Valedictorian's speech cut short by school district because she mentioned God...

poohandwendy said:
The difference is that booing someone is merely an expression of disagreement. Taking the microphone away when at the mention of God is censorship.

I totally disagree. Taking the microphone away is not censorship unless we want to define rules as censorship.

The person taking the microphone away is not acting alone, he or she represents a group, a group in most cases made up by the people in the audience who have kids in that school.
 
poohandwendy said:
Would you say the same thing about Rosa Parks?

I don't think that the two can be compared. Rose Parks was protesting racism and looking for fair treatment and respect. The valedictorian already had that, and was pushing her religious beliefs on others, which to me shows an utter lack of respect, particularly after the administration had warned her not to.

Had she been the valedictorian of my class I would have gotten up and walked out, and made a MAJOR stink while doing so. It's not just her graduation, it's EVERYONE's graduation, and it's ignorant for one person to push their religion down the throats of everyone else.

Anne
 
cardaway said:
I totally disagree. Taking the microphone away is not censorship unless we want to define rules as censorship.

The person taking the microphone away is not acting alone, he or she represents a group, a group in most cases made up by the people in the audience who have kids in that school.
The Merriam Webster Dictionary online defines censorship as
censorship
1 a the institution, system, or practice of censoring and censor (verb) as

censor
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Taking the microphone away, requiring a pre-approved speech...not censorship?
 
poohandwendy said:
Would you say the same thing about Rosa Parks?

And as one more example along the lines of the point you are getting at, what if the establishment said you could not mention something like being 'for' gay marraige (because it may be against other's beliefs) and the speaker didn't obey and did mention the pros to gay marriage, would everyone think the same way? Or would they say 'good for her; she was brave enough to stand up for what she believes in". :confused3
 

poohandwendy said:
In school handbooks, the rules are pretty clear. I have never seen a rule in a student handbook that said you cannot express your religious beliefs.

Actually my son's school handbook was VERY specific about that. Students were not allowed to prosteletize or pray in a manner that it would be obvious to others outside of specific times and places that were set up upon student request by the school. In other words they had designated places for various bible studies and Islamic prayer, but students weren't allowed to simply pull out a bible and conduct an ad hoc bible study in the cafeteria.

Anne
 
Ok I'm going to try this again because I really think you're trying to read a lot more into what I'm saying PAW.

I have no problem with a speech where the student thanks God or whateve his/her higher power is and mentions that they wouldn't be where they are today without that belief. That is inspirational. I don't think a valedictory speech is appropriate for any sort of grandstanding - no matter what your agenda is.
Having half your speech edited because of excessive religious references is not a speech - it's a sermon and not a speech. I have been to many Graduations- both public and private schools. I have given graduation speeches. God was mentioned in 90% of the speeches. There's a big difference between thanking God and giving a sermon.

Bottom line - If the student had a problem with the approved speech then she should have brought it up to the school officials and/or declined to speak. Saying ok you'll give the revised speech and then turning around and giving your original speech is wrong on several levels. It makes a solemn occasion like a graduation into a soapbox. Not cool.
 
ducklite said:
I don't think that the two can be compared. Rose Parks was protesting racism and looking for fair treatment and respect. The valedictorian already had that, and was pushing her religious beliefs on others, which to me shows an utter lack of respect, particularly after the administration had warned her not to.

Had she been the valedictorian of my class I would have gotten up and walked out, and made a MAJOR stink while doing so. It's not just her graduation, it's EVERYONE's graduation, and it's ignorant for one person to push their religion down the throats of everyone else.

Anne
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Perhaps the student was protesting censorship and looking for fair treatment and respect of her views?

I guess I just have not seen evidence that multiple references to God as equal to pushing your religious views down the throats of everyone else. Unless she was prepared to make it about what they audience should believe, which is a different story. I mean, isn't expressing ANY views, in a speech, pretty much pushing your views down the audiences throat then?
 
poohandwendy said:
Taking the microphone away, requiring a pre-approved speech...not censorship?

You posted this earlier.

poohandwendy said:
In school handbooks, the rules are pretty clear. I have never seen a rule in a student handbook that said you cannot express your religious beliefs.

By your defintion then, the handbook is censorship, not a set of rules.
 
dont you know that freedom of speech only applies to liberals and if a conservative dare open their mouth they had better be PC. :rolleyes:

http://www.examiner.com/a-153811~Editorial__Freedom_of_speech_and_thought_R_I_P_.html

But in this case though the school severely overreacted due to past pressure by the ACLU regarding religion in school, the student was out of line and should have followed the rules set forth even if those rules are irrational and a result of a gross interpretation of the Constitution.
 
poohandwendy said:
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Perhaps the student was protesting censorship and looking for fair treatment and respect of her views?

I guess I just have not seen evidence that multiple references to God as equal to pushing your religious views down the throats of everyone else. Unless she was prepared to make it about what they audience should believe, which is a different story. I mean, isn't expressing ANY views, in a speech, pretty much pushing your views down the audiences throat then?

:rolleyes: Oh please. How can you even compare this to the Jim Crowe apartheid that Rosa Parks was subjected too?
 
Crankyshank said:
Ok I'm going to try this again because I really think you're trying to read a lot more into what I'm saying PAW.

I have no problem with a speech where the student thanks God or whateve his/her higher power is and mentions that they wouldn't be where they are today without that belief. That is inspirational. I don't think a valedictory speech is appropriate for any sort of grandstanding - no matter what your agenda is.
Having half your speech edited because of excessive religious references is not a speech - it's a sermon and not a speech. I have been to many Graduations- both public and private schools. I have given graduation speeches. God was mentioned in 90% of the speeches. There's a big difference between thanking God and giving a sermon.

Bottom line - If the student had a problem with the approved speech then she should have brought it up to the school officials and/or declined to speak. Saying ok you'll give the revised speech and then turning around and giving your original speech is wrong on several levels. It makes a solemn occasion like a graduation into a soapbox. Not cool.

I understand what you are saying. What is really tripping me up on this case is that they cut her speech... did they cut out all references? Because the article states that they cut the microphone at the reference to God. Not the repeated use of the word God. So, I guess I am just wondering if they were cutting out ALL reference and she was rebelling against that.

Because if they did not cut out all references to God, why did they cut the mike at her first reference? I guess I am just wondering why a happy medium was not reached. It doesn't sound like they were tolerating any mention.

Does that make any sense?
 
Crankyshank said:
Ok I'm going to try this again because I really think you're trying to read a lot more into what I'm saying PAW.

I have no problem with a speech where the student thanks God or whateve his/her higher power is and mentions that they wouldn't be where they are today without that belief. That is inspirational. I don't think a valedictory speech is appropriate for any sort of grandstanding - no matter what your agenda is.
Having half your speech edited because of excessive religious references is not a speech - it's a sermon and not a speech. I have been to many Graduations- both public and private schools. I have given graduation speeches. God was mentioned in 90% of the speeches. There's a big difference between thanking God and giving a sermon.

Bottom line - If the student had a problem with the approved speech then she should have brought it up to the school officials and/or declined to speak. Saying ok you'll give the revised speech and then turning around and giving your original speech is wrong on several levels. It makes a solemn occasion like a graduation into a soapbox. Not cool.
I agree completely. Very well said!!
 
beattyfamily said:
And as one more example along the lines of the point you are getting at, what if the establishment said you could not mention something like being 'for' gay marraige (because it may be against other's beliefs) and the speaker didn't obey and did mention the pros to gay marriage, would everyone think the same way? Or would they say 'good for her; she was brave enough to stand up for what she believes in". :confused3

Regardless of the agenda, a graduation speech is not the place for pushing it, IMO.

There's two issues involved here -- whether or not a school should censor speeches and whether or not they should have enforced those rules once they knew that they were being broken. You may not agree that censorship should have been allowed, but I would think that since she was given ample warning of the rules and still proceeded to break those rules, the school was well within their right to pull the plug on the girl. Heck, they knew the speech ahead of time, censored it and then proceeded to hear her begin to proceed with the same speech. If I was the person who first disallowed the speech, I'd be ticked to hear it being recited in spite of my objections.
 
chobie said:
:rolleyes: Oh please. How can you even compare this to the Jim Crowe apartheid that Rosa Parks was subjected too?

wouldnt be the first time people have misapplied the struggle of African Americans to other causes in this country.
 
poohandwendy said:
I understand what you are saying. What is really tripping me up on this case is that they cut her speech... did they cut out all references? Because the article states that they cut the microphone at the reference to God. Not the repeated use of the word God. So, I guess I am just wondering if they were cutting out ALL reference and she was rebelling against that.

Because if they did not cut out all references to God, why did they cut the mike at her first reference? I guess I am just wondering why a happy medium was not reached. It doesn't sound like they were tolerating any mention.

Does that make any sense?


It does lean towards that they cut out all references OR the article is skewed to make us believe it is the one and only reference they cut at--but rather a repeated reference. (i.e. she may have said it once and they cut--or she said it once and they let it slide, but then she did it again...I don't know).

Very sad if they cut ALL reference. That is rediculous.

My speculation though--once she reached a cut part of the script--knowing the consequences if she read it--she read it anyway and the mic was turned off. If she deviated once--she could deviate again...and again. And with the consequences clearly spelled out--she doesn't have a defense against that.

I'm not clear on whether it was the first or the last time she mentioned God before she got cut though--so this opinon may vary ;). Once is a "mentioned"--repeated times--she's causing trouble.
 
discernment said:
wouldnt be the first time people have misapplied the struggle of African Americans to other causes in this country.
Oh come on. I am not saying it is exactly the same. I am talking about people standing up, when they think their rights are being denied. People thought Rosa Parks should have just sat down and shut up, it was 'only a seat on the bus'. She broke the rules to stand up for her rights. The student may have had the same thing in mind.
 
Bob Slydell said:
Regardless of the agenda, a graduation speech is not the place for pushing it, IMO.

There's two issues involved here -- whether or not a school should censor speeches and whether or not they should have enforced those rules once they knew that they were being broken. You may not agree that censorship should have been allowed, but I would think that since she was given ample warning of the rules and still proceeded to break those rules, the school was well within their right to pull the plug on the girl. Heck, they knew the speech ahead of time, censored it and then proceeded to hear her begin to proceed with the same speech. If I was the person who first disallowed the speech, I'd be ticked to hear it being recited in spite of my objections.

I've already stated my opinion, that she should have followed the school's ruling but that I also thought the ruling was a bad idea, IMHO.

I was just giving another example of a way someone could be defiant when giving a speech (anywhere, not just at a graduation) and see if anyone thought that example 'topic/agenda' was somehow ok because of what it was about. I was curious, that's all.
 
poohandwendy said:
Because if they did not cut out all references to God, why did they cut the mike at her first reference? I guess I am just wondering why a happy medium was not reached. It doesn't sound like they were tolerating any mention.

I took as they cut the microphone once it was obvious she was not giving the speech they had agreed upon.
 
I found another article that should make it apparant that she was wrong. In it you'll read that the ACLU sided with the school. It also state that she was citing bible passages and making more than a passing religious reference--I think after reading this most will agree she crossed the line:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/news/8014416.html?2

She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but Brittany McComb was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart.

But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her -- Christ -- her microphone went dead.

The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.

However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.

They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.

Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks. It's standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly.

School officials removed from McComb's speech some biblical references and the only reference to Christ.

But even though administrators warned McComb that her speech would get cut short if she deviated from the language approved by the school, she said it all boiled down to her fundamental right to free speech.

That's why, for what she said was the first time in her life, the valedictorian who graduated with a 4.7 GPA rebelled against authority.

"I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech," McComb said. "God's the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior."

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.


Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada, had read the unedited version of McComb's speech and said district officials did the right thing by cutting McComb's speech short because her commentary promoted religion.

"There should be no controversy here," Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."

Lichtenstein said that position was supported by two decisions by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2000 and 2003.

Both cases involved graduation ceremonies and religious speeches given by commencement speakers. In the 2003 case, Lichtenstein said, the plaintiff even petitioned the Supreme Court to have the decision reversed, but the request was denied.

In 2003, the Clark County School Board amended district regulations on religious free speech, prohibiting district officials from organizing a prayer at graduation or selecting speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech or a prayer.

The remainder of the amendment allows for religious expression during school ceremonies.

Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and, therefore, may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content," it states.

"To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech is not school sponsored."

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."

McComb, who will study journalism at Biola University, a private Christian school in La Mirada, Calif., doesn't believe she was preaching. She said although some people might not like the message of her speech, it was just that, her speech.

"People aren't stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn't advocating my ideas," McComb said. "Those are my opinions.

"It's what I believe."

(I added the bold emphasis in the above article to make it easy to find the pertinent part.)

Anne
 
LuvDuke said:
Boy, she really showcased those religious values: First she LIES about what she's going to say, then she uses the opportunity to further her own agenda, and apparently never gives a second thought if her actions would potentially ruin the moment for the rest of the group.
Absolutely....she obviously gave no thought to her classmates and probably thought that the school would let her go on with no interruption.
She should have gone with the agreed upon speech - but I guess it's all working out for her in the end isn't it?
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom