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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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>
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No it's not. It's the poor little persecuted Christian angle. That's the only reason we know about it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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!
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that there are no consequences for graduating seniors. Really. They are "outta here!" And they know it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
