Valedictorian's speech cut short by school district

KBBC - Las Vegas ^ | 6-16-06

[Indy Pendance]

A local high school graduation ended with roars of protest after school officials turned the microphone off right in the middle of one of the valedictorian's speeches. The microphone cut out after the valedictorian at Foothill High made reference to God.

The family says the District's decision isn't fair. Brittney McComb says she's a straight A student, number one in her class, and is headed to Biola University in the fall.

Brittney attributes all of her success to God. Trouble is, she tried to explain that during her speech which the school district said they told her beforehand was a no-no.

"God's love is so great."

This was part of the speech that Brittney McComb says she so wanted to give on graduation night. But because it did have numerous references to God and Jesus Christ, the school district cut off the mic, leaving her practically silent. That's when many people stood up and booed, showing their support.

Now, the day after, McComb says she got nothing but support from her fellow students. "All of my classmates came up to me and were so happy. They told me they loved me and I said God's awesome because I couldn't have done it without him."

McComb says the district reviewed her speech beforehand, just like everyone else. But she says they sent it back with the last half chopped off.

"They said it was offensive, it identifies a particular religion," explains McComb. "I really think it's free speech; we're American, we should be able to handle that."

We asked her father about that.

Rob McMillan: We have freedom of speech, but what about separation of church and state?

Michael McComb: They brought that up, and they say they were going to give us some documentation to prove why she could say that in her speech.

They said the documentation was ambiguous. That was when Brittney said she took it upon herself to go ahead and give her speech as written, no matter what the consequences might be.

The district tells News 3 there are guidelines for what valedictorians can and can't say, but they didn't get back to us on our request for an interview. A district spokesperson told us they were not trying to avoid interviews on this subject and that multiple graduation ceremonies prevented top administrators from giving us an interview.

The school district maintains it was simply following procedure at the Foothill Graduation.

We're told students are required to submit their speeches in writing ahead of time and they're told if they deviate from the script at all, their microphones will be cut off. The district maintains that's exactly what happened in this case.

[Neoliberalnot]

"Just because it's the 'rules' doesn't make them right."

Exactly, Thoreau figured this out a couple hundred years earlier when he stated "Any fool can make a rule and any fool will mind it."

[Neoliberalnot]

"What kind of fools would we be if we surrendered the fight right off the bat simply because some rules were put into place by the likes of high school administration?"

It is this mindset that allows the despots of the world to rise to power. See how the Germans followed a madman into the destruction of their own country by following a myriad of unjust rules, regulations, and the like. They take an oath of allegiance to an idiot and by gosh, they will abide it come hell or high water. It seems crazy to me, but some people will follow anything even to their own detriment.

[freedumb2003]

She DID complain, and the school refused to explain how they were within the law.

Then she should have taken legal recourse. What if she had said "Allah the all merciful, be praised. May he strike his enemies down!" ?? Is that OK with you? The school wisely, wanted to avoid deciding between "good" religious speech and "bad" religious speech.

But even this interesting sidebar avoids the REAL issue. The place to argue the text of the speech is at the point of censorship -- NOT ad hoc and on the whim of some smartass self-important kid. The school has a rule and they applied it exactly as stated.

YOU need to read the article outside of your biases and within the legal parameters we all must follow.

[freedumb2003]

I let Christian morality be my guide and feel no particular obligation to follow rules and laws which either are indifferent to morality or are hostile to it altogether.

IOW, YOU decide whether a law is valid or not and then see if it passes YOUR muster. If not, then YOUR judgement wins. Does the name Kopp ring a bell? He thought like you do.

Does the term "we are a Nation of Laws" ring a bell? Remember, it is Islam that allows you to agree to something but break that agreement if it is OK based on your "morals." Your so-called "Christian Morality" is dead-on with tha quaran.

Damn scary that people like you are in our society.

[The Great RJ]

If she was wearing a burka and quoting the Koran that would be OK.

[Surtur]

I don't recall any mention of armed guards nor tie-down straps holding this "captive audience" in place. If any one there would have been offended, they could have left the auditorium during her part of the ceremony. As it happened, even the possible offendees did not have any opportunity to act because the ACLU rep and the school's admins. pulled the plug. So your mention of a captive audience is a red herring. And yes, as an individual who won the honor to represent her class by excelling in her academic career, if she is a religious person, as she appears to be, then her religion is an intrinsic part of her identity, and as such, she has every right to make mention of that fact during her speech.

[durasell]

I don't recall a statement by the student stating she agreed to the rules. You are merely invoking what the teachers said she agreed to. There might be another side to the story. Perhaps the student realized the intolerance the teachers had for free and harmless speech and so she chose to speak her own mind instead of the teachers'.


Thanks. That clears it up. The teacher is lying and the student, in a sudden blinding flash of clarity, decides to disobey what are obviously bad rules. In fact, the rules are so hideously bad and immoral that she has no choice but to violate them without discussing them with anyone, least of all the teacher...

[fr_freak]

Does the term "we are a Nation of Laws" ring a bell? Remember, it is Islam that allows you to agree to something but break that agreement if it is OK based on your "morals." Your so-called "Christian Morality" is dead-on with tha quaran.

Damn scary that people like you are in our society.

You must be joking. It's scares you that people like me are in this society? Let me set you straight on something: this country was created by Christian men who believed that all rights were granted to men by God, not by government. The Bible was one of the foundations upon which our system of laws rests. My Christian morality falls right in line with the thinking of the Founding Fathers. The Koran, however, falls nowhere near the founding principles.

All you have to do is read the Ten Commandments. If one follows those, many of the laws we have on the books today are superfluous. For instance, one commandment is "Thou shalt not steal". If one follows that, what need is there for so many laws describing all of the particular types of stealing which are illegal? Stealing is stealing. In fact, I say that there are so many laws precisely because of the abandonment of Christian belief. People find ways to rationalize various forms of stealing because they no longer believe that stealing, itself, is wrong. Therefore, the law has to be extremely specific about what constitutes stealing so that the amoral will know what their boundaries are.

Quite frankly, it bothers me that you cannot see my earlier point. Your own moral code should always be your ultimate guide. Laws are made by men, and are therefore inherently prone to error and abuse. If a law were passed saying that all Americans must report the presence of Jews in their neighborhoods to the authorities, would you obey it merely because it is the law? If you were transported back to 1835, where the law stated that runaway slaves must be captured and turned over to authorities, would you obey it? I say, if you obey laws such as these, you are far more frightening than I would be as a Christian who obeys the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Christ first and foremost.

Now, slavery and Nazi-type laws may seem like a huge stretch from a school which bans God, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and we have already taken many steps toward the ruin of our country. People like you are probably horrified at the idea that there are those who would ignore or disobey laws in this country because you have the false belief that we are still a country run solely by the good guys. I think if you take a closer look at some of the people who are making the laws these days, you'll see that we are in very real danger of becoming an entriely different country than our fathers grew up in, if we haven't already.

[jwalsh07]

OF COURSE they're Constituitonal! A school can say "submit the speech for review. If you go over we're cutting the mic.'

You don't know what you're talking about. It is unconstitutional for administrators to abridge first amendment rights whther you or they like the content unless the speech is provocative enough to cause a grave disturbance.

Speaking of God or wearing Anti war tshirts does not rise to that level.

But here's the good news!

You are not alone at FR in wanting to smash the first amendment out of existence. In fact, you have a candidate for the next POTUS that is right up your alley.

John McCain doesn't like the first amendment either.

[RobbyS]

Her judgement was to challenge authority. Now that might have not be wise, but I have no respect for the authority she confronted.

[jwalsh07]

In fact, the rules are so hideously bad and immoral that she has no choice but to violate them without discussing them with anyone, least of all the teacher...

Government actors can't make rules that break the Supreme Law of the Land.

You think you have the wherewithal to understand that?

[jwalsh07]

Does the term "we are a Nation of Laws" ring a bell?

LOL, you haven't a clue what this "nations LAws" are.

The SCOTUS addressed student speech rights in Tinker?

Guess what?

The fascists lost!

[jwalsh07]

Did they discuss Tinker v De Moines in law school?

[RobbyS]

I think he was speaking ironically. What makes you think that these "actors" were properly interpreting the law of the land? So far as I know, they were not under any court order. Maybe they just listened to their lawyer and decided to play it safe.

[jwalsh07]

St Thomas Aquinas said that "bad law is no law". In America we have a time honored tradition of peaceful civil disobedience to bring bad rules and laws to the attention of the morons who make them and the useful idiots who support the morons that make them.

The same people castigating this young girl for her civil disobedience undoubtedly would have been castigating Rosa Parks for not following the rules and giving up her seat on the bus.

After all, she was breaking the rules.

[Kellis91789]

Absolutely incorrect !

The Constitution does more than restrict the federal government. It protects the individual from a local tyranny of the majority. Can you name any "right" that you possess as an individual, that you would like to see violated by some local lib majority ? Would it be OK if a local majority were to silence your free speech because it disagreed with your point of view ?

Would you like to defend the Jim Crow laws? They were supported by a majority in many southern States, if I recall.

[jwalsh07]

The law of the land is the constitution, treaties made by Congress and laws enacted by Congress.

The First Amendment is the Law of the Land. Government actors, be they teachers, administrators or politicians can not censor speech that causes no grave disruption in the public arena. That is the current law of the land.

What exactly are you taking exception to in my meanderings through this thread?

[jwalsh07]

Would it be OK if a local majority were to silence your free speech because it disagreed with your point of view ?

I gather you oppose the suppression of speech by the school administrators in this case. Is that correct?

[jwalsh07]

Glad you liked it Pete. We can both live with your hypocrisy.

[HitmanLV]

Yep.