Posted on 06/22/2006 10:46:58 AM PDT by UnklGene
High School Valedictorian Refuses to Bow Down; Has Speech Censored
June 21, 2006
Brittany McComb was the valedictorian at Foothill High School recently. She graduated with a 4.7 GPA. She earned the right to address the other graduates at Foothill, located in Henderson, Nevada.
She gave a copy of her graduating speech to the school administrators. It contained some Biblical references and even mentioned (one time) the name “Christ.” The school administrators censored some of the Biblical references. They also censored the single reference to Christ.
Then the school officials handed the speech over to the ACLU for approval and/or more censoring. After getting the OK from the ACLU, Brittany’s speech (minus the censored references to the Bible and Christ) was approved. Brittany was warned that if she deviated from the ACLU approved language, her mike would be cut off.
Then came the moment for the big decision. She would not bow down, she decided. She would go with her original version. She stepped to the mike and began her speech. But just before she could utter the name “Christ,” her mike went dead. School officials silenced her. The crowd of 400 jeered for several minutes, angry at the action of the school officials. The ACLU was happy. They had silenced another Christian.
“I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech. God’s the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior,” Brittany said.
Because she refused to bow down to the ACLU’s idol of gold, she did not get her wish. She was censored.
This young heroine deserves praise and a thank you from those who believe in free speech.
Her right to say it trumps my feeeeelings about what she has to say. I may not like it but that's not the point.
I agree, actually. It is not "principled" to go back on one's word at the actual ceremony like she did. However, it surely got her more TV airtime than the alternative would have.
The school administration has the right to stop a kid from exercising a right he doesn't have in the first place.
Kids don't have "freedom of speech" when they are subject to parents or school administrators.
As you can tell from my previous post, I know what renege means. For the record, it means "to go back on a promise or committment. to break a promise or break your word." (Merriam Webster) Which is a bit more willful than "fail to carry out". If I fail to get all the grass mowed, it is not the quite the same as promising I would do it and then choosing not to.
As for you other post, I fully understand your position and think that you are utterly wrong. But I'm not going to get into a further p!ssing match with you, as that would be pointless. Since you seem to be one of those people who has last-word-itis, have at it.
> Lots more people are hearing her speech now.
So... she *wasn't* silenced. That seems to conflict with the press release assessment.
You couldn't have told my three sons that. They spoke up for what they believed in. The last one graduated a year ahead , and top of his class.
So she did the right thing, didn't she?
Although I recognize your argument as not being without merit, especially in the current age of hysterical false claims regarding the the meaning of the infamous Jeffersonian quote "separation of church and state", if it is the custom of the school to reward the top academic achiever with the chance to address their classmates before they go their separate ways.
It's hypocritical to tell the student he or she is not permitted to mention the things that student feels have been most instrumental in having achieved that honor if they are not politically correct according to the preferred religion of humanism preached by the ACLU.
As long as she was not proselytizing, it most certainly is a restraint on her freedom of speech to tell her she is not allowed to mention her primary motivation in life-- just because it differs from that of others.
She should be allowed to say that she "Owes it all to Satan/Allah", if that is what she believes--Which, I bet, the school would be far more sensitive in censoring out, since they know CAIR is in bed with the ACLU, and will raise a very loud noise that can't be dismissed with the wave of a hand that the left has become accustomed to doing with Christianity.
As far as her "reneging on her promise", as you claim, I see nothing in the article that says she promised to leave the censored parts out. Only that they were nixed and the speech handed back to her with a warning that the mike would be cut if she did not comply with their liberalfascist demands. The fact that they obviously had their finger on the power switch would seem to indicate that she gave no indication of passive compliance by bowing down to the pressure of the Brave New World the left is foisting upon this nation--where the preferred form of censorship is SELF-censorship, then going forth and acting as part of the system by pressuring those around you to comply with accepted speech, behaviors and beliefs.
This young lady, standing there giving a speech that no one could hear, has seen to it that at least THIS commencement will not be as forgetable as you think they are.
I wouldn't be surprised that some would-be future liberal automaton may rethink just how "enlightened" such a way of life is, and remember her example and stand for freedom.
I pray that God richly bless this young lady for having the courage to place her convictions over the threats of the ACLU atheists and school administrators.
The solution is to never send a child to these government "schools". They should be abolished.
Your anecdotal experience does not negate the fact that school administrators regularly limit what students may say at school functions.
Why do you have a problem with individuals promoting religion? Do you have a problem if they promote anti-religious ideas?
"Your anecdotal experience does not negate the fact that school administrators regularly limit what students may say at school functions."
Are they unlimited in this ability? Can they absolutely control what a child may say? If they are limited, what are the limits?
> So she did the right thing, didn't she?
Depends. I've not delved too deeply into this story, but I understand that she had an agreement with the school administration to stick to an agreed-upon speech. Whether you agree with the agreed-upon speech... if she broke her word, then she *should* have been cut off. If your word is not your bond, you are an untrustworthy associate.
Her alternatives, if she didn't like the agreed-upon speech, were to not give it, or to not agree to the speech, and keep fighting. But, it seems, she decided to behave dishonorably in order to get her name in the news. Seems she might have a future in politics.
But however it happened, I can assure you that she was not "silenced."
I have no idea what the legal limits are, but courts have regularly sided with administrators who have prevented the wearing of certain colors, of t-shirts with certain messages on them, and of the handing out of leaflets or certain kinds of information.
If this valedictorian was not comfortable giving her talk without the references to Jesus in it, she simply should have declined to speak at all, rather than say she would give the edited speech, then not give it.
Schools all over the country have been telling students they can't sing carols and they can't pray at lunch and they can't hand a classmate a Christmas card. None of these situations are so. Are they lying or just misinformed?
So let's say that she did lie. Big whoop. The crime of denying her her first amendment rights is far more egregious, and I'll focus on criticizing that instead of a outstanding young scholar. You do as you wish.
"If the valedictorian were Muslim at my child's school, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be hearing "praise Allah" during his speech. I doubt any of you would either."
It wouldn't bother me. If thats her faith, then thats her faith and I respect it.
It's called tolerance. I guess you haven't heard of it.
You get what you pay for. K-12 teachers are consistently from the bottom of their high school classes (bottom quarter); go to ed schools that have zero standards staffed by raving lunatics(UMass); "graduate" with laughable degrees; and then bring their Marxist idiocy back to K-12.
"The school is well within its rights to edit her speech. That has nothing to do with 'freedom.'"
I beg your pardon?!? Since when can a school sensor what my child says. As long as its not racist or incites a riot (fire in a crowded movie theather), and referencing Christ certainly does NOT qualify.
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.