# Valedictorians and Jesus **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2006, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855 "2006-08-31T00:26:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/201 "2006-09-06T15:57:32Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] No, I’m just basing it on various threads relating to graduation ceremonies over the past few years, here and on other boards. Particularly a few in which the member posting seems astounded that they do things differently than has been his experience somewhere else, on both the mandated and the voluntary attendance things. And I could be purely out to lunch; I said it was"my understanding"-- which I intended to convey “the impression I’ve formed.” [/QUOTE] I accept that. I wasn’t pounding my fist demanding a cite. I think that is done way too often. I simply would have been interested to see it if you had it. I tried to present my question as to convey that sentiment. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/202 "2006-09-06T18:18:38Z")
**magellan** , I honestly have no idea what relevance you think any of that has to what I posted. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/203 "2006-09-06T23:02:49Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Not as long as she is a student rather than an employee. There’s a difference, which is why teachers are not eligible. [/quote] Yes, there is a difference between a student and a teacher. This is entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand. > [@](#): > > She’s invited to speak **as a student**. All that matters here is that she has been invited to speak. Wether she’s a student, a member of faculty, a parent, an alumni, or someone wholly unrelated to the school, when she accepts the invitation from the school to stand in front of the class and speak, she is speaking on behalf of the school. > [@](#): > > Since she has no influence over policy, there is no question that she is making an establishment of religion on behalf of the school. Also irrelevant. The ability to make policy does not enter into the matter, else you could say that a teacher is allowed to lead a prayer at graduation, so long as it’s not the superintendent. > [@](#): > > If there were any doubt, a simple disclaimer in the program to the effect that “the opinions expressed at this ceremony are not necessarily those of the administration” would be enough to make the distinction clear. But it would not, I think, suffice as a legal remedy to get around the establishment clause. Else, a school could hire Pat Robertson to give a fire-and-brimstone speech at graduation, and get away with it by sticking that disclaimer in at the beginning of the ceremony. If the administration does not agree with the opinions being expressed during the ceremony, why are they allowing people to express those opinions, during their ceremony? > [@](#): > > Certainly a less intrusive option than trying to create a special prohibition on religious speech, which is afforded special protection under the Constitution. No one’s talking about a special prohibition on religious speech, though. Rather, the administration has the right to make _any prohibition they want_ on the speech offered during their ceremony. > [@](#): > > Of interfering with the free practice thereof, as in this case. How is asking someone not to talk about God as an invited guest at a public ceremony interfereing with anyone’s free practice of religion? Look, there is no right to speak at a graduation ceremony. You agree that a school is allowed to decide if any given speaker is allowed up on the podium at all, right? I can’t just walk into a school and demand that they let me address the graduating class, even if I am a student at that school. Further, if I do speak, there are limits on what I’m allowed to say. I can’t just get up there and curse out the faculty for five minutes, right? See, when a person, valedictorian or otherwise, accepts the invitation to speak at a graduation, they are giving up their right to total freedom of speech for that event. They are entering into an agreement with the administration to limit their remarks to what the administration deems acceptable. If the administration decides they do not want any religious content during their graduation, they are within their rights to ask that people invited to speak avoid the topic of religion, just so long as they do not demand that only _particular_ religious viewpoints are eschewed. If any potential speaker objects to these strictures, they are free to refuse to speak at the graduation ceremony, and go shout their religious views from the nearest street corner. No one’s rights are being infringed by not being allowed to mention God during a graduation ceremony. Just to avoid further confusion, I’ll once again restate that it would be silly and unnecessary, at best, for a school to insist on a total absence of any sort of religious statement during a graduation ceremony. But then, I doubt very much that there are any schools who make such a requirement. The vast majority of schools almost certainly treat the subject as **silenus** described above: mention that you have faith if you want, but keep away from preaching, and don’t say anything we haven’t given you the OK on first. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855.md?page=10)