posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
[aside] Just listened to Kasie's commencement speech again, and enjoyed it very much. And she used "we" much more than "I". [/aside]
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Moose, we both know that there is a way to use "we" that is much more presumptuous than a simple "I."
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
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).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
