Posted on 06/19/2006 2:02:05 PM PDT by 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.
Which part of Tinker allows these school administrators an exception to censor non-disruptive first amendment speech?
What BS.
The right of this one girl is more important than the thousands in the audience ?
You minimize the social pressure of the situation. The students and their parents had a reasonable expectation that they could attend without being sermonized to. They were supposed to attend and then get up and cause a disruption in the middle of the proceedings ? Go thru the complications of getting their diplomas through other means ? Dissappoint their relatives who came to see them have their photo-op ? Why should they have to make special arrangements to collect a diploma they are every bit as entitled to as any other graduate ? Social pressure is every bit as oppressive as "tie-down straps" in some situations.
You are being naive if you think this is an easy thing for an 18 year old to do.
I sure don't hear any college sports fans complaining when an interviewed player says he thanks God for the gift of talent, etc. :o)
I guess I am pointing out that these "actors" have a simplistic view of what law is, that they have been spooked by the lawyer they have retained, not knowing that he probaly knows no more about constitutional law than you or I. They are terrified of being sued, but they are less afraid of this girls and her parents than the ACLU. It's all politics, you know.
Free speach only applies where there is a free audience. Otherwise, one person exercise his "free speech" is violating the property rights of someone else.
Oh, OK, that makes it fine and dandy. Supress away!
"The right of this one girl is more important than the thousands in the audience ? "
Should be: "The right of this one girl allows her to violate the propoerty rights of the thousands in the audience ? "
No one compelled anyone there to attend, and in any case, you think that her speech was compelling? The school was exercised over a a dozen words.
Government actors can't make rules that break the Supreme Law of the Land.
You think you have the wherewithal to understand that?
It doesn't matter. The kid will either wise up or go through life with the satisfaction that she's right, but broke. No employer appreciates the kind of action she took.
What else offend you?
Does my owning weapons offend you? If so then by all means government actors should remove them from my possession.
Do the crosses in the veteran cemetaries offend you? Again, get the politburo to remove them from Arlington et al.
Do liberals offend you? Ban them.
Conservatives? The gulag.
You offend me. In fact a lot of people on this thread offend me. FR used to be a place where rights were defended. Now we defend be offended.
But it is political suppression. The remedy is to retire a few school board members/fire the superintendent.
Her judgement was to challenge authority. Now that might have not be wise, but I have no respect for the authority she confronted.
Would you hire her known her propensity to challenge authority in that fashion? Yeah, there's someone I want managing my stock portfolio...
Right, whatever you say. The girl is doomed. Civil disobedience and a desire to speak of her faith surley condemns her to the ashheap of history. Tadummmmmmmmmmmm!
You are talking about a high school graduate, and WHAT propensity to disobedience? Straight arrow.
Care to try again?
She might lose, but not on contractual grounds. She could be 14 and agree to boink her teacher, and the teacher would still go in the slammer.
The issue is whether the school stepped on her first amendment rights, and it's interesting, because it is not governed by school prayer cases, but is closer to Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God") cases, as I read the article.
If she were interested in civil disobedience she would have not agreed to one speech and given another. She would have stuck to her guns from the get go. Instead, she took the sneaky approach.
In the "real world" that is seen as what it is.
I didn't go to law school. But even a blue collar guy like me knows that this schools policy of censoring speech that causes no undue disruption is unconstitutional.
The school will undoubtedly end up in court. This girl, along with many others who stood to boo, will have standing and they will be rightfully smacked down.
That's my un-formally-educated but somewhat informed opinion.
"No one compelled anyone there to attend"
Really ? Were they warned ahead of time that they would have to sit through a religious sermon ? No, they were not. Try again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.