I still don’t see it. Magellan’s quote was in response to a post by **Squeels **in which he appeard to reference a specific case, but it was unclear to me which case he was referencing, because Magellan was clearly talking about a hypothetical:
One is talking about “he” and the other is talking about “she”.
Concerning the issue of the statement about Cthulu… I don’t see why the school can’t ban it on the simple grounds that it advocates violence, irrespective of whether it is religious in nature or not.
That’s true but it also has no relevance tov this topic. Comparing religious speech to terroristic threats and/or incitements to violence is comparing apples and oranges. Yes, the school can prevent the latter but what does that have to do with the price of tea? How does it shed any light on the Establisment debate?
Sure it’s on point. The school did not arranage the ceremony in order to give special place to a piece of religious speech. They arranged a ceremony and gave a student a chance to deliver an address. Then they started trying to use that as an excuse to deprive her of her rights.
If you got a better case, where the Supreme Court said “validictorians have to give up their right to freedom of religion”, then let’s hear it. If not, precedent is relevent.
There is no such duty on the part of the school. They did not charge the valedictorian with any duty of proselytization. Thus there is no endorsement by the state of any religion. And therefore, the student’s rights under the Constitution are what applies here.
I don’t think the school’s motives are all that important. What is important is the effect of their policies. Does it have the effect of endorsing one religion over another? Nope. Does the policy of censoring certain kinds of religious speech eliminate otherwise unavoidable disruptions? Nope. Therefore, they can’t censor the speech no matter what their intentions.
Not real good at the reading comprehension thing, are ya?
If I am not mistaken, student-led prayer is OK with the Supreme Court. Did you need a cite?
See my earlier point about student-led prayer. And talking about having a “captive audience” at a voluntary meeting is pretty silly.
Irrelevant?
I already covered the fact that non-disruptive proselytization is covered under the First Amendment. Go back and read page 1. Then I covered it again (about how protest is inherently partially proselytizing) in my response to Polycarp. Go back and read that.
Therefore, it doesn’t make any difference if the theoretical Muslim says “thank Allah I am valedictorian” or “you should all join me in the religion of peace”. Same same - both are protected under the First Amendment.
Maybe you aren’t; I am. That’s why I don’t care if those pitching a fit over this are secularists or not. I can’t tell with you. Either you are arguing that the schools should discriminate against Christian speech because you think the religious Right would object if and when the shoe is on the other foot, or that we shouldn’t.
Either way, you’re wrong. Schools may not discriminate against non-disruptive free speech, no matter who thinks they should.
But they don’t know what that “single point of view” is going to be, so how can they be giving it a special place? At the beginning of the four years, even the one year, they don’t know who the valedictorian will be, so they certainly don’t know what the message will be, so how can they be giviing it a special place?
Again, they don’t know which kid is going to earn the honor, so they don’t know what the message will be.
Do what? Choose the student? That’s why the criteria needs to be objective, not subjective.
I think it is reasonable to say that they cannot lead the school in prayer. Their speech has to be on point, that is, about the past, the future, growth, challenges, achievemnet, success, etc. Things that he, or she, supposedly has some authority on evidenced by his, or her, earning the title of valedictorian.
She didn’t accdept the honor, she earned it. She fulfilled the criteria, she IS the valedictorian. For a school to impose restrictions after the fact, and attempt to limit her speech (as long as it is on point) is, as I said before, Orwellian.
Here is the question: at what point does someone become a valedictorian? In my experiance, there is a set of objective criteria in place that cannot be change at the end of the four years. Let’s say it is the highest GPA. It is my opinion that whoever has the highest GPA IS the valedictorian. I’m sure there can be some restrictions, like the kid can’t be in jail, or have been convicted of a felony, etc. But assuming all the criteia are met, she IS the valedictorian, and as such, has the right to share her thoughts on the future, succes, etc. with her classmates.
Neither do I. That’s why I’ve been asking. But it seems to make sense.
Wouldn’t that be a simple freedom of speech issue. I don’t think that the mere mention of God can be enforced, do you?
She earned the right through easrning the title of valedictorian. The valedictorian gives a speech in which she shares her thoughts with her classmates. As long as it’s on point and prostelytizing, they have no right censor her speech.
Well, we are in a philospohical debate. A compete waste of time? Probably. What riles me is the idea that someone who theoretically has a pretty good feeling for what would lead to success is prevented from saying what she believes because it mentions God,or Jesus, or Satan, or the holy atheist, Carl Sagan.
Okay. What is her speech supposed to be about? Should she spend her time talking about cooking, or husbandry? How about the finer points of billiards, or quantum mechanics? I don’t think so, she is there for an apparent expertise. Succeeding in the arena that people in her age group are in: school. If that is not the topic, then they should just do away with the whole thing. But since that is the topic, we should want to hear what she actually believes, what she credits for her past success and/or how she plans to succeed in the future, and, possibly, give advice along those lines. Whether those things include rising at dawn, volungteering time to help the less fortunate, long hours of study, talking to her cat, keepingh Jesus foremost in her mind, embracing Atheism, let’s hear it. If she sounds like a schmuck, her thoughts will be discounted.
The point isn’t IF SHE CAN speak for fifteen minutes without mentioning God, the point is she shouldn’t have to. If it is important to her, she should be able to mention it. The absolutist idea that God is taboo is both ridiculous and oddly discriminatory. (And no, I’m not pointing to some persecution of Christianity.)
A point system would go along away in avoiding any ties. But when they do occur, and objective solution should be used: flipping a coin, etc.
I think that’s the crux of the issue. It is my belief, based on my experience and everything I’ve heard about and from valedictorians, that the valedictorian is not invited, she has already earned the right to speak. If an actual invitation is given it is merely a formality.
I don’t think they have the right to do that. I think they can ban prayer, or prostelytizing, but the mere mention of God is free speech, isn’t it?
I doubt this is true. Sometimes speakers are chosen because they are somewhat controversial. This is a good thing, in that universities should be exposing kids to fresh ideas. (of course, that would mean that strong conservatives should make up the majority of commencement speakers, but that is grist for another thread.)
I’m glad you brought this up. I maintain that they are responsible for the speech of someone they choose, which is why they shouldn’t choose, which is why the criteria to become valedictorian should be objective, out of the school’s hands. If she is chosen, I agree with you fully. She should be treated of an agent of the school/state and her speech can be curtailed or dictated by the school. Her option at that point is to decline the selection.
At this point it becomes impossible to believe that you are arguing in good faith. What is okay with the SC is when a bunch of students get together and pray of their own free will. Trying to pretend that their rulings on “student-led prayer,” which deal with students choosing to get together to pray, have any bearing on this situation is flat out deliberately misleading. The same, of course, goes for your attempt to appeal to Tinker without being honest about what Tinker was in regards to.
Yes, I WOULD like a cite to the effect that graduation ceremonies can consist of the valedictorian leading the student body in a Christian prayer. Pretty please?
Interesting philosophical debate here. Would anybody like to hear some reality, from someone who has been dealing with validictory addresses for 20 years? Or would you rather keep it in the abstract?
Well, I for one do think it’s vulgar. Who gives a shit what your religious beliefs are? It is in bad taste to subject a captive audience to a half hour of something that is meaningful only to you. Can a person be any more self-absorbed? Puh-leeze. :rolleyes:
What do you mean, “after the fact?” This was a condition of the valedictorianship from the beginning: the administration has approval over the speech. I’m willing to bet they do this with every valedictorian. I highly doubt this was the first time they changed a speech. Probably not the first time the kid decided to read his original speech and got his mic cut, too.
Why can’t it change?
Nope. She’s valedictorian because the school says she’d valedictorian. If the school says she isn’t valedictorian, and she puts it on her college application, she’s going to get in trouble.
I don’t know. I suspect they can, because the people at the graduation (including guest speakers, including the valedictorian) are speaking on behalf of the school. Essentially, the speakers are fulfilling a role in a production being put on by the school, and so the school can dictate what they say in that production. Like a school play: if the kid playing Oliver breaks character and starts to talk about Jesus, he’ll be yanked off stage and replaced by his understudy.
I assume you meant “not proselytizing”?
I guess I just don’t see that as rilable.
Yeah, but there’s got to be something more to it than just Jesus. All I’m saying is, just because she can’t mention God, it doesn’t necessarily mean that she can’t possibly say anything meaningful about how to succeed in life.
I’m not arguing that any mention at all of God should be illegal. I don’t have a problem with mentioning God during a graduation, and I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court doesn’t, either. I do think that out-right proselytizing is illegal, and the line between the two can be pretty blurry sometimes. I don’t blame nervous administrators for playing it safe and keeping everything strictly secular. I think they have the legal right to do so, for reasons outlined above. I don’t think this is necessarily the best course for a school to take, because I’m generally opposed to zero tolerance policies. However, the negative results of this policy don’t seem too severe to me, and don’t conflict with the law in any way (so far as I know) so I’m not too upset by it.
In short, I’m not arguing the absolutist position.
If she’s not an invited speaker, then she’s part of the graduation ceremony itself, the same as the faculty. No one has any “right” to give a speech at a graduation ceremony. They’re either assigned a role as part of their duty as an employee, or they are invited as a guest. Either way, the school has the right to tell them what to say during it’s ceremony.
I don’t think you have the right to free speech in this circumstance. You cede it by agreeing to be part of the ceremony. Just like an actor agreeing to follow a script.
I disagree entirely. The role of valedictorian is entirely a creation of the administration. The valedictorian is exactly what they say it is, no more, no less. Essentially, it’s a job, with no pay and very light duties, but looks great on a resume.
And why should anyone give a shit about what you think is vulgar? :rolleyes:
Look, we are all free to say stupid shit and bore each other. Such is the fate of your “captive” audience. Banning religious speech does not solve the problem you outline, so your solution, and your argument against religious speech is lacking.
It boils down to this, in real life: Valedictorians are selected based on pre-existing criteria. The school can’t change these without notifying the parents well in advance (like 5 years in advance) if they want to avoid a lawsuit. At our school, all graduation speeches by students (valedictorian, Senior Class President, Senior Class Speaker) are run by me as Director of Forensics to make sure they pass muster. The general rule is that religion may be mentioned, but not promoted. “Thank you, Cthulu” is fine. “I’d like to tell you about Jesus” isn’t. Acknowledgment of the aid of a Higher Power is allowed without censure. Demanding that others acknowledge this isn’t. All student speakers are limited to 3 minutes each. If they go over by more than I like, or they wander from the submitted text with the intention of rabble-rousing or preaching, we cut the power to the mike and they are escorted back to their seat. (So far we have never had to do this. The kids usually respect/fear me enough that they don’t want to push it.) We are a very “Christian” little town (50% Baptist, 30% Mormon, 20% “Point that thing somewhere else”), but if someone starts preaching at graduation, even a little bit, people get pissed. A few years ago, the faculty speaker was one of our History teachers, who also doubled as a Baptist Youth minister. His speech never went too far, but the next day the newspaper was filled with letters complaining about his “preaching.”
Back when the rules allowed multiple valedictorians, we even had a pool going as to who would get thanked more, God or parents.
By “after the fact” I mean “after” she earned the title. “Kids, at the end of the year [or four years] the one of you who has the best X will be the class valedictorian. At the graduation ceremony that person will address the class and sum up the past four years and say some inspiring words about the future.” Imposing restrictions after she has won the honor is not right. If they make it clear from day one that the V. will not be allowed to mention God (in a way that you object to), I guess they could do that. I still think the V. would have a good argumentthat he shold be able to say what is in his heart—and on point—but his case would be weakened substantially.
And I am not arguing that they cannot change the speech. They can change it if it is vulgar, off point, prayer-like, incendiary, disruptive, or proselytizing. They cannot do so simply because it happens to be personally religious in nature.
It can. Usually when a contract is changed mid-stream (and I do see this as being a contract of sorts) both parties have to agree to it. A better move wold be to change the policy when the school year starts, or the freshman class starts.
WHAT? She earns it by fulfilling the criteria. The school just can’t choose who they want. “Oh let’s see, graduation is tomorrow. Mary, how would you like to be valedictorian.” Now, I think that a school could adopt this policy, but I don’t think that fantastical hypothetical has any bearing in our real world. Do you?
You keep uttering that the V. is speaking on behalf of the school, but that doesn’t make it so. She writes the speech, based on her personal experience during the past four years. Some of that occurred inside the four walls of the school. Some did not. The thoughts are hers. She is supposed to share her thoughts.
It’s not like that at all. The actor is not expressing his own thoughts. The actor has not earned the right to do so. He has a script he is supposed to stick to. He get’s pulled off not for what he DOES say, but for what he does NOT say. If he veers off course at all, whether into a character from a different play, a letter from camp, evangelical prayer, baseball scores, or musing about his perswonal faith, he gets yanked.
No, I meant prostelytizing: the act of attempting to convert students to one religious faith when they are traveling abroad and staying in small, inexpensive inns with bunk beds. Don’t feel bad if you didn’t know it, it’s a very advanced word.
Maybe it’s not. But that is the assumption that is made the reason for their very existence.
We agree on that point. But that is not the point. I’m sure she could give a speech without using words with the letter “m”. It can be done. But if the person feels that she owes everything she’s accomplished to her mother and would like to recount some of that or thank her, it restricts her. And for no good reason.
Look, I wish we had no athletes thanking God and that one’s religious beliefs were a more private matter, as they are for me. But I think that peope should be able to express what they feel. The speech is ripe for personal reflection and examination of what it takes to succeed. If someone feels X is important, and they have earned the right to share their thoughts, they need to be able to use words that allow them to do so. assuming they stay on point.
If your position is that the speech can be reviewed and edited for vulgarity, incendiary language, ramblings about the hotness of pop idols, AND outright proselytiziing, we are in agreement. I think we differ that I feel obligated to give the student the benefit of the doubt and give her leeway, whereas you want to avoid all chance of having the speech turn into an issue. I think that treads to heavily on her free speech rights.
Come on, Miller. The same as the faculty? The paid faculty is has been hired to do a specific job and can be fired? Don’t you think that goes just a parsec too far.
This is where I vehemently disagree. Again, according to my experience, the honor has gone to the student who has the highest X(GPA). As long as the criteria are objective, and the title of Valedictorian is the prize, and the world still operates the way I remember it and the Valedictorian speaks at the cerremony, the Valedictorian has thereby earned the right to speak. Guests are a different matter. The school can extend an invitation or not. They can enter into discussions so that they feel what will be said will be okay with them. They can always pull the invitation.
Not completely free speech. But there has to be a compelling reason for what you edit out. I commented on the actor thing above.
They created it, fine. And it’s been a part of school traditions for as long as I am aware. I’d wager that a poll of people would be nearly unanimous in agreement as to wah a valedictorian is. My guess is that they’d say it’s the student who gets to speak at the graduation ceremony. And that if you asked them how this person got to speak and not someone else, that they’d say it’s the person with the best grades.
Wait, all this time you’ve been assuming that this change was made after she was named valedictorian? What makes you think that? I thought it was a given that no high school would let a graduating student up on a podium speak without carefully vetting his speech first. Evidentally, thanks to silenus’s post, they don’t have the right to change it at the last minute, so I was wrong about that, but he also made it clear that vetting the speech was part of the deal from the get-go, at least at his school.
Yes, but by being invited by the school to speak, the school is saying, in effect, “We approve of the thoughts being presented by this person.” If they don’t agree with the thoughts that person wants to present, they have the right to ask them to talk about something different and, if that person refuses, I think they have the right to not have that person make a speech.
Silenus, can you confirm that? Is the school required to let the Valedictorian speak? What would you do if a student flatly refused to make a different speech?
You keep saying that the valedictorian has “earned the right” to speak, but I really don’t see where you’re getting that. Honestly, it sounds more like an obligation to me, and I bet most valedictorians feel the same. The point of being a valedictorian isn’t to get a speech at graduation. It’s to get into a better college. The graduation speech strikes me as entirely incidental, and more of a role to fill in a ceremony than a great and much sought honor. Maybe I’m wrong, though. I didn’t really hang with the valedictorian crowd in high school.
I think the school has the right to edit it for whatever they want. Again, I don’t think that’s necessary that they do so. There’s nothing wrong with a casual mention of God. But it’s the school’s call.
Well, if they don’t fit in that category, then they must be in the other category.
See, there’s nothing in your premises there that supports your conclusions. Just because the Valedictorian has a high GPA, it doesn’t follow that he has the right to say whatever he wants at the graduation. There’s no logical connection between the two. The valedictorian has won whatever the school says he’s won. They created the role of valedictorian, they hand out the grades, they decide what the valedictorian gets. If they say the valedictorian gets an edited speech, that’s what the valedictorian gets.
I’m almost certain that they’d say it was the student with the highest GPA. I very much doubt that most people put as much emphasis on the graduation speech as you do. Not that it’s remotely relevant.
What silenus described is not just his school’s policy. It’s the law of the land and shouldn’t vary from school to school. Obviously, it does because principals and teachers get confused about what the law is and students mistakenly think that some things are forbidden when they’re not.
Students are allowed to express their own feelings, but they have to chose the words that convey these feelings intelligently. As valedictorians, they should be able to do that fairly easily and remain within the guidelines.
Shodan, I’m going to say this only one more time before I give you one of my stern looks. Teachers and staff are sometimes coerced into attending graduation ceremonies. As strange as it may seem to you, some of us had rather be on my front porch drankin’ and sangin’ and pretendin’ to be stereotypes.
It may not solve it, but it’s a damn good start. If I want to learn about what Jesus can do for me, there are plenty of churches I can go to in pursuit of that information.
Point taken. However, since the valedictorian is still not acting as an agent of the state, the situation for teachers would still not be significantly different than another citizen being subjected to religious speech in course of his job. Like a policeman who had to listen to street preachers while walking the beat. Certainly you have taken another step closer to a (partially) captive audience, but still not an endorsement.
Actually, it seems that Supreme Court decisions regarding student-led prayer are all over the place.
Prayers led by a clergy member are banned, certainly (Lee v. Weisman [U.S., 112 S. Ct. 2649]). So, oddly enough, are student-led prayers at a football game . But AFAICT the Supremes have refused to rule on graduation prayers made by students. Good - then we can argue based on principle rather than precedent.
The football case is Sante Fe ISD v. Doe. The Court said that there was a:
[
](http://www.tasb.org/news/tls/2001/april/lgl_ok_pray.aspx) IOW, it seems that one of the major objections of the Court was that the prayers were set by official school policy. That is certainly not the case here - the school made every effort to prevent religous speech by the valedictorian. So it cannot be considered that the graduation prayer was set by official policy. But, as I say, the Supremes have refused to rule directly.
That’s a bit overstated. Even if it were true, it could be easily dealt with by a disclaimer in the program that “the thoughts and opinions expressed in the speeches are not necessarily those of Happydale Public School. Retransmit or rebroadcast of the graduation ceremony without the express written permission of the PGA is prohibited.” Etc. Much less intrusive than trying to censor free speech.
Actually, what’s clear is that you lose your temper and your argument at the same time.
Well, there has been movement between arguing the specific case and arguing the general principle based on a hypothetical student. I’ve mainly been arguing the latter, but not exclusively, so I apologize if that’s caused some confusion. I think the hypothetical allows us to get closer to the issues at hand. As far as the timing, I must not understand you. Chronologically: title won, title recognized, speech written, speech reviewed, speech edited, speech given. If you are referring to the idea that the speech can be edited for thingsother then incendiary language and the like, specifically, religious speech the would ordibarily be protected, that has to be stated or understood at the beginniing of the four years. Silenius proposes five, but I’m not sure why it would be more then four.
We don’t agree on the word “invited”, except possibly as a formality. The title is earned. The honor of speaking to the class comes with the title. This is the way, to the best of my knowledge, it has always been done. Do you propose otherwise? Can a school separate the title from the speech. Of course, but as Silenius says, they shold make any changes well in advance (five years, again).
The question is not just can the school stop his speech, but on what grounds. As I’ve said, a vulgar speech, or one completely off poin or incendiary could easily be stopped if not changed.
I agree with Silenius’s assertion that “…in real life: Valedictorians are selected based on pre-existing criteria.” I would add “should” to that, as well. Now, I would bet that with the suff that comes with becoming the V., that the notation in the yearbook and the right to include it on one’s resume, might be viewed as better benefits than the right to address one’s classmates, but I’m also sure that it’s not the same for everyone. And I don’t think that the title helps the kid get into college, as by the time they know who the V. is, most kids (especially those with excellent grades) have already decided where they are going to college.
For “whatever they want”? So, they’d be able to excise the opinion that one’s father was of paramount importance, because many of the kids are raised in single parent households by their mothers. They’d be able to edit out speech pointing to a more socialist wordview, or one that is more objectivist, because they do not agree with the opinion. No. They have to adhere to the idea of free speech and edit out certain speech for acceptable reasons. Again, things like, vulgarity, incendiary language, off-point musings, etc.
Huh? Why? Why are there only two categories? If you are willing to entertain the idea that she is not part of the faculty, that does automatically make her an invited speaker. In fact, she is her own category, with a population of one: those people who have earned the right to speak.
It’s not that he get to say “whatever he wants”. Thiink about it this way, it’s not a random gift, like school sweater. Why would many, many years ago when the practice was introduced might administrators thought the the V. might should address the class. You seem to think it was some bauble thrown his way. I venture to say (and yes this is an assumption), that they saw some value in it; that, now that they’ve identified the one kid that has demonstrated more success in what all the kids were trying to accomplish, that it might be beneficial for the class to hear from one of their peers how he became to be successful. That theyr’e might be some nuggets in there that the rest of the kids could use in their future endeavors. Now even if that was not the actual genesis of the idea of V., or the speech in question, the logic of it seems pretty compelling to me. IMO, if you remove the right of the V. to expres his actual thoughts, talk about the things he actually attributes succes to, the whole thing becomes ridiculously meaningless and shold be done away with. It’s just a step away from the kid reading a speech written by the administrators.
To answer Miller’s query, it has only been in the last 10 years or so that the valedictorian has been asked/allowed to speak at our school. Then it got really out of hand because the rules were written in such a way that we ended up with multiple vals, and they all wanted to speak. We finally got the rules re-written so that There Can Be Only One.
If the student refused to change her speech, and we felt that the speech was out of line, then they would be denied the right to speak at graduation. We actively encourage the religious speeches to be given at Baccalaureate, which is the Sunday before graduation and strictly voluntary. That de-fuses the whole “I have a right to speak” issue by giving the Bible-thumpers a venue to spout their beliefs without stepping on anybody’s toes. In the end, we have the cut-off switch to the mike and the speakers know it. Graduation is not “mandatory” for the students. We can refuses to allow them to participate for any number of reasons. Several students were bodily removed from the stadium last year for misbehavior and didn’t walk. Their diplomas were mailed to them later.
I’ not sure why you addressed these comments to me, Zoe, as I don’t see where I’ve disagreed with them. The only question for me is what those guidelines should be. As I’ve said repeatedly, things like vulgarity, incendiary language, prayer, proselytizing, off-point ramblings, etc, can all be edited out. But if a kid attributes a geat deal of his success to a presonal relationship with Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Satan or pure rationalism, he has the right to communicate his thoughts.
Here’s a thought experiment that might help explain my position. New kid moves into the area and his new school on Day 1 of freshman year. By the end of his senior year he has demonstrated that he is very good at this thing called school. Maybe he’s also a well-rounded kid with tons of friends and is pretty good at this thing called life, as well. Now, we all want all kids to do well in these things, and expend much energy and dollars trying to make that happen. And now we have this kid who has figured out how to do it. Might it be a good idea to have this kid share with his peers how he views that challenges that face them all? Might it not be a good idea for these kids to hear—from someone in the same position as them—how he defined the challenges and to what he’s done that he attributes his success to? Could it be possible that he would have some gem of wisdom that might resonate with his peers, to greater effect than the efforts of their parents and teachers? Shouldn’t we want the kids to hear this, with the hope that they may become more successful? Now since we don’t know how the valedictorian achieved his success and to what he thinks contributed to it, we have to let him tell us. If he says that A, B and C were important but that C was vastly more important, by what right, and to what end, do we tell him he has to omit C?(Assumiing, of course, is doesn’t warrant being banned for the other reasons I’ve mentioned.) What if C is something that would resonate well with the kids and help them? Do we not want them to do better? Obviously C here is religious belief, but it needn’t be. What is so objectionable about religious belief that it warrants being excised? Is it simply because it is religious in nature and that it somehow runs afoul of the estanlishment clause? But it’s not the school (the state) giving the speech. If therre is any fear that that is not the case, a simple preamble should be a sufficient prophylactic. If a lawyer believes otherwise, I’d love to hear it. I am not aware of any ruling that would ban a student from such speech, as long as it was not prayer-like or proseltyziing.
