In theory, maybe. IRL, no. The school has absolutely zero interest in what the speaker has to say, nor the student body at large. It is a ceremonial “thing” that “must” be done, and the idea is to get it over with quickly and as painlessly as possible.
The kid has an important message? Please!
Thanks for your input, silenus. Can you share how you get to that one student?
As far having the Baccalaureate as an addtional ceremony, I can see how it might help. But it doesn’t really help with the crux of what is being debated. You said earlier that the Valedictorian is allowed some religious speech. The question I think for most of us is where you draw the line? I draw it at no prayer and no proselytizing. **Miller **seems to think that we should draw the line much earlier, as to not run the risk of winding up in undesireable territory. Ithnk that goes to far, as it limits her speech unnecessarily. What is your schools policy? How did they arrive at it? You said that your valedictorian is only given three minutes. That probably solves the majority of the problem right there. For the purposes of this discussion, though, it might make more sense to assume a speech length of 10-15 minutes, which I think is more the norm.
10 minutes?!? At a college, maybe. I’ve never heard of a high school allowing that much time, especially for a student speaker.
The current rules for valedictorian are, IIRC:
We’ve never had to get past #1, but the others were added just in case. The previous system limited the number of AP classes counted towards the GPA, and didn’t allow for an A-, for example. The new system has shades of gray in the grading portion and allows all AP classes to count.
The general rule for content is no prayer, no proselytizing. You may speak of what your religious befiefs have done for you, but you may not offer or demand them of others. They can be mentioned in context with other things, but may not be a major component of the speech. After that it really becomes a judgment call by the people vetting the speech (me, the principal). Any kid who has managed to play the game well enough to be valedictorian has also been indoctrinated to the point that going against the wishes of the school is anathema to them. If they were that rebellious, they would have shown signs of it under the fascists they had for teachers. (me, the calculus teacher, the AP Physics teacher, etc.)
That all makes pretty good sense to me. Although, if I were principal I would try to turn number 2 into a predetermined point system (which it may very well be), in a way that would guarantee never getting to number 3, which would be purely subjective.
Even in the hypothetical, I was arguing from the assumption that the policy was known beforehand. It just seems like common sense, and strikes me as bizarre that you’d think any school would not include such a provision in their arrangements for valedictorian.
Yes, to all of your examples. Mind, I would feel it was stupid for them to make those changes, but they have that right.
That category does not exist. No one has a right to speak at graduation, as silenus has confirmed by pointing out that for years, his school didn’t have valedictorian speeches at all. The speech is an exceedingly minor and incidental part of being valedictorian, not the central point of the position, as you continue to assert.
More like a letterman jacket, I’d say.
I’d be willing to wager that they started letting the valedictorian speak because they wanted to pad out the ceremony.
It’s a graduation ceremony. It’s ridiculous and meaningless by definition.
So?
Please stop misrepresenting my position. I’ve said, mutliple times, that I do not think all religious speech should be removed from all graduation ceremonies, and that I have no problem with the mention of religion so long as it does not become actual preaching. I must have said this at least a half dozen times in this thread, you must have read it at least once. All I’ve been arguing is that a school has a right to edit a valedictorian’s speech for whatever content they like. I’ve never said that they should edit out all relgious references and, again, have said exactly the opposite several times.
[QUOTE=Miller]
More like a letterman jacket, I’d say.
Are you of the mind that a letterman jacket is not earned? If so, we are in disagreement yet again.
Slow down. First of all, I just said that you would draw the line earlier than I would, which I think you would agree with. Still, if that misrepresents your position I apologize. I was actually making an attemp to not characterize you position, except in relation toe mine, which I felt was safe. Again, if that mischaracterizes what you’ve been saying, I apologize. But I just reread your posts and I think it accurate to say that I would give religious speech more latitude than you would. Addtionally, Miller, I think you do me an injustice to intimate that I’ve repeatedly misrepresented your position. I’ve discussed this in good faith and made sincere and repeated efforts to understand your position. As I think you have done. I’m sorry to see what has been a civil exchange of ideas pissed on in the end.
That said, we probably have explored this is far as will be productive any way. Enjoy the long weekend.
Ah, I’m not really pissed. We actually agree about what schools should do, we just disagree about what they can do.
I’m going to add back in one point I made earlier, which got lost in the “Valedictorian as Agent of the Jackbooted Fascist Administration” (;)) argument.
The school is extending the valedictorian a forum. Yes, attendance is voluntary save for some faculty and staff. Yes, the valedictorian has some freedom in preparing his/her remarks. But it’s a principle of Freedom of Speech/Press jurisprudence that the person/company/agency/whatever providing the forum has the right to put reasonable restrictions on content. Ask in ATMB what you may not discuss on SDMB-- as I recall, actual ways to violate the law, peer-to-peer file-sharing programs, promotion of pedophile behavior, violations of copyright… What may you not broadcast on broadcast, airwaves TV (as opposed to cable)? Full frontal nudity, actual visible sex acts, violence past a certain level of goriness… “Letters to the editor are limited to 200 words and may be screened for content and edited…” At what point does silenus’s description of permissible and impermissible content in a valedictory address differ from the above, that its content may not be similarly regulated by the provider of the forum, i.e., the school district?
Not for the state. It’s a principle of Freedom of Speech that the government has no right to content-based censorship.
Regards,
Shodan
This is not about censeorship by the state, it’s about what kind of speech is allowed to be expressed by the state itself. The state itself does not have freedom of speech.
And not allowing speech is pretty much the definition of censorship, so your post lacks a point.
Of course, maybe you were talking about “censeorship”, in which case all bets are off.
Regards,
Shodan
This is not a case where the State would be disallowing speech, it’s a case where the state has to practice Constitutionally mandated self-censorship.
A 17 year old kid is not “the state”. But the school does have every authority to restrict the speech in any way it wants to, including not having the speech at all. There is no right to a validictorian speech.
when the state invites him to speak as part of a state ceremony and hands him a state microphone, he is speaking as an agent of the state. There is no inherent right of citizens to speak at such ceremonies in the first place, and so no expectation that the content of their speech can’t be controlled.
How is it any different from a president’s inaugural address? Can the president not ask for God to bless America? Of course he can.
Correct.
Because he’s not acting for the state? Acting as the President and acting on behalf of the state are two (though often intertwined) different things. As Louis XIV didn’t say, “Je ne suis pas l’etat”. 
I’m not saying that the student is or isn’t acting on behalf of the school (and so the state) here, though.
I haven’t lost my temper: I’m simply pointing out the way in which you argue.
Here is what you said: “If I am not mistaken, student-led prayer is OK with the Supreme Court. Did you need a cite?”
I said yes: I’d love a cite that the SC thinks that a student speaker can choose to lead students in prayer at a graduation ceremony, which is your extremist position (i.e. there is NO line: the speaker can, with foreknowledge of school, be put on to make any religious declarations they want, including, apparently, secretarian prayers). You’ve provided no citation. Now you seem to say that the SC hasn’t made any such rulings. So, were you mistaken?
Furthermore, saying that “student-led prayer is OK with the Supreme Court” in the context you did is in very bad faith in this argument, because like Tinker, and provided that you weren’t mistaken, the only existing decisions to which you could be referring to deal with very very different situations. Any person unfamiliar with what you are referring to joining this thread would be grossly misled,a nd its hard to believe that it wasn’t intentional. And I think I have a right to point out that sort of duplicitous tactic when I see it.
Apos, it might not be a good idea to respond to posts if you won’t read them.
And for those arguing that the valedictorian is an agent of the state, could you cite some examples of where she sets official school policy, or receives some sort of direct payment from the school that would create an employer-employee relationship?
As I mentioned earlier, the valedictorian is necessarily a student, not an agent of the state. Teachers, administrators, and other employees are agents of the state - but they are not eligible to be chosen as valedictorian. One of the qualifications, in other words, of a valedictorian is that he or she cannot be an agent of the state.
And I am assuming that those arguing in favor of the school censorship would have no problem with censoring her speech in other ways. If she had been the child of gay parents, for instance, and she wanted to thank her gay parents and recommend SSM as a good thing, and the authorities demanded that she remove the reference or lose the chance to speech, that would be OK with all of you. Right?
Or if she wore a black armband protesting the war in Iraq, the authorities would be justified in compelling her to remove it before she delivered the speech. Right?
Regards,
Shodan
You’re kidding, right? The valedictorian is performing a function at the request of a government agency, said function a required event for students to attend.
Students are not required to attend graduation ceremonies.