# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/61 "2006-08-31T19:10:32Z")
**Dio** : Here’s another hypothetical. As part of a school ceremony, each Monday morning the principle plays part of the president’s weekend radio address over the loudspeaker. Must any reference to God be bleeped out? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/62 "2006-08-31T19:11:28Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > No. I think the student is speaking as an agent of the school. I also think that the school has an obligation to control the ceremonial aspects of the proceedings so as to avoid any endorsements of religion. Now we’re back here: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by magellan01 > But that’s exactly the larger point: “in one’s life”. (emphasis mine) Therefore it is not the school make a religious proffession, but ONE individual. So, what is wrong with this parsing of who is endorsing what? Also, **Dio,** could you please respond to my questions in Post 48 and the hypothetical I posed in Post 40? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/63 "2006-08-31T19:17:16Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > You seem to have some bizarre theory that there is some sort of code of chivalious school behavior. I don’t think the school is a night at your roundtable. They arranged the event and invited the speakers. Why can’t they control the content of the event, including having a veto on anything any speakers say? I don’t see her as being invited. I see it as her having earned the right. At the beginning of every school year everyone is of the mind that 1) there will be a valedictorian and 2) that person will have the honor of addressing her classmates and passing on some words of wisdom. The wisdom is what is in her little head. No one knows to what she attributes her past and (theoretically) future success other than she. You can’t ask her to share those thoughts and then tell her what those thoughts are. Your position seems quite Orwellian to me. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/64 "2006-08-31T19:46:42Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **Dio** : Here’s another hypothetical. As part of a school ceremony, each Monday morning the principle plays part of the president’s weekend radio address over the loudspeaker. Must any reference to God be bleeped out? No. It’s not about what’s being said, it’s about who’s saying it and whether they’re saying it within any official context. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/65 "2006-08-31T19:51:36Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **Dio** : Here’s another hypothetical. As part of a school ceremony, each Monday morning the principle plays part of the president’s weekend radio address over the loudspeaker. Must any reference to God be bleeped out? I don’t think this is about one reference to God. If it were, the young lady’s microphone would pronbably not have been turned off. The students don’t have to listen to the prosletyzation to get their diplomas, but they do in order to participate in the ceremony, which they understood to be secular when they sat down. I would let her speak if they had an intermission befoerhand, and informed the students that in ten minutes, she would be discussing Jesus for ten minutes. That way anyone who didn’t care to hear about Jesus, or is offended by being told about Jesus, or whose faith requires that they not remain silent while she says (for example) “Jesus actually didn’t die for most of the people here, but only for the few who, like me, were elected to be saved and spend eternity in Paradise,” could simply choose not to return for 20 minutes. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/66 "2006-08-31T19:53:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t see her as being invited. I see it as her having earned the right. At the beginning of every school year everyone is of the mind that 1) there will be a valedictorian and 2) that person will have the honor of addressing her classmates and passing on some words of wisdom. The wisdom is what is in her little head. No one knows to what she attributes her past and (theoretically) future success other than she. You can’t ask her to share those thoughts and then tell her what those thoughts are. Your position seems quite Orwellian to me. But these honors are given out purely at the discretion and the pleasure of the school. There is no inherent legal right for students to speak on a school PA system and therefore no inherent expectation of free speech for what they say on them. The school doesn’t have to let anybody say anything over its microphones and are completely responsible for anything that IS said. That’s why I say that valedictorians are speaking as agents of the school. They are speaking at the invitation of the school, on behalf of the school with agreed upon parameters for the content of their speech. They are not exercising an inherent right they are participating as invited officials in a secular, state sanctioned ceremony. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/67 "2006-08-31T20:01:07Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Let’s not forget the Lemon Test: > > 1. The government’s action must have a legitimate secular purpose; > 2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and > 3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of the government and religion. > > First, it’s highly questionable whether this is “government action” in the first place. But even if it is, I think it passes the Lemon Test easily. If the student attempted to prosyletize, then we’re treading on thin ice wrt the Lemon Test. But simply invoking a person deity wrt to one’s own accopmlishments-- I don’t see the issue. Couple of points here, **John**. 1. The valedictorian speech with religous content may not pass the first prong of the “Lemon Test”. Is there a legitimate secular purpose in letting little Rhonda Religous spout off about how the Flying Purple Unicorn helped her study? I’m not sure there is. Allowing the speech may fail the second prong, for advancing religion by forcefeeding a captive audience, especially those of less tolerant faiths or no faith and no interest in any faith. Allowing the speech may fail the third prong by requiring the School to obtain a draft and censor its content to avoid potential liability and avoid infringing the rights of others in the audience. 2. If I might apply the say test to your hypothetical posed to **Dio** , I’d say playing the PResident’s speech serves the legitimate secular purpose of educating students about current events and politcal affairs, to pass prong one. The school has no ability to control the content of the President’s speech, so the school is not advancing or inhibiting religion by playing the President’s speech, which would be generally considered a newsworth event in the public forum, to pass prong 2. There is no excessive entanglement with religion–the school is simply playing a recording of a historical event, to pass prong three. Again, the above is only my personal opinion, offered for the sake of argument. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/68 "2006-08-31T20:04:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No one is talking about prayer. We’re talking about a speech, allowing someone to express the actual views she holds. A prayer would not/should not be allowed by a valedictorian as it is not on point. Please see my posts above. > > Regarding dual valedictorians. Dumb fucking idea. Another PC attempt to protect children from the real world. That said, if the school wants to have two of them, fine. As long as it is stated when the year begins. But it wasn’t. It was decided about 3/4 through the year, when the administration started figuring up who was gonna be what. As I said, are you going to federally mandate how schools can pick their valedictorian and when they have to have it done? If not, how are you going to keep them from using a speech ostensibly written by the valedictorian (or salutatorian, or whomever else they choose as their ‘student representative’ for those schools that have dropped the valedictorian thing altogether - leaving it even _more_ open to the school selecting students on religious grounds) as a means to proselytize to / pray over the student body? Since you’re maintaining that the student giving the speech can say absolutely anything they want, as long as it’s religious. I note that you have no objection to schools banning other topics, words, etc., as long as the ban isn’t based on religion. What happened to the rest of the student’s free speech rights? The first amendment isn’t _solely_ about religion, y’know. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/69 "2006-08-31T20:08:55Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > Both express an opinion on the importance of Christianity in one’s life. Are you honestly suggesting that the plea, “ **Slay** the Christians, and aid us to \*\*drink the blood of their babies \*\* to the greater glory of Cthulu” is nothing more than “an opinion on the importance of Christianity in one’s life”? Do you not see the critical distinction here? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/70 "2006-08-31T20:31:52Z")
There is no _legal_ distinction. Religious views are not afforded more or less freedom of expression based upon any perceived level of validity or offensiveness and it’s not a distinction which has any bearing on the establisment Clause. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/71 "2006-08-31T20:34:20Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Couple of points here, **John**. > > 1. The valedictorian speech with religous content may not pass the first prong of the “Lemon Test”. Is there a legitimate secular purpose in letting little Rhonda Religous spout off about how the Flying Purple Unicorn helped her study? I’m not sure there is. Allowing the speech may fail the second prong, for advancing religion by forcefeeding a captive audience, especially those of less tolerant faiths or no faith and no interest in any faith. Allowing the speech may fail the third prong by requiring the School to obtain a draft and censor its content to avoid potential liability and avoid infringing the rights of others in the audience. > > 2. If I might apply the say test to your hypothetical posed to **Dio** , I’d say playing the PResident’s speech serves the legitimate secular purpose of educating students about current events and politcal affairs, to pass prong one. The school has no ability to control the content of the President’s speech, so the school is not > advancing or inhibiting religion by playing the President’s speech, which would be generally considered a newsworth event in the public forum, to pass prong 2. There is no excessive entanglement with religion–the school is simply playing a recording of a historical event, to pass prong three. > > Again, the above is only my personal opinion, offered for the sake of argument. It seems that for prong one you are not treating those two cases the same. For the prez, you are focusing on the speech as a whole while for the student you are focusing only the specific references to God. Here’s how I see it: Allowing the student speak serves the legitimate secular purpose of educating students about the thoughts and motivations of a fellow student who excelled academically. If the speech only casually mentions God, it can’t be reasonably claimed that that was the primary purpose of Rhonda, much less that of the school. I would agree that proselyzing in this context could be a violation. For the second prong, you seem to be igoring the word “primary”. As long as references to religion aren’t required, and as long as they are only casual (ie, not proselytizing), how can it reasonably be claimed that the action has the “primary” effct of advancing religion? If anything, disallowing casual references to God seems to have the primary effect of inhibiting religion (which is forbiden by the test). You lost me in your reasoning for entanglement. If the school’s poilcy is to to have an adminstrator proof-read the speech for a variety of reasons-- advocating illegal activities, profantity, or whatever-- how does adding “religious prozeltyzing” to the list become excessive entanglement? Maybe I’m missing something but your reasoning seems circular. The government is involved in all kinds of activity where it has to exclude certain religious groups. You can’t keep religion out of government if you interpret “entanglement” the way you are. In fact, the school needn’t proofread the speech at all-- it can just have a list of guidelines for the student to use and leave it at that. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/72 "2006-08-31T20:41:26Z")
I am fairly close to to **Magellan** ’s position, with side orders of **Diogenes** and **John Mace**. The only real _“contract”_ here is between school and individual student: “Finish the requirements, and we’ll give you a diploma that attests you graduated.” There are three historically-founded _expectations_ present: 1. As a graduate, you’ll get your diploma at a graduation ceremony to which you can invite your parents, grandma, etc. 2. If you get the best GPA in the school, you’ll be named valedictorian and get to make a speech to the graduation-ceremony audience. 3. The content of that speech is expected to be roughly what **Magellan** outlined earlier: a combination of “how I got here,” “whom I’m grateful to,” and “what we can learn from it all.” She is not a free agent in that particular role. She has every right to **acknowledge** that, in her perception, Jesus helped her to be the person who just graduated and became valedictorian. There’s no difference, content-wise, between that and acknowledging the help of her chemistry teacher or her mother. She does not have the right to use that forum to proselytize or harangue as to what faith or moral actions her listeners should take. Here’s my thinking: It’s an issue of **agency** legally. If Cecil wants to use a quote from me on the board in his next book, and **Ed Zotti** sends me a release form, I can authorize him to sign it in my behalf, giving him a limited power of agency. But it’s limited to signing that release; Ed cannot sell my car to **Tubadiva** for a dollar using that authorization. The valedictorian is the agent of the school for that one limited duty and honor: giving the valedictory speech at graduation. When you use a given forum to exercise your right to speak freely, you agree to the limitations placed by that forum on what you might otherwise say. If I think a given file-sharing program is wonderful and everyone should use it, or am so moved by a copyrighted poem that I believe everyone should read it, the SDMB staff is quite within their rights in prohibiting me from promoting that program or retyping in full that poem. Compare the following: It is the privilege of any citizen to suggest that masturbation is a healthy and beneficial practice, to be engaged in as often as possible. He is exercising his freedom of speech. However, a 14-year-old boy selected to do the morning announcements over the school’s speaker system is not privileged to add in that suggestion, even though he has the freedom to say so at other times and places. This is where **Shodan** is in error. The girl chosen valedictorian has every right to prosetylize, using her freedoms of speech and free exercise. She does not have the right to do so while exercising that particular role; it’s an inherent limitation in the forum she has agreed to use. Now, the Lemon test: By the “reasonable expectation” test, students have a “right” to be present at their graduation, and not be harangued by a sermon-in-disguise as a part of their attendance. (“Right” in quotes because it’s not an absolute guarantee but an reasonable expectation.) The valedictorian has been chosen and authorized to speak by the school; she is therefore its agent for this particular task (even though it’s an honor). She is therefore to some extent bound by the school’s duties and limitations. She herself has a reasonable expectation of being able to express her gratitude to those she believes gave her help and support. That’s secular in nature. That this may include the God she believes in is an incidental inclusion of religion in a predominantly secular setting, and permissible. On the other hand, to convert her speech into a predominantly religious address goes beyond that incidental inclusion to make religion the focal point of her speech, and she may reasonably be enjoined from using the forum of her valedictory speech for that purpose. In fact, she must be so enjoined by a public school because of the Establishment Clause. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/73 "2006-08-31T20:46:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t see her as being invited. I see it as her having earned the right. I don’t see Angelina Jolie as being with Bradd Pitt. I see her as my girlfried, and she has to acknowledge that. My argument is just about as strong as yours. > [@](#): > > At the beginning of every school year everyone is of the mind that 1) there will be a valedictorian and 2) that person will have the honor of addressing her classmates and passing on some words of wisdom. The wisdom is what is in her little head. No one knows to what she attributes her past and (theoretically) future success other than she. You can’t ask her to share those thoughts and then tell her what those thoughts are. Your position seems quite Orwellian to me. You can throw around buzzwords pretty good! Congrats. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/74 "2006-08-31T21:21:27Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I am fairly close to to **Magellan** ’s position, with side orders of **Diogenes** and **John Mace**. The only real _“contract”_ here is between school and individual student: “Finish the requirements, and we’ll give you a diploma that attests you graduated.” There are three historically-founded _expectations_ present: > > 1. As a graduate, you’ll get your diploma at a graduation ceremony to which you can invite your parents, grandma, etc. > 2. If you get the best GPA in the school, you’ll be named valedictorian and get to make a speech to the graduation-ceremony audience. > 3. The content of that speech is expected to be roughly what **Magellan** outlined earlier: a combination of “how I got here,” “whom I’m grateful to,” and “what we can learn from it all.” > > She is not a free agent in that particular role. She has every right to **acknowledge** that, in her perception, Jesus helped her to be the person who just graduated and became valedictorian. There’s no difference, content-wise, between that and acknowledging the help of her chemistry teacher or her mother. She does not have the right to use that forum to proselytize or harangue as to what faith or moral actions her listeners should take. I’d say that’s exactly my position-- no side orders. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/75 "2006-08-31T21:35:32Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There is no _legal_ distinction. Religious views are not afforded more or less freedom of expression based upon any perceived level of validity or offensiveness and it’s not a distinction which has any bearing on the establisment Clause. There most certainly is a distinction. The statement “Slay the Christians, and aid us to drink the blood of their babies to the greater glory of Cthulu” calls for the death of specific human beings, not to mention a ritualistic act (drinking the blood of human babies) that would offend the sensibilities of even the most liberal citizens. The statement “Thank you, Jesus” does not. Honestly, **Dio**. We all know that you have an axe to grind against religion, but does this go so far as to insist that these two statements are even remotely comparable? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/76 "2006-08-31T21:49:38Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > If not, how are you going to keep them from using a speech ostensibly written by the valedictorian (or salutatorian, or whomever else they choose as their ‘student representative’ for those schools that have dropped the valedictorian thing altogether - leaving it even _more_ open to the school selecting students on religious grounds) as a means to proselytize to / pray over the student body? Since you’re maintaining that the student giving the speech can say absolutely anything they want, as long as it’s religious. That is a problem. That is why the standards for who is valedictorian need to be stated clearly. If that person is simply chosen by the school, then I’d agree with you and say that she is acting as an agent of the school and they have every right to curtail her speech. > [@redtail23](#): > > I note that you have no objection to schools banning other topics, words, etc., as long as the ban isn’t based on religion. What happened to the rest of the student’s free speech rights? The first amendment isn’t _solely_ about religion, y’know. Say what? I suggest you review my posts, because that is not even near what I’ve said. If you’re going to so carelessly mischaracterize my posts I’ll leave someone else to respond to you. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/77 "2006-08-31T21:58:25Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > I don’t see Angelina Jolie as being with Bradd Pitt. I see her as my girlfried, and she has to acknowledge that. > > My argument is just about as strong as yours. > > You can throw around buzzwords pretty good! Congrats. Thank you for you substantive, detailed response. You have contributed greatly to the debate and me understanding you better. ---
**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:** [August 31, 2006, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/78 "2006-08-31T21:59:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes and no. There is a contract of sorts. The title of valedictorian is an honor that goes to the best student. That person who reaches that distinction gets to deliver a speech to her classmates and schoolmates. The content of the speech revolves around some combination of how she accomplished what she did, the challenges that face them in the future, how she plans to deal with them, etc. The thinking is that she might have a better handle on what it takes someone of her age to succeed than either the other students or the adminstrators. The point is for her to share her ideas on the matters mentioned above, so that others might benefit from them. Curtailng her speech (again, assumiing it is on point) is unfair to both her and to those who might benefit from hearing her thoughts. Okay, but show me where any of that is protected by law. > [@](#): > > I’m sure there was more than one valedictorian back in the sixties who said something to the effect “… so no matter where we go or what we do, the important thing is to love not hate, forgive, not strike back…”, which I assume you’d be fine with. But whay is that so different to a hypothetical student of today saying “…so we must work hard, work well with others, and always keep Jesus in our hearts. He has given my strength over these past four years, and I know he will be there for me during the next four…”? Because one invokes religion, and the other does not. > [@](#): > > I look at it differently: your wallet can be returned to you. You can made whole. I might be the school’s microphone, but a certain time in front of it was granted to a certain student, whoever could earn the honor of being called valedictorian. If they want to control all speech, they should eliminate the valedictorian’s right to the mic. It’s akin to me asking you what you think and then telling you that you have to choose from your list of approved topics. Right: that’s exactly what it is. And there’s nothing wrong with that. The school has a right to decide what viewpoints it wants to be aired at an event it has setup and for which it has provided all of the equipment and other arrangements. If the restrictions are too onerous, the student can decide to decline the honor. No one has the _right_ to be valedictorian. > [@](#): > > Let’s say your father was the most important thing in your life, he raised you alone, made sacrifice after sacrifice, worked three jobs, etc etc, etc. If I then asked you to tell me who the most important person in your life was, but stipulated that you couldn’t say your father (maybe some other kids don’t have fathers and would feel bad), your response, if you were able to muster one, would be hollow, meaningless. Sure. But so what? If you’re asking me the question, you get to set whatever conditions on it you want. I might not like the conditions, and I might feel that the conditions render the answer meaningless, but that doesn’t mean I have the right to answer the question I think you should have asked, and I don’t have the right to demand you sit there and listen to the answer I want to give. Besides, if hollow and meaningless graduation speeches were against the law, they’d have to send the SWAT team into every school in the country come June. > [@](#): > > So, it wasn’t enough for you to be wrong just once? 🙂 😛 > [@](#): > > But that’s exactly the larger point: “in one’s life”. (emphasis mine) Therefore it is not the school make a religious proffession, but ONE individual. “One,” when used this way, is synonymous with “you.” It’s not a statement about the speaker as an individual, but how the speaker believes everyone should behave. If someone says, “It’s important to have Jesus in one’s life,” what they’re saying is, “It’s important to have Jesus in _your_ life.” I agree with the posters who have said an expression of personal faith wouldn’t be objectionable or illegal. However, the line where, “I suceeded because I love Jesus,” elides into “and you didn’t because you don’t,” is often hard to see, and I don’t blame schools for trying to avoid the headache altogether. And I think schools have that right. They’re not telling students what to think, as **magellan** has implied. They’re just telling them what to say as part of their official position as valedictorian, during an official school function. Which is entirely within their rights. > [@](#): > > That is a problem. That is why the standards for who is valedictorian need to be stated clearly. If that person is simply chosen by the school, then I’d agree with you and say that she is acting as an agent of the school and they have every right to curtail her speech. A valedictorian _is_ simply chosen by the school. Academic success is just the criteria the school has decided on to make that choice. If a school decides that valedictorian goes to the best dressed student, or nicest student, or just picks a student’s name out of a hat, it doesn’t change any aspect of this debate. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/79 "2006-08-31T22:07:54Z")
**Polycarp** , a few niggles. I don’t see how you can say: > [@Polycarp](#): > > 1. If you get the best GPA in the school, you’ll be named valedictorian and get to make a speech to the graduation-ceremony audience. and > [@](#): > > The girl **chosen** valedictorian has every right to… The first statement implies a contract of sorts with the student body as a whole and each member of it individually. The honor is either earned or one handed out at the whim of the school. It can’t be both. If the valedictorian is chosen, she is an agent of the school and her speech can be curtailed on religious grounds. If the honor is earned, outside the hands of the school, she is not an agent of the school and her speech cannot be curtailed on religious grounds, as long as the speech is on point. ---
**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:** [August 31, 2006, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855/80 "2006-08-31T22:23:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The first statement implies a contract of sorts with the student body as a whole and each member of it individually. Are you arguing that this implied contract is, or should be, _legally binding_? > [@](#): > > The honor is either earned or one handed out at the whim of the school. It can’t be both. Why not? > [@](#): > > If the valedictorian is chosen, she is an agent of the school and her speech can be curtailed on religious grounds. If the honor is earned, outside the hands of the school, she is not an agent of the school and her speech cannot be curtailed on religious grounds, as long as the speech is on point. That doesn’t make any sense to me at all. Even though the honor is earned, it is still an honor that has been invented, defined, and dispensed by the school. There’s no way that the role of valedictorian is anything other than an agent of the school. How one becomes valedictorian simply doesn’t enter into it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valedictorians-and-jesus/370855.md?page=5)