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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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...) Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
