorian feels the core of her story is how she was converted to a religion?
She could have talked about religion or spirituality in general instead of promoting a specific god. That would have had the same message but it would then have been interpreted by each listener in a way that was the most meaningful to each individual.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:quote:she does think that she's belittling others.This shows an almost complete misunderstanding of what she was saying.
There's a reason "holier than thou" is a cliche. This girl's speech is it. I would argue that your position shows an almost complete misunderstanding of what she was saying. Then again, I already argued that her position shows an almost complete misunderstanding of what she is saying, and her position is essentially your position.
quote:I've NEVER heard a speech talking about "what motivates me" that intends to send the message "go find something for yourself."
I guess that's the problem then. You need to hear more valedictory speeches.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I disregarded the basketball team for years, and all the while, They sought to show me what shape fits into the cut-out in my soul.
This hole gapes as a wide-open trench when filled with swimming, with friends, with family, with dating, with shopping, with partying, with drinking, with anything but the basketball team. But the basketball team fits. The basketball team is "that something more" we all desire.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I guess that's the problem then. You need to hear more valedictory speeches.
I've heard many.
quote:There's a reason "holier than thou" is a cliche. This girl's speech is it. I would argue that your position shows an almost complete misunderstanding of what she was saying. Then again, I already argued that her position shows an almost complete misunderstanding of what she is saying
So are you now retracting the contention "she does think that she's belittling others"? Because it's certainly not compatible with her misunderstanding what she said.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I disregarded the basketball team for years, and all the while, They sought to show me what shape fits into the cut-out in my soul.
This hole gapes as a wide-open trench when filled with swimming, with friends, with family, with dating, with shopping, with partying, with drinking, with anything but the basketball team. But the basketball team fits. The basketball team is "that something more" we all desire.
If the referenced portion is what you find offensive about her speech, then you seem to think inaccuracy about what others desire is offensive.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:So are you now retracting the contention "she does think that she's belittling others"? Because it's certainly not compatible with her misunderstanding what she said.
Reference Tom's statement about her belittling herself. She thinks she's belittling others, because she accepts God and is therefore better than those who don't. Tom says she's belittling herself, in much the same way that women are belittled when that they are told that aren't complete unless they can attract a man and get married. She doesn't understand that crediting God for her own achievments does her a diservice, and that if she felt incomplete despite her acheivments, it's because she is a shallow person.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is it possible she doesn't think she's belittling anyone? That perhaps it isn't a zero sum game, and attributing success to God doesn't take credit away from someone else?
And now she's shallow? How badly do y'all need her to be the bad guy here?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Is it possible she doesn't think she's belittling anyone? That perhaps it isn't a zero sum game, and attributing success to God doesn't take credit away from someone else?
While it's certainly possible, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone who would meet the requirements for being valedictorian being unable to understand the implications of her graduation speech, especially given that she was warned against the content and made the conscious choice to violate the rules.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:If the referenced portion is what you find offensive about her speech, then you seem to think inaccuracy about what others desire is offensive.
Nope, just took a selection and followed BaoQingTian's suggestion, to see how ridiculous it seemed.
quote:The speeches I'm talking about each gave ONLY ONE of those things. Not all.
Any one of those things, when inserted into the above quote, would create an equally ridiculous speech. If those are the only speeches you've heard, then it's no wonder you think they're ridiculous. But that is by no means the end-all of valedicory speeches.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Perhaps rather than her thinking being faulty, you do not understand that it isn't a zero sum game. She does not share your assumptions - this doesn't make her dumb. If you don't understand that, then nothing she says will be intelligible to you.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I don’t care what speech someone writes, it could be considered offensive to someone. Why do we have to be this ultra sensitive group? What happened to freedom of speech? If you go and read some of the speeches by our founding fathers they would have been cut off if they tried to give it today. It’s really a true shame.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:And now she's shallow? How badly do y'all need her to be the bad guy here?
If she'd said:
"This hole gapes as a wide-open trench when filled with shopping, with partying, with drinking, with anything but God..."
...then it would be comparing shallow behavior with her conversion experience, and I would have no problem with it. It would be demonizing the shallow behavior. But to include swimming, friends, family, and dating? Any one of those things could be the basis of her motivation.
For example:
"Until I took up swimming, I had no self confidence. I'd never succeeded in sports, I'd felt shallow, satisfying myself with shopping, with partying, with drinking. Swimming taught me that hard work can build success, and success builds self confidence. It helped me find motivation in the other areas of my life.
But if you focus on your failures, you will feel like a failure. So find something. Focus on your success. It doesn't need to be swimming, it could be school spirit, volunteering, education in general, or even books. Let it motivate you and go out into the world and acheive something that has meaning for you!" [/cliche graduation speech]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
While you obviously find my point ridiculous Glenn, I'll try to explain anyway. The objections seem to be that what she said was offensive to a captive audience, that people may feel excluded, and that her success (and somehow by implicatios their lesser degrees of success) was due to God. Substituting the basketball team in would seem to fit most people's complaints in her speech except one: the religious card. If you didn't think my point was valid, you were welcome to say so and explain why you disagreed. Ridicule is poor form.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:She thinks she's belittling others, because she accepts God and is therefore better than those who don't.
And, once again, you are essentially making this point up and demonstrating a HUGE misunderstanding of what she's saying.
You have no basis for saying she thinks she's better than anyone.
[ June 26, 2006, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I do....she pretty much said it. That seemed to be the entire point of her speech, to me anyway.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I understand that that is what you believe she means, but I haven't seen any evidence that that is what she is actually saying.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
She says she's happier and personally better off.
She says nothing about relative merit.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:If you didn't think my point was valid, you were welcome to say so and explain why you disagreed. Ridicule is poor form.
I think you point is entirely valid, which is why I made the substitution. Any speech which relies on an exclusive experience to demonstrate the only "right" way to to live your life is going to be ridiculous.
The answer to your question is obvious. Yes. If she'd written a speech that was equally exclusive of people that don't play basketball, the school should have told her that the speech wasn't appropriate, and requested changes.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Sorry Glenn. Confused. Should know better than to post on Monday.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Everyone in my HS and college graduating classes were required to attend the graduation ceremony. The Baccalaureate, which had a religious angle, was not required, because the school doesn't push religion on its students. Its really that simple.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Protest the caps and gowns as well, which the students are forced to wear. They have their roots in religion. I say tanktops, shorts, and flip flops for all!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Required, or else what?
You mean to tell me your high school would have denied you your diploma had you not attended the ceremony?
Seems very unlikely given the number of people who do receive it without, you know, going to the graduation ceremony. It's really that simple.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, if one of the justifications for the kill switch is inadequacy of available sanctions for the speaker saying something wrong, I don't see how anyone can be forced to attend graduation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure. Are people suggesting that all schools everywhere have the exact same policies? Because, while I think that that idea is obviously false, I don't see how some of these comments make sense otherwise.
My high school required graduation attendence. To be honest, I don't know what the consequences were, but we were told that we had to go.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Being told you have to attend and being required to attend are two different things entirely.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'd be interested to know why.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Only people with the power to enforce - that is, to issue meaningful sanctions for no compliance - can requires you to do so.
I can say, "Squicky, you have to vote for McCain next election."
I'm certainly not requiring you to do so.
Basic concept, really.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So if, say, the principal said, "All seniors must attend graduation," but did not specify potential consequences, what would that be?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, see they have the power to do stuff to me if I don't comply. I don't remember what the actual consequences laid out were, but there were consequences.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I was told I had to participate in my graduation. I didn't. Nothing bad happened...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That would be an order to attend. It might nor might not ripen into a requirement.
Really, the word "require" only makes sense attached to something akin to "in order to..."
I was required to complete 86 credit hours in order to graduate law school.
The obvious implicit "in order to" phrase to attach to "you are required to attend graduation" is "in order to graduate."
Less obvious phrases would be "in order to graduate without doing X." If X is trivial, I wouldn't call graduation attendance a requirement.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I was told I had to participate in my graduation. I didn't. Nothing bad happened...
*Jaws theme plays*
Until now!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yeah, see they have the power to do stuff to me if I don't comply. I don't remember what the actual consequences laid out were, but there were consequences.
Which suggests that, at your school, there were alternative sanctions to the kill switch.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, however, many schools do not have the same policies.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, and at those schools graduation is not required.
I've simply stated that two of the strongest arguments in favor of the kill switch policy - the requirement to be there and the lack of alternative sanction - don't both exist at a single school.
I honestly can't tell if you didn't honestly see that when you made your little comment about this not making sense.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't see how the requirement to be there is one of the strongest arguments. I don't see how it's really an argument at all, to be honest.
How does attendence not being mandatory change the situation such that things like what this girl did aren't things they should protect against?
[ June 26, 2006, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ask the people who made the argument.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Today's Mallard Fillmore referenced this case. As usual, Tinsley treated it dishonestly.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So.... tell me how this isn't true? It's 100% right on the mark.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No, it isn't.
I don't know Tinsley's reputation, so I can't comment on whether this sort of thing is "usual" or not. However, the comic leaves out a lot of context that I think is important to the proper understanding of this case.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am unaware of a case where the ACLU defended a student who used a school supported event to take the Lord's name in vain. Do you have references? Thanks.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
“Brittany McComb, Valedictorian of Foothill High School in Nevada had her microphone cut off during her graduation speech for thanking “Jesus Christ”….”
“Of course if she’d simple taken her Lord’s name in vain…. (picture of Britney “@#ing !!***ERS!!”) …. The A.C.L.U. would now be defending her instead of her school…”
What is inaccurate? Her mic was cut off. It was cut off when she thanked Jesus. If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works. You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do you honestly want me to list the distortions, Jay, or were you speaking hypothetically?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:What is inaccurate? Her mic was cut off. It was cut off when she thanked Jesus. If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works. You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
How does your saying it's accurate make it any more so?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
Who are you talking to, Jay?
quote:If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works.
Saying so don't make it so.
:echoes kmbboots:
My problem with the cartoon is that it leaves out CONTEXT. Things like the fact that Brittany knew the rules beforehand. Things like the fact that she didn't just thank Jesus Christ, but was proselyting from the stand to a (more or less) captive audience.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works. You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
References, please? Thanks. I don't know what case you are talking about here.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do you honestly want me to list the distortions, Jay, or were you speaking hypothetically?
Yes please.
Go for it.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:What is inaccurate? Her mic was cut off. It was cut off when she thanked Jesus. If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works. You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
How does your saying it's accurate make it any more so?
Well, first off I list some facts. All the other side is doing is saying so.
Go figure.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jay? References? Thanks.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
1) Her microphone was not cut off for talking about God. It was cut off for deviating from her pre-approved comments.
2) Had curse words not been in her pre-approved script, and had she deviated from that script, the ACLU would most likely have declined to support her.
3) The ACLU might well have chosen to defend her had she sued over requiring a pre-approved script; they've done such things in the past. To my knowledge, though, such suits generally lose.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:What is inaccurate? Her mic was cut off. It was cut off when she thanked Jesus. If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works. You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
How does your saying it's accurate make it any more so?
Well, first off I list some facts. All the other side is doing is saying so.
Go figure.
Please indicate a single referenced fact in either of your posts.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Tinsley basically labels anything he doesn't like as "liberal." He revels in drawing demeaning caricatures of liberals, but often the point he's making could just as easily be leveled at stupid conservatives, as stupid liberals.
He's got a big grudge against the expensive products that public schools sell for fundraising, but fails to mention that church groups, boy Scouts, private schools and others also use the same expensive fundraisers. He claims that fundraising is a liberal plot of some kind, but misses the fact that the fundraising products are a corporate product. Plus the fact that conservatives prefer that school taxes stay low, which makes fundraising necessary.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Jay: If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works. You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
References, please? Thanks. I don't know what case you are talking about here.
Sure you might be able to find a case where they get it right once in a blue moon. Sort of like a blind squirrel finding a nut though…
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
None of those sites seem to reference a case where the ACLU defended a student for wanting to use a school sponsored event to use the Lord's name in vain. Maybe I am just missing it, though. Could you be more specific? Thanks.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: 1) Her microphone was not cut off for talking about God. It was cut off for deviating from her pre-approved comments.
2) Had curse words not been in her pre-approved script, and had she deviated from that script, the ACLU would most likely have declined to support her.
3) The ACLU might well have chosen to defend her had she sued over requiring a pre-approved script; they've done such things in the past. To my knowledge, though, such suits generally lose.
1. Because her comments involved thanking Jesus which she did not feel like was appropriate for them to edit out. I agree.
2. Who said anything about curse words? You don’t have to cuss to take the Lord’s name in vain.
3. Yeah, right. The ACLU defend a Christian. Ha. That would be like a liberal trying to stop an abortion.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: None of those sites seem to reference a case where the ACLU defended a student for wanting to use a school sponsored event to use the Lord's name in vain. Maybe I am just missing it, though. Could you be more specific? Thanks.
Oh goodness gracious…. It’s just a dang analogy. The ACLU loves antichristian cases is the point.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The bias on those sites disrupts my ability to give their information the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
In fact, Brittany McComb was attempting to use the Lord's name in vain - a vain attempt to prosyletize. Is the ACLU on her side?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by Jay:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:What is inaccurate? Her mic was cut off. It was cut off when she thanked Jesus. If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works. You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
How does your saying it's accurate make it any more so?
Well, first off I list some facts. All the other side is doing is saying so.
Go figure.
Please indicate a single referenced fact in either of your posts.
FACT #1: Her mic was cut off. FACT #2: It was cut off when she thanked Jesus. (Yes Tom, this was off her the edited approved script, but this was when it was cut)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Oh goodness gracious…. It’s just a dang analogy. The ACLU loves antichristian cases is the point.
Like these?
ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services
That's hardly fair, boots. You're using reality to refute Jay's fantasy world. Next you'll be shooting down passing Intelligent Design as science just because it isn't or criticizing President Bush's plan to provide for our energy needs using unicorns.
[ July 10, 2006, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:3. Yeah, right. The ACLU defend a Christian. Ha. That would be like a liberal trying to stop an abortion.
I think you'd better look back at the case of the microphone at the football game in Texas. The plaintiffs were a Mormon and a Catholic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: 1. Because her comments involved thanking Jesus which she did not feel like was appropriate for them to edit out. I agree.
Do you have any evidence that the school would not have cut off any other student who deviated from her prepared remarks? It sounds like your complaint is that they were not prepared to permit her to deliver a sermon to her class.
quote: 2. Who said anything about curse words? You don’t have to cuss to take the Lord’s name in vain.
The comic specifically uses curse symbols. In fact, if you examine the visible characters in the comic, there's no way you could insert the Lord's name into the characters standing for vulgarity in any semi-grammatical way. This is however irrelevant to the main point: that the ACLU would be unlikely to defend someone who deviated from their prepared script, except insofar as the ACLU might disapprove of prepared scripts at all.
quote: 3. Yeah, right. The ACLU defend a Christian. Ha. That would be like a liberal trying to stop an abortion.
The majority of cases addressed by the ACLU involve Christians. It is not an anti-Christian organization, except insofar as Christianity is the religion most likely to be accidentally and unconstitutionally legislated by our institutions.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: 3. Yeah, right. The ACLU defend a Christian. Ha. That would be like a liberal trying to stop an abortion.
Not to be contrary, but the ACLU does defend religious liberty (including but not limited to Christian expression). Blurbs from Las Vegas cases where Christian expression was defened by the ACLU:
"November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school."
"November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas."
Jay, we get that you love the Stop the ACLU web site. You might want to branch out a bit. Again, I'm asking you to site a case where the ACLU defended someone's right to use a school event to use the Lord's name in vain - as your original post suggested. I have listed a couple where the ACUL defended religious speech. So has Stasia. Come up with some actual facts.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jay, what you don't seem to understand is that the ACLU is not against religion; it is against the government controlling religion. Surely, you don't have a problem with that, so you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But the vast number of cases are antichristian.
Give us some evidence on this one, please? When you say "vast number," are you comparing the number of cases each year which are "anti-Christian" to those which aren't even remotely related to religion, or those which are "pro-Christian" in some way?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Jay, what you don't seem to understand is that the ACLU is not against religion; it is against the government controlling religion.
I don't think that's an accurate summary of their position. It's accurate in what it states, but it only addresses one relatively small type of first amendment claim that the ACLU is involved in.
The ACLU has supported several judicial interpretations of the establishment clause that have later been held to be unconstitutionally violative of the first amendment's demand that government exhibit content neutrality in the funding and regulation of speech. This is not an issue of government control of religion.
They have also supported many Christians' in their exercise of their right to free expression, something Jay would do well to admit right now.
I think the ACLU is often on the correct side of establishment cases. I also think they often go too far in their interpretation of the establishment clause. I'm glad that there are finally pro bono groups with the legal resources to oppose them regularly in court and to prevent government officials from giving in to ACLU establishment clause demands that are not constitutionally founded.
I'm also glad that the ACLU exists, though, because I think the proper way to draw the lines is in adversarial positions. The groups who most often oppose the ACLU in establishment cases often go too far in their interpretation. I'm glad that the ACLU exists to oppose these other groups regularly in court and to prevent government officials from giving in to their establishment clause demands that are not constitutionally founded.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I tend to think that the ACLU is good for religion for a couple of reasons. The first is that, although the practice of my religion is not currently threatened by the government, if we don't guard that gate, it could be.
I think that my faith requires me to be concerned with the religious freedoms of others.
I think that being too closely allied with secular power is a bad thing for Christianity. We have a tendency to forget what we are supposed to be about.
Jay, anything yet?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree with all that, kmboots. I just think that, sometimes, the ACLU is harming, not helping religious freedom, as are the groups that are generally in opposition to the ACLU.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So do you think that Jay's cartoon was "100% right on the mark"?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course not. His cartoon is clearly not at all compatible with what I said.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I didn't think so. I just wanted to make sure. Thanks for the confirmation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Still there, Jay?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
You know kmbboots, you can really stop with you’re whole “Anything yet Jay” “Still there Jay” because you’re not fooling anyone. Some of us work during the day and occasionally check the site during breaks and what not.
I never said there was a case. You’re looking silly by trying to say that I did. I’ve already addressed this so why not try and reading for once. You might learn something. It’s getting to the point of being pointless. Sort of like Tom’s question. Stats? Get real. You know I don’t have access to that sort of stuff. Nor any desire or time to do that sort of research. But since you’re interested do it yourself! See what ya find. But I doubt we’d agree on things as simple as what is an antichristian case. And Dag, I’ve already said they get some right once in a while.
Oh, kmbboots, I’m going on a run now. So I won’t be on for a while. I plan a 7 mile loop which takes me just over an hour. So don’t panic. And I might not check as soon as I get back. Go figure. But thanks for the extra adrenalin from all the frustration.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:That would be like a liberal trying to stop an abortion.
I know several "liberals" who think the government should restrict abortion but abhor the practice. They support all sorts of adoption agencies and educational materiel that would persuade a pregnant mother to have the baby.
Just because you oppose the government making the final choice does not mean you are "pro-abortion." I am very anti-abortion. I would never date someone who had an abortion (unless for medical reasons or rape). I am, however, really uncomfortable with the government deciding what a woman can do.
I don't want to get off on an abortion tangent--that is far to easy and counterproductive to this good discussion. I just wanted to point out the narrowminded singularity that Jay is using to defend his position and attack the ACLU.
Jay is doing a pretty good job of forcing me to rethink my conservative views and distance myself from people from the extreme right.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And Dag, I’ve already said they get some right once in a while.
So? Does that mean I shouldn't have posted? You've made generalizations that you can't back up. There are legitimate criticisms to be levied at the ACLU's stands on first amendment issues. Every time someone decides to make accusations they can't back up, you make it harder for those who want to rationally discuss such failings by the ACLU to be heard.
The cartoon stated that the ACLU would have supported a student in the exact same situation changing only a "thank you Jesus" to a taking of the Lord's name in vain. That's a very serious charge. You repeatedly said the cartoon was accurate and you've been asked to prove it.
quote:Stats? Get real. You know I don’t have access to that sort of stuff.
So your statement about the "vast number of cases" being anti-Christian is what, then? A guess? An estimate based on a random sample? A made up description?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You know I don’t have access to that sort of stuff. Nor any desire or time to do that sort of research.
Um. Okay, that's fine. I don't need to see the stats. But I'm curious as to why you think you actually know anything in this case. What makes you feel like the ACLU is overwhelmingly anti-Christian in everything it does, if you are completely unable to produce any argument to support that claim -- and, in fact, have been presented with specific cases that seem to directly refute that claim (if only for limited instances)?
Have you heard people you trust make this claim? Is it a conclusion you've reached after a great deal of prayer or soul-searching? Where, if you don't actually know anything about the topic, have you obtained enough information to form an opinion on the ACLU?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I am, however, really uncomfortable with the government deciding what a woman can do.
Nothing against lem's comment here, but ...
It's interesting to me how the pro-abortion side in that debate always uses the phrase "a woman" to refer to the person whose choices are at issue, even when the phrase doesn't flow well in the sentence. It is as though they want to insinuate that the person's gender is the reason why their choices are being restricted, or is the reason why their choices should not be.
From my perspective, it isn't the fault of the government or the anti-abortion lobby that only one gender has the capacity to become pregnant. If abortion is wrong, then the gender of the subject is irrelevant. Wrong is wrong whether you're male or female.
I'd rather have the abortion debate be about the question of whether or not abortion is wrong, regardless of the gender of the pregnant person. In fact, it might be interesting to try the debate without bringing gender into it at all — perhaps addressing it entirely in terms of whether it is ethical for a doctor to perform an abortion, rather than whether it is ethical for a person to receive one.
Just to see if the debate changes at all when you remove the weight of decades of women's repression and liberation from around the debaters' necks, and treat it as an issue for humanity as a whole, regardless of sex.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Puppy, gender has been vital to this debate. Originally, church fathers and politicians, all men, cast into law that women could not have abortions. The majority of those who are pro-choice are women, because it is their bodies and their futures that are being discussed.
It leaves the image of the dominant male telling the barefoot woman, "You will give birth to this child. That is 9 months of discomfort and loss to any other plans you may have. Then you can decide to either raise this child dedicating your life to it, or give it away. Me, I have to go play golf and meet my mistress at 3."
As women become more equal in our society, the pro-life movement has stepped away from the patriarchal father figure commenting in mostly ignorance, on the trials and tribulation of pregnancy and single motherhood.
No, I do not wish to see gender removed from the issue. I would rather see positive talks between women on both sides.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:It is as though they want to insinuate that the person's gender is the reason why their choices are being restricted, or is the reason why their choices should not be.
I used to have question this logic myself, since I always thought (in my own version of sexism) that since it was women that got all gaga over having babies, that women would be against abortion.
Then I got a vasectomy, and several men I worked with tried to talk me out of it. I didn't understand that either, but gradually I figured it out.
For some men, the ability to reproduce is inseparable from their sense of manhood. If they can't beget chidren, they aren't "real men." It undermined their sense of masculinity to think that I have no qualms whatsoever about rendering myself infertile, and that really shook them.
At first I simply could not conceive of what was bothering them so much, until abortion came into the picture. To them, the ability of a woman to abort "the fruit of their loins" was tantamount to an after-the-fact castration.
Unfortunately it only takes a few examples of this kind of thinking to create the conception that this is the real reason men are against abortion.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yes Dag, you should have posted. I was just saying that I had acknowledged that on a limited basis that the ACLU does support Christians though seldom.
Where do I draw this basis? From my own experience with the news. 9 times out of 10 (if not more) the ACLU is, to me, on the wrong side of an issue. If drawing from my own experiences and knowledge isn’t good enough then you all should quit arguing too. If nothing else do a web search. How about this little test. Do a goggle search on ACLU and flip over to the news side. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=aclu&sa=N&tab=wn I’ll admit right up front I didn’t read all the articles, but just looking at the headlines all but one of them seem to be left wing causes. The articles might change of course by the time you Goggle them, but I suspect similar results.
Good idea Puppy. Also, why does the dad not have any say? What about the baby, shouldn’t they get a vote, it’s their life. When you come down to it though they don’t want to discuss the implications and morality of murdering an innocent child.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The majority of those who are pro-choice are women, because it is their bodies and their futures that are being discussed.
Can you cite this? The studies I've seen shown women to be more likely to want a total ban on abortion.
Here's one example, about a third down the page. 32% of men support a ban except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother, 8% support a total ban. The numbers for women are 31% and 11%.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:just looking at the headlines all but one of them seem to be left wing causes.
Are you equating "left wing" with "antichristian" now?
Look, I'll never give the ACLU a dollar of my money or a minute of my professional time because of their views on abortion. That doesn't mean that I can't recognize that they have been one of the foremost advocates of civil liberties in the last century. Much of their work is religious neutral - criminal procedure, non-religious speech restrictions, etc. Another chunk directly helps the religious, including Christians. Another chunk generally frustrates a particular religious group, but at least part of the time it does so on behalf of other Christians.
quote:If drawing from my own experiences and knowledge isn’t good enough then you all should quit arguing too.
You're the one not only making statistical claims but also ridiculing the very idea of disagreement with your ideas on the subject.
Had you said, "My impression..." no one would have complained. However, you chose to act indignant at people for daring not to accept the absolute statements you now say are based on your experiences. When you stake out a narrow position, don't consider it unfair when you are asked to support it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That doesn't mean that I can't recognize that they have been one of the foremost advocates of civil liberties in the last century.
Civil liberties = left wing. I love hearing that, and I'm not even a leftist. I'm just an anti-rightist. *grin*
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I always love how things always get turned around. This all started with me asking to be shown how it was inaccurate. Which I still maintain the analogy he used is very true.
I still think the Goggle search pretty much proves my point. Let’s see… antichristian I think could be considered left wing. The media always talks about those religious right wingers. So sure, why not. But if we want to look at the Goggle search right now. We’ve got drugs, sex offenders, same sex marriage, not praising God in public. Those seem to qualify as antichristian arguments. At least in most churches. And no, I’m sorry, I don’t have any data to show that this is the case in most churches. I’m assuming this from my experiences with churches and from studying the believes of different religions.
Tom not left wing? That’s like the sun not being bright. Water not being wet. Cats being friends with dogs. Whoda thunk it.
Sigh…. I’m going to bed. Night Hatrack.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This all started with me asking to be shown how it was inaccurate.
Did you see my points, Jay? I enumerated each, and then obliterated your objections. Which of my points do you feel has been insufficiently supported?
---------
And no, I'm not left wing. I do however prize my civil liberties, which means I'm an enemy of this administration. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I always love how things always get turned around. This all started with me asking to be shown how it was inaccurate. Which I still maintain the analogy he used is very true.
It wasn't an analogy. It was a factual prediction: If X, then Y. You make it, you'll be asked to support it. You haven't. Admitting it would be a good start.
quote:Tom not left wing? That’s like the sun not being bright. Water not being wet. Cats being friends with dogs. Whoda thunk it.
Proof you need to expand your definitions. Left wing does not mean "People who disagree with Jay."
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Whatever guys. You’re both wrong. Sorry you don’t understand what an analogy is.
Oh yeah, I was going to bed.
And by the way….. Tom is one of the most left of people I know. And no. I don’t intend to proof it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sorry you don’t understand what an analogy is.
Excuse me?
Limited liability corporation is to member as corporation is to shareholder.
Acorn is to oak tree as bulb is to tulip.
If the ACLU's willingness to support a student in the same exact situation except for taking the Lord's name in vain instead of thanking Jesus is an analogy, please cast the cartoon into the form of an analogy for poor confused Tom and me.
quote:And by the way….. Tom is one of the most left of people I know. And no. I don’t intend to proof it.
Wow. Is it the meaning of "left" you don't know anything about, or merely Tom's views?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Going against freedom of speech for God as is going for someone taking the Lord’s name in vain.
Interesting.
And go figure boys and girls, today’s lesson from the ACLU is antichristian.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Let’s see… the only view I know that Tom has that isn’t left is abortion. I do thank him for his support there. And yes, I know what left is. Opposite of Right! ;-)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think you're confused.
The form of an analogy is:
W is to X as Y is to Z.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Bed... calling....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Request...too...hard...for...you...to...fulfill.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Fine...
Going against (W) freedom of speech for God (X) as is going for (Y) someone taking the Lord’s name in vain (Z).
Against is to God as For is to Vain.
There…. Diagramed it out for ya….
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
You know, I don't doubt that Tom's the most leftist person you've discussed politics with. I just don't think that really says anything particular about Tom.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And yet you haven't proved that they would be for Vain. You raised the concept of an analogy as if that would somehow make you correct.
And, yet, you still haven't been able to introduce the tiniest shred of evidence that they would support a student who deviated from the script to take the Lord's name in vain.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Going against freedom of speech for God as is going for someone taking the Lord’s name in vain.
Jay, did you not READ my post in which I attempted to explain to you how the two situations were not analogous? Did you understand it?
Her speech was not "freedom of speech for God." And even were someone specifically attempting to restrict "freedom of speech for God," it does not follow that they would endorse "blasphemy;" one position is not inherent in the other.
Your analogy fails on almost every level: 1) There was no presumption of "freedom of speech" in her address; she and the other speakers had to submit pre-approved remarks, and were told that any deviation from the approved remarks would result in loss of speaking privileges.
2) Her microphone was not cut off because she mentioned God; it was specifically cut off because she deviated from the version of her speech which was approved. Had someone else deviated from their speech to a similar degree, even to curse God's name, it is reasonable to assume that they, too, would have been cut off -- unless you can show otherwise.
3) Even if she was prevented from "speaking for God," it does not mean that the people who prevented her were anti-Christian, or would approve a speech that spoke against God. That's like saying that anyone who stops you from painting a white wall red must want the wall to be blue.
----------
Jay: I'm a gun rack and a case of rabies shy of being a Libertarian. Tell me again how leftist I am. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
One of. I said one of!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, it's okay. In at least one way, I AM leftist: I believe that the government has no business saving us from ourselves and certainly has no right to dictate morality to anyone; I oppose any attempt to use institutional authority to prop up or promote someone's moral framework, for that reason.
I also suspect that, in the current climate, communications technology and health care might benefit from federal oversight -- and I think Social Security isn't a bad idea, given the way we currently handle retirement. But I'd rather change the climate than regulate these things, in the long run, which complicates my position on them.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Ok, you’re premise being that she would deviate from the speech. I could really care less about the deviation. I think she had the right to say what she wrote. And if she would have wrote from the beginning taking the Lord’s name in vain the ACLU would have been right with her from the star before anyone had the chance to cut her off to say she has the right to do that based on that most of their cases are antichristian. And no Tom, I probably didn’t get what you meant. I hardly ever do since most of the time you speak in questions and don’t explain yourself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think she had the right to say what she wrote.
This is a position that can be argued. In fact, in another thread on this topic, we had some people discuss whether a speaker in this situation would have an inherent right to say anything. For example, could she endorse Stalin? Try to sell OrangeGlo? Talk about an affair she had with her science teacher? Does a school have the right to censor its speakers, or should a speaker by virtue of her grades be permitted to talk about anything she wants?
There's obviously a grey area. The school chose to reject her initial speech -- and having seen her proposed speech, I think they made the right choice; it's a blatant commercial for Christianity in the same way that a plug for OrangeGlo would be a commercial for that product, and it would likely be offensive to non-Christians in the audience in a way that an OrangeGlo ad would not be offensive to Pine-Sol users.
quote:And if she would have wrote from the beginning taking the Lord’s name in vain the ACLU would have been right with her from the star before anyone had the chance to cut her off to say she has the right to do that based on that most of their cases are antichristian.
I'm not sure of this at all. First off, I reject the claim that most of the ACLU's cases are "anti-Christian," and your inability to back up this argument doesn't help your case. Moreover, the ACLU tends to take cases that it thinks would establish interesting precedent. I suspect that if she had approached them prior to giving her speech and they had felt that this was a compelling -- and winnable -- position, they would have helped her, regardless of what her speech was. But as I noted above, there's an obvious slippery slope here that makes it ridiculous to claim that a school has no right whatsoever to censor its speakers. At best, the ACLU could only hope to more clearly delineate the rights of someone invited to speak in a similar situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And if she would have wrote from the beginning taking the Lord’s name in vain the ACLU would have been right with her from the star before anyone had the chance to cut her off to say she has the right to do that based on that most of their cases are antichristian.
This is the proposition you have utterly failed to support. People have cited cases where Chrisitians' free speech rights were protected by the ACLU. This seems to counter an allegation that the ACLU automatically picks the non-Christian side of any given controversy. Lacking any evidence for your position other than a list of cases you have deemed antiChristian, you fail to prove your original contention.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The majority of those who are pro-choice are women, because it is their bodies and their futures that are being discussed.
Can you cite this? The studies I've seen shown women to be more likely to want a total ban on abortion.
Here's one example, about a third down the page. 32% of men support a ban except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother, 8% support a total ban. The numbers for women are 31% and 11%.
Hum. The numbers you quote do not necessarily contradict the assertion made. You have shown that more women than men are pro-total-ban; given that there exists a 'neutral' position, it is still possible that most of the pro-choice people are women.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The ACLU isn't against all religion. When they demanded that LA remove the small cross from its seal, they had no problem with the much larger image of Pomona, the goddess of orchards.
They also aren't always against political expression. In VA, they threatened lawsuit to ban a "Choose Life" license plate design, saying that it constituted endorsement of a religion (?). They had no problem with "Kids First" or "Protect Wildlife."
On abortion: consistently, in poll after poll, women are more likely to oppose legal abortion than men. The difference is small but statistically significant. I don't have an explanation, and I don't see it as proof that either side is right; but it does put paid to the idea that "women" support legal elective abortion. Some do, some don't.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well, fine. You can say I haven’t proved it. But I think the goggle search shows very compelling evidence to the contrary.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, fine. You can say I haven’t proved it. But I think the goggle search shows very compelling evidence to the contrary.
No, it doesn't. Geez, are you really this bad at logic? You made a SPECIFIC allegation: that they would support someone in the exact same situation who wanted to take the Lord's name in vain instead of thanking Jesus.
The facts of the case matter. You might go around deciding what you're going to do based on broad, ill-defined and ill-understood categorizations. The ACLU does not, for the simple reason that every position they take has to be reduced to a specific legal argument founded in specific legal premises and facts. Everything they do is about distinguishing one situation from another.
All your "evidence" shows is that the ACLU takes a lot of stands that piss off some people who call themselves Christians. That's not evidence at all that they will therefore take any stand that will piss off those people.
Come on now. This farce has gone on long enough. From the first time you started posting on political topics here, you've engaged in this simplistic charade, calling people "liberal" because they disagree with you on a specific issue and making unsupportable claims about what motivates others. It's time to stop this. There's a lot of intelligent discourse to be had on this board. For some reason, it never seems to happen when you're around.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The majority of those who are pro-choice are women, because it is their bodies and their futures that are being discussed.
Can you cite this? The studies I've seen shown women to be more likely to want a total ban on abortion.
Here's one example, about a third down the page. 32% of men support a ban except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother, 8% support a total ban. The numbers for women are 31% and 11%.
Hum. The numbers you quote do not necessarily contradict the assertion made. You have shown that more women than men are pro-total-ban; given that there exists a 'neutral' position, it is still possible that most of the pro-choice people are women.
A simple click would have shown you that women are slightly outnumbered by men on the two pro-choice options in the survey, KoM.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well Dag, I usually find you very insightful and informative but this time you seem to have stooped to the Tom level of arguing. As I have said multiple times the EXACT case of taking the Lord’s name in vain does not exist, it was meant as an analogy from the typical way that the ACLU functions. I have showed this from various places. You might not like where or how, but I have. Who is the one that is bad at logic? You keep trying to say that I’m looking for this specific case when I’m not. It’s really hard to argue when this is your only defense. Plus you two always want to go to the mic being cut off instead of taking the issue from the beginning where they wanted to edit the speech. That’s where the issue really starts. And where I’d maintain that the ACLU would step in the other way around. Sure I’m saying this might happen. I really think what pisses you all off is that you can’t proof that it wouldn’t happen.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jay,
You are operating based on double standards here. Claims you believe are obviously true are given the benefit of the doubt, with support only of anecdotal cherry-picked Internet news reports.
Claims you believe are obviously false, you repeatedly insist that rock-hard factual statistics be demonstrated from totally unimpeachable sources, which you proceed to grant the same level of credibility as your own anecdotal cherry-picked Internet news.
You've done it at least a half-dozen times on this thread alone. It does neither you nor your arguments any favors. In fact and unfortunately, it makes your arguments appear foolish because of this blatant double-standard being used. I say unfortunately because on more than one occassion in the past, I have agreed with the general thrust of your statements, but am almost always completely unable to maintain that agreement beyond generalities.
J4
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And where I’d maintain that the ACLU would step in the other way around.
With no proof. Not even good evidence.
You've picked a standard - an ill-defined standard - of "antiChristian." You've contended that the ACLU uses this standard in selecting cases.
To prove this, you've selected a bunch of cases you claim match the "antiChristian" criteria you've created and said, "See, the ACLU takes antiChristian cases."
The problem is that there are other case-selection criteria that can be tested against the ACLU's cases that fit better than this anomalous "antiChristian" criteria, for two reasons:
1.) These other criteria account for the case selection history.
2.) These other criteria don't have counterexamples, whereas your antiChristian criteria has dozens, probably hundreds of counter examples.
Your criteria fails step two.
quote:I really think what pisses you all off is that you can’t proof that it wouldn’t happen.
But we can prove that, in the past, the ACLU has acted to protect Christian speech. So the question becomes, what's different between these cases? It's not the Christian content of the speech. Therefore, the Christian content of the speech is unlikely to be determinative.
What pisses me off is that you said the cartoon was 100% accurate, leveling a fairly serious charge at the ACLU, and you can't acknowledge that you have no evidence at all for your position.
Here's what would support your argument:
1.) Find two cases, one taken by the ACLU, one not. 2.) The one taken by the ACLU contains anti-Christian speech. 3.) The one not taken includes Christian speech. 4.) There are no other significant differences between them.
If you can't find that, then you've got nothing. Because your contention isn't that the ACLU takes cases with the desired result of stopping some particular Christian speech. That's easy to prove.
Your contention is that in identical circumstances, the ACLU would support antiChristian speech and require Christian speech to be suppressed. This is a very particular charge.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As I have said multiple times the EXACT case of taking the Lord’s name in vain does not exist, it was meant as an analogy from the typical way that the ACLU functions.
Jay, I really don't think you know what an analogy is.
quote:Plus you two always want to go to the mic being cut off instead of taking the issue from the beginning where they wanted to edit the speech. That’s where the issue really starts. And where I’d maintain that the ACLU would step in the other way around.
And I maintain that they wouldn't, especially if your idea of "the other way around" is "taking the Lord's name in vain" -- but agree that if one were to file a court case, one would do it to challenge the requirement of pre-approved scripts.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:A simple click would have shown you that women are slightly outnumbered by men on the two pro-choice options in the survey, KoM.
I would contend that the overwhelming majority of "actively" pro-choice people are women. Meaning those who attend rallies, who picket, who lobby, who pass out petitions, who create flyers, things of this nature. Its one thing to be pro-choice by checking a box on a survey, its another to be an actual advocate.
I admittedly have absolutely no evidence to back this claim, beyond my own experiences and through the media. I would be interested in hearing if anyone else's experiences are in contradiction of mine.
Anyway, great posts in regard to the ACLU, Dag.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would contend that the overwhelming majority of "actively" pro-choice people are women.
Also only from my own experiences, the overwhelming majority of actively pro-life people are women. It's generally 2-to-1 women-to-men at planning meetings and such, and probably 1.5-to-1 at rallies and such.
And thanks. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It makes sense to me that most of the activists on both sides of the abortion issue are women (if that's the case generally). As a male, I think there's a difference between wanting a say in whether abortion is allowed and wanting a say in whether my significant other gets one.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Jay, how does the Phelps case have any relation to the Smith case? Aside from Phelps' and Smith's positions on homosexuality, of course.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It is true, of course, that political appointees serve at the pleasure of whoever appoints them.
What legal theory do you propose the ACLU use to defend this man? Did he even approach the ACLU to ask them to file a suit in his name?
If it weren't so transparent, your proffering this as evidence of different standards by the ACLU would be an out and out lie.
As it is, since it takes about 30 seconds of reading to uncover the reason no one would pursue this case, it's merely another piece of "evidence" that is utterly unrelated to your original point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jay, I completely get the posting at work thing. I don't have a computer at home, so can only post at work. Yesterday wasn't very busy for me, so put my nagging down to my eagerness to continue the conversation.
Thanks for the links.
So what the Phelps case seems to prove is that the ACLU will protect the free speech of self-proclaimed Christians even when (I imagine) they, and leftists like me, and (I am pleased to discover) you really disagree with what they are saying.
I wasn't sure how the ACLU factored into the Smith case.
At any rate, I'm not sure how any of those helped your point. I think they helped mine.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote: ...antichristian I think could be considered left wing.
It is a shame we have let this happen. What ever became of that great liberal religious tradition. Where are the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.s, and the other Christian leaders that led the civil rights marches, the anti-war marches, the progressive and liberal causes of the 60's? The liberal anti-slave movements of the 1860's?
Are they all held captive of the abortion debate?
quote: The media always talks about those religious right wingers. So sure, why not. But if we want to look at the Goggle search right now. We’ve got drugs, sex offenders, same sex marriage, not praising God in public. Those seem to qualify as antichristian arguments.
Lets look at them.
Drugs. Where are drugs even mentioned in the Bible? Drugs are a Left/Right issue, not a Christian issue.
Sex Offenders. What you call supporting sex offenders others call suppoting privacy and due process. Again, is this a Christian thing or a Right/Left debate?
Same Sex Marriage and Prayer in Public is Christian, but not all Christian. Here we are defining Christians, true Christians, as only those who believe what you believe.
The main reason to separate church and state was to avoid the sectarian atrocities that ran rampant in previous centuries. Remember that before you start labeling people who is Christian and who isn't.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jay, not to nag, but still eager to continue. I know you are busy, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jay,
You made an unsupportable accusation. My hope is that you will admit that you were wrong. Since that is unlikely, I will settle for a gentlemanly and public (rather than cowardly)acknowledgement that you don't want to continue this.
People have far too often gotten away with making these types of accusations because no one thinks it worth the time to argue with you. Even more frightening, you get people believing you. I don't intend to let this particular accusation stand.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Kate, Kate, Kate….. Sigh… when I saw your first post about wanting to continue I emailed you.
This:
quote: Jay has sent you the following message through Hatrack River Forum:
Look I’m not sure there is really anything else to say. I really think it’s time to disagree to disagree. Plus it’s really starting to not be much fun.
You replied back with:
quote: As your conversation is not just with me - after all you started the thread and the discussion of the offensive and unsupportable cartoon - I think that you should offer to "agree to disagree" on the thread, rather than to just me.
Back to me:
quote: The thread is on page two now. It done with. I wasn’t really offering, I was telling that I thought it was way past time to disagree to disagree.
You:
quote: Look, I was trying to be nice. You made unsupportable accusations and were entirely wrong. Either be a grown up and admit it or at least graciously make public your offer to "agree to disagree" or I'll keep bumping the thread just to make the point.
Me:
quote: That is entirely your opinion, which I totally disagree with. Do what you want. As I keep saying, I never offered you a agree to disagree. I said, as the point is proofing, disagree to disagree. You already looked silly the one time with your constant you there posts. What do you hope to prove by digging it up more?
You:
quote: I don't think that you understand the "agree to disagree" concept. It basically means that you agree that you are never going to agree on the subject of the argument. "Disagree to disagree" does not make any sense at all. You made an unsupportable accusation. My hope is that you will admit that you were wrong. Since that is unlikely, I will settle for a gentlemanly and public (rather than cowardly)acknowledgement that you don't want to continue this. People have far too often gotten away with making these types of accusations because no one thinks it worth the time to argue with you. Even more frightening, you get people believing you. I don't intend to let this particular accusation stand.
Me:
quote: Oh brother…. I perfectly understand the agree to disagree. But since that concept does not seem to mean much on Hatrack I’m saying it has a disagree to disagree concept. Sort of like what is going on right here. Go figure. Again…. I supported my side. You might not have liked it, but tough. I was right. If people believe me it is because of that. Ok, I’m really late for work….. (All Star Game last night, I’ll try and post some pics later.) But I can’t get to my email from work (that whole national security thing and what not), so I won’t be able to answer email until later tonight. .
So…… There’s the whole story. I think all the points have been stated weather they are agreed on of course is not accepted. It seems like we’re done. So Kate, why not just drop it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Cause you still haven't supported most of the crap you've said in this thread, despite how many times you've been asked to?
Just a guess.
Disagree to disagree is a totally nonsensical phrase.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Well, I for one am glad that's over. Now I can get something off my chest that's been driving me crazy (in a nit-picking sort of way), but wasn't truly relevant to the discussion...
Jay...you consistently use the word proofing and I automatically replace it in my head with the word proving. Was the use of the word "proofing" an intentional thing? I've never head it used like that before...
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Your opinion.
And guess what. You’re proofing the concept of disagree to disagree. Thanks for yet again showing Jay is right! Yes, I know. Immature statement there, but it’s really getting beyond old.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yeah, proofing is more fun!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I explained why I don't "just drop it". Here it is again for those who might have missed it:
quote: People have far too often gotten away with making these types of accusations because no one thinks it worth the time to argue with you. Even more frightening, you get people believing you. I don't intend to let this particular accusation stand.
"Proofing" is slang for "proof reading". Is that what you mean?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:blink:
Who believes Jay?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Maybe he thinks it's like yeast?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry. I didn't mean on Hatrack, but rather as a general thing. One of things I like about Hatrack is that people are asked to support their assertions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow. I respect Jay less than I did yesterday.
I sure didn't see that one coming.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You’re proofing the concept of disagree to disagree.
*blink* Can you agree to disagree about facts? I mean, it bothers me enormously that 13 is not divisible by four. Can I agree with my math teacher that we disagree on this?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I think your math teacher would say that "disagree to disagree" is like multiplying a negative - you get a positive. "I disagree to disagree with you. Therefore I agree, by default."
I guess that means ... kmbboots wins? Since Jay agrees with her.... Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I love reading exchanges like this, because it's an illustration of the thought processes of a great deal of the voting populace.
The ACLU is bad. It just is. Even if you can list a few cases here and there that seem to show they're not, they are. We know it, and we smile when you continue to argue otherwise.
Your assertion is rife with inaccuracies, wishful thinking, and partisan accusations. Defend it.
My assertion should be enough for you. Why do you keep questioning it?
What's interesting is that the actual question -- should schools have the right to restrict teh valedictarian speech -- was touched on by all parties in the last few pages, and that is indeed a case where the ACLU might have gotten involved whatever the content of the speech, but it was swept aside by the rest of the inanity.
Jay, had you said that the ACLU probably would have taken her case if she had been taking the Lord's name in vain, you wouldn't have gotten as much flak. But because you seemed to be stating it as a definite, unquestionable, automatic action based on ACLU policy, you got questioned. The first is opinion, entirely supportable. The second is fact, and fact requires proof.
[ July 12, 2006, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote: FACT #1: Her mic was cut off. FACT #2: It was cut off when she thanked Jesus. (Yes Tom, this was off her the edited approved script, but this was when it was cut)
I got a speeding ticket the other day. It was right after I went through an overpass. I'm sure I got the ticket for going under the overpass, not because I was going 15 over the speed limit.
See if I ever go under that overpass again.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The ACLU is bad. It just is. Even if you can list a few cases here and there that seem to show they're not, they are. We know it, and we smile when you continue to argue otherwise.
What annoys me is that the areas where the ACLU really is bad can't even be discussed with posts like Jay's around.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Exactly.
I tend to regard the ACLU the same way I do the NAACP. They've done great work, and I'm very glad they're out there, but they've also made some boneheaded moves that hurt their cause more than helped. And, like every national organization, they've had local chapters go nuts.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well, of course I can’t know that they would take it for sure. I’m not the CEO of the ACLU. I really felt the probably was implied.
Can't (for some reason) view the links. Are they helpful or just more biased rhetoric?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Did you know that Mallard Fillmore is a self proclaimed libertarian?
Yep. One of the reasons I'm not, in fact, albeit a minor one.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I love reading exchanges like this, because it's an illustration of the thought processes of a great deal of the voting populace.
I thought the same thing Chris. Except it just kind of scares me. Unfortunately, as you observed, this kind of non-thinking appears to be rampant across the political spectrum.
Also, what I kept thinking of as I read Jay's posts was "Remember, he gets much of his news & commentary from Rush Limbaugh." I think it's really helpful to view that filter through which Jay may see these issues. If you listen to such biased media all the time, it's bound to change your perspective. Everything he reports about the ACLU that I've ever heard (although I only listened to him for 6 months time a couple years ago) has been negative. I can see how someone may conclude that everything the ACLU does is anti-Christian, or that liberal is an insult.
Oh and Jay, I really have to second Tom's opinion that you don't quite understand what an analogy is. What you gave would be more like a hypothetical example. See Dag's post--it'll help out on SAT and ACT tests if you haven't taken them yet--there's a ton of them in there.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
So, basically, on the one side we have history and case law, and on the other side...a cartoon duck.
I'm sorry Dag, I'm gonna have to go with the duck. Ducks are just cuter than case law and facts and stuff. Yep. Give me a duck every time.
It's like mom always said, "Son," she said, "ya can't go wrong with a duck."
In all seriousness Jay, are you sure this isn't the screen name you use when you're trying to be funny? So far, you've managed to tell Dagonee that he doesn't know about logic. You've called Tom a liberal. And you've managed to persist in holding an opinion that you can't back up with anything better than a cartoon. You really should've quit a couple of days (and a few pages) ago.
This has passed through pathetic and come out the other side.
Oh, and the phrase is "agree to disagree." It implies that that the argument has reached a point where the disputing parties can not solve their differences and wish to part amicably (or at least part).
Other possible permutations would be:
"agree to agree" -- that would be the time where you actually agreed with someone and they agreed with you. aka "agreement."
"disagree to agree" -- that would be what you are basically doing now. Sort of doggedly sticking to an opinion that you have failed to support while being pressed on all sides with material proof that your assertions were not correct and that the facts lie in a complete different direction, supporting the position of your opponent unequivocally. And yet, you disagree to agree.
Finally, there is "disagree to disagree" which is a lovely coinage and probably means something along the lines of refusing to enter into debate or argument. Or, in fact, simply "agree."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, I'm interested in what people think of the fact that the establishment clause/free speech divide is being defined largely by opposing advocacy groups duking it out in court.
The decisions being made nowadays are very fine parsing - witness the two Ten Commandments cases that came down on the same day, with one display constitutional and one not. There's almost no blame to levy on a local official who makes the wrong decision on some of these issues when the right decision doesn't exist yet.
This gives the advocacy groups great power in situations where the opposing one doesn't step up during the letter writing phase.
As I said earlier, one of the reasons I'm happy the ACLU exists is that I neither set of groups is completely correct (they just won't call me and have me settle things for them). If we're going to have an adversarial system, I want good adversaries on both sides.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I totally read Bob's post in Danny John Jules's Cat voice.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm interested in what people think of the fact that the establishment clause/free speech divide is being defined largely by opposing advocacy groups duking it out in court.
I don't mind the adversarial framework being used to decide cases like this. Here, the problems are largely philosophical.
I do have some concerns about the prosecutor/defence framework in criminal trials; I think it would be far too easy to become a force for prosecution or defence, and less an employee of justice. But I hope that's the sort of thing they cover in ethics classes at law school...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Defense attorneys have the specific duty to zealously advocate toward an acquittal or minimize the punishment for a conviction, with no account taken of the actual guilt of a client. To this end, they may impeach a witness they know to be telling the truth. If their client confesses to them, it is their duty to try to get the defendant acquitted by any legal and ethical (as defined by the rules of conduct, not in an abstract sense) means.
Defense attorneys are not "employees of justice" in any sense except that we think a zealous defense of the guilty contributes to justice by minimizing false convictions.
They are not allowed to put on testimony they know to be false, but they have no duty to inquire into even obvious fabrications if they have no actual knowledge of them. Nor may a defense attorney limit the means by which he represents a client in order to help another client or class of clients. His duty is to the client first.
A prosecutor's duty is to "justice" - he may not impeach a witness he knows to be testifying truthfully, he must not try to convict a defendant he believes to be innocent.
However, he may consider factors outside the case in exercising his discretion, something a defense attorney may not do.
The best prosecutors take this very seriously. I've met few who don't try to live up this ideal, although I think that's because of the offices I was in.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dag, could you link to these cases? If it's handy - I'm just curious.
quote: The decisions being made nowadays are very fine parsing - witness the two Ten Commandments cases that came down on the same day, with one display constitutional and one not. There's almost no blame to levy on a local official who makes the wrong decision on some of these issues when the right decision doesn't exist yet.
And I heard the "duck" part of Bob's post in Drew Carey's voice for some reason.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, could you link to these cases? If it's handy - I'm just curious.
Which cases?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The two Ten Commandment cases.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:nine framed documents of equal size. One sets out the Commandments explicitly identified as the “King James Version,” quotes them at greater length, and explains that they have profoundly influenced the formation of Western legal thought and this Nation. With the Commandments are framed copies of, e.g., the Star Spangled Banner’s lyrics and the Declaration of Independence, accompanied by statements about their historical and legal significance.
quote:The monument challenged was 6-feet high and 3-feet wide. It was donated to the State of Texas by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, a civic organization. The State accepted the monument and selected a site for it based on the recommendation of the state agency responsible for maintaining the Capitol grounds. The donating organization paid the cost of erection. Two state legislators presided over the dedication of the monument.
The monument was erected on the Capitol grounds, between the Texas Capitol and Supreme Court buildings. The surrounding 22 acres (89,000 m²) contained 17 monuments and 21 historical markers commemorating the "people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity."
Interestingly, the swing vote in each case was Justice Breyer.
The wikipedia pages have links to the actual decisions as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I will read them in more detail, but at first glance, the decisions seem to make sense. The Texas display had historical purpose (both in what it displayed and that it had been around for a while) while the Kansas disply seemed to be more for the purpose of injecting a religious message where one didn't belong. at first glance. Also the fact that the Texas display was donated by a private group seems to make a difference.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), she should have been far more subtle than she was; if she wished to thank God publically she should have been discreet about it. She should have self-censored. If she was truly as smart as she appears her speech would have been inclusive and open to everyone, keeping anything that could alienate the audience to an absolute minimum. Valedictorian's not just about having best marks, the nicest personality and the highest level of involvement in the school, but also having the ability to speak for, (as well as to), her graduating class. This means making inclusive remarks. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)