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.

[jwalsh07]

Right, whatever you say. Her "crime" is much worse than the commissars censoring speech. Much, much worse. And much more important!

[durasell]

You are talking about a high school graduate, and WHAT propensity to disobedience? Straight arrow.



She made a deal with the school authorities and didn't hold up her end of the deal. Very simple.

I have seen the same behavior on the opposite end of the spectrum -- far left -- and it always sets off warning bells for me. When an employer, I always passed on candidates with that kind of attitude or history. No need to explain why or discuss it with them, just let them walk on by with best wishes in their future endeavors.

[Surtur]

It seems like some people here think if you are standing up for the principles of your religion against a heavy handed Fascistic power-monger it's wrong, no matter what. The school's administration has no business editing her speech except for obscenities, not content. Now normally, I am a by the rules kind of person, but this whole situation stinks to high heaven. She worked diligently for 12 years to earn the position of class valedictorian. For the school to teach her that we here in the U.S.A. have freedom of speech only to censor her at the last minute is hypocritical to say the least. In effect, the school was extorting her obedience. She was told that if she didn't alter her speech, she would have her mic shut off. If you have to coerce compliance of rules with threats of punishment then there is something ostensibly wrong with the rules as they are written, and a stand against them must be taken. I am surprised that so many here are quick to condemn this girl as a trouble maker and liar. As for me, I will stand beside the girl in her struggle against the totalitarian acts of the ACLU and the school board.

[durasell]

There was no "crime." What she did was a stunt -- but it was a stunt that directly reflects on her character and the way in which she lives her faith.

[jwalsh07]

Just as your comments on this thread reflect on your view of freedom, rights and limited government. And you're on the wrong side of each of those my friend. Way wrong.

[durasell]

Just as your comments on this thread reflect on your view of freedom, rights and limited government...




If there were a law against driving red cars, I wouldn't sneak out in the middle of the night to drive a red car. I wouldn't break the law. I'd try to get the law changed. Our government provides for such things.

I am on the side of obeying the laws.

[jwalsh07]

The "law", which is currently as described in Tinker v DeMoines, already forbids school adminstrators from censoring speech.

For the fifth and last time.

IOW's, the administrators broke the law. The girl broke no laws.

You getting the drift here?

[Kellis91789]

There is no right to harrass other people. If someone is speaking on a street-corner, fine. People can walk away. But corrupting a commencement ? That's petty. Can't you religious types get an audience any other way ? You have to wait until people are trapped as an audience intended for other activities and then try to steal the moment and corrupt it to political or religious demogoguery ?

You're pathetic.

You claim you are offended by people's rights not being protected. You only see one person in this situation that has rights ? You conveniently ignore the rights of all those in the audience -- typically 25% -- that do not want to hear a Christian sermon, but are not free to avoid it ?

You are not a limited government conservative. You are not a Constitutionalist. You are a theocrat. Completely blind to the principles of conservatism. You are no better than an Islamofascist -- only your brand of religion is different.

[fr_freak]

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 ?

Whoa, wait a second. What right are you talking about? The right to free speech at the podium during my valedictorian speech? If I recall correctly, that was exactly the right you are arguing against. Now you fear abridgement of rights?

The Constitution was a specific enumeration of federal powers. It does not specify what powers the individual states have. The 14th Amendment is now interpreted to mean that whatever limitations there are to the federal government's power (in the form of the Bill of Rights, for example) are now limitations of states' power. This interpretation, however, takes power away from the states and places it in the hands of the federal government in a way that the Constitution never intended. The 14th Amendment was originally instituted to protect newly freed slaves. Now, however, thanks to fairly liberal interpretation, the 14th Amendment is used by the federal government to dictate to the states what they can and cannot do. That is a usurpation of power.

Why do you think that each state has its own constitution, most of which contain language almost identical to the Bill of Rights? It is because, originally, the federal government had no power to regulate the laws of the states, except as specifically enumerated in the Constitution (think commerce clause) and therefore the people of each state wanted to ensure protection of rights against a state government. What need would there have been to have a state constitution if the federal Constitution was equally applicable to all states? Why does the language of the federal Constitution refer specifically to only branches of the federal government? Why does the first Amendment specify that Congress shall make no law? It is because the Constitution was a specific enumeration, and therefore a limitation, of federal government authority ONLY. The Founders would never have been able to conceive of any interpretation of the Constitution that would grant the federal government the power to dictate to a local high school what their students can and cannot say. To them, such central power was tyranny.

With that in mind, I'd say that it is perfectly acceptable for a local community to set its own standards of decency and enforce them. As far as whether I fear that one day libs will use their majority status to infringe my "rights", it is already happening in places like San Francisco. But see, the beautiful thing about this country (still) is that I don't have to reside in such a place. I can leave, and live in a community which has standards I agree with. Having a federal government which dictates all of those standards means that there is no place I can go within the US where the standards are more to my liking. That is not freedom.

A final note: I would prefer a tyranny of the majority to a tyranny of the minority, which is what we have now, where thousands of people are silenced by the single complaint of one offended person. That is a far worse tyranny.

[RobbyS]

Sermon? by the standard of this speech, Lincoln's FIRST inuagural address is a Baptist sermon.

[durasell]

My previous comment was in response to your comment to me, not related to the young lady.

As far as the young lady is concerned, it doesn't matter if she broke any laws or not. It really doesn't. She acted sneaky and I don't like sneaks. In particular, I don't like sneaks who present themselves as religious.

[jwalsh07]

You are not a limited government conservative. You are not a Constitutionalist. You are a theocrat. Completely blind to the principles of conservatism. You are no better than an Islamofascist -- only your brand of religion is different.

This idiot favors a first amednment as narrow as a hair on his narrow head.

Now you've known me for quite some time. Am I an Islamofascist? A theocrat? An unConstitutionalist? Blind to the principles of conservatism? An proponet of bigger and more powerful government?

FR ain't what it used to be.

[Kryptonite]

Don't count me in the "school makes the laws" book.

The fact many appear to miss is that she was invited to speak at the commencement. Not the audience, not those who weren't valedectorian.

As an invited speaker, she was free to express the reasons why she succeeded, above all others, in a manner consistent with her first amendment rights. She did not incite the crowd ala screaming fire in a crowded theater, and she did not ask anyone to engage in prayer with her. Instead, she attributed her success to God, much as children all over America Pledge Allegiance to One Nation, Under God, every day.

[jwalsh07]

I don't care what you like or dislike. I do care that you are free to express your likes or dislikes in the public square. A pity you won't extend the same courtesy to others.

[durasell]

I do extend the same courtesy and I read every word carefully.

However, as far as I'm concerned, the issue isn't whether she is entitled to First Amend. protection, since clearly she is entitled to that. The issue is the fairly obvious fact that she broke her word to school authorities.

[Surtur]

Is an agreement made under coersive pressures legal and binding? Is a contract valid when one party has been blackmailed into signing it? You're the lawyer, tell us what the law states about contracts signed under duress.

[Kellis91789]

"A final note: I would prefer a tyranny of the majority to a tyranny of the minority, which is what we have now, where thousands of people are silenced by the single complaint of one offended person. That is a far worse tyranny."

Then you don't support the Constitution. The Constitution is about the rights of the individual. Including all those individuals in the audience.

I don't advocate the abridgment of the rights of any individual -- but the right of an individual doesn't include a right to impinge on the rights of others. The girl can go on a street-corner and say whatever she likes. She cannot take a venue provided for a specific purpose, for which the audience has sacrificed their own time, to sermonize. That isn't what the people in the audience AGREED to sacrifice their time for.

Leaving religion out of it, suppose you went to a rock concert and the "opening act" and spent ten minutes ranting against the war in Iraq, President Bush, and generally spewing hate against Republicans ? Would you be happy ? Or would you complain that wasn't what you paid $100 for a ticket to hear ? A speaker should respect their audience, and the time and/or money that ausidence has sacrificed to be there for a specific purpose.

It cost me $200 in lost wages to attend my niece's high school graduation. I wasn't happy to have my time wasted on sermonizing.

[Kellis91789]

And nobody was compelled to listen to it or face endless complications and shattered family expectations, all to get a diploma that they'd already EARNED.

[RobbyS]

I fail to see that you suffered anything more than a little discomfort.

[Surtur]

No B.S..

The right of this one girl is more important than the thousands in the audience ?

The girl won the honor of representing her classmates through her own hard work and diligence. As Valedictorian, she has the right to speak on matters she thinks are important. Except for assuring that the speech contained no obscenities, the school's admin has no right to censor the content of her speech. If a few people in the audience are made uncomfortable for a few moments, that is unfortunate, but the Constitution does not guarantee a right not to be offended.

And you my FRiend are being obtuse if you think 18 yr olds and adults won't exercise their power of approval or disapproval in a situation like this by walking. The attendees in this situation apparently agreed with the girl as evidenced by the catcalls and booing mentioned in the article when her mic was cut.