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.
[T]here is a "crucial difference" between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect. We think that secondary school students are mature enough and are likely to understand that a school does not endorse or support student speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis .... The proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor is not complicated.
And that was before Alito and Roberts.
No you don't. You spent the whole thread castigating the girl. Not a peep about the brown booted morons masquerading as "educators".
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And here is what it doesn't say:
'....except by school administrators at graduation ceremonies'.
It's not just name-calling. It has descended into an argument over losing wages by voluntarily electing to attend a HS commencement instead.
KOOK ALERT
Brown booted? Do you mean "brown shirted?"
I shouldn't gripe about not getting what I was promised ?
Really ? So as long as you receive SOMETHING -- no matter how different from what you expected and what you were promised -- you must be happy with the result ?
You have a very narrow definition of "cheated", my friend.
Bless your heart
Because there is a belief that the student - going to the government public school - belongs to the government.
Justified, perhaps, but not constitutional. The school had no right to censor the freely expressed religious views of a student in this context, whatever those views might be.
If she wants to express her thanks to Satan, she has every right to do so.
So said desopots and fascists throughout history. What if my own moral code is islam? What if my own moral code says that I should and must kill all infidels? The result is Wahabiism and the Taliban.
When you start to pick and choose which laws to follow based on "your own moral code" then you are the same as them. If a law doesn't match your "own moral code" then change it.
The fact that you THINK your moral code is superior is even more disturbing. Are you going to force this on the rest of us?
Your ego is quite in the stratosphere. Your explanation is scarier than your original post.
Un, you didn't see the context of my post. I was addressing the "I follow my own the laws" rationale of the prior post.
What really drives some of the teachers to distraction is students that are far their intellectual superior. Slapping this student down with censorship made them feel her equal. Most HS teachers were pretty average students which is the biggest reason they need teachers' unions for protection.
Freedumb IS free!
So you agree that censoring her remarks was an unconstitutional abridgement of her 1A rights?
I think it would have to go to the SCOTUS, really. What we have here is a tension between multiple principles. Ther school has a duty to keep order and decorum. If she is allowed to thank God and speak to her religious views, the next year some wiseass may/will add what someone here note: "I thank Satan and want everyone to know his love." When the school objects, the person could point back to this year and say "you let her talk about her religion -- I am a Satanist." Or "I thank Allah and will see islam as the only religion in the world."
So the school (I believe wisely) has said "no religion in commencement speeches." As long as it is applied equally I think they are safe.
But I admit it is a close call. But remember the Chinese Curse.
Is there anything else they can ban? For instance could they ban any reference to evolution or anti-war speech?
Evidence of duress can void an agreement, sure. Thing is, there isn't any evidence of duress given in this narrative. I don't see any evidene of 'coercive pressue' nor blackmail. Don't overstate the circumstances. If she wasn't comfortable with the rules given to her, she should have stepped down and let someone else do the speech. Indeed, that's the principled stance.
You make a very good point here. The attitude of many in big government/NEA is that citizens do in fact belong to them. Have you ever heard the expression from the tyrant in control "I own you?"
I have to wonder what the true agenda driving the few posters siding with the teachers union? Clearly, the fact that this brilliant young lady broke with the speech code, is not the real reason durasell and the other guy are so vehement in their objections.
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.