TexasCHLforum.com

I hadn't seen this thread when I tried to post the story last night. My comment then was, and remains..... I can understand why school administrators would warn a high school student not to stray from their speech.....they might be worried that he or she would say something completely inappropriate. But to take a detour into talking about the importance of preserving the Constitution? Oh the HORROR!

What I don't like about this story is that it is another example of the dreaded "zero tolerance." We know from the world of mechanical engineering that a "zero tolerance" machine will not run because the forces of friction overcome whatever mechanical advantage the machine was performing. A "zero tolerance" bearing will seize up. Allowing some tolerance in the mating surfaces of mechanical devices allows lubricants to come between the mating surfaces, thereby enabling the mechanical work the machine is trying to perform.

The student was warned in advance that there would be no lubricant permitted in the mating surfaces of his speech. The student deviated from protocol to talk about the value of our 1st Amendment rights; and he specifically mentioned one of them—his 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion—and he urged the attendees to be vigilant and stand up for all of their rights. What a horrible and offensive concept!

I have "zero respect" for "zero tolerance" rules.....and two of the biggest problems with "zero tolerance" are that A) it often is not universally enforced; and B) it is often only enforced against the unpopular. Furthermore, it deprives the person in authority from the opportunity to exercise a little wisdom and discernment. Zero tolerance is why schools suspend little children for chewing their poptart into the shape of an "L" ...because it is suggestive of a gun. The unequal application of zero tolerance is why a teenager gets suspended and sent home from school for wearing an NRA T-shirt, while another student would get handled with kid-gloves for wearing a "gay pride" T-shirt. And in the case of this student, it was used to shut down a speech that was heartfelt and in no way objectionable for any kind of moral or political reasons. It was only objectionable because the student departed from his prepared remarks. A courageous administrator would have said to himself, "let's see where this thing is going" before cutting off the mic—and maybe the crowd would have been treated to the opportunity to hear a fine young man tell people to value and uphold their constitutional rights.

I was class of 1970, so I remember the Vietnam war and the anti-war agitation very well—and whatever anybody thinks about that war, I can understand why school administrators might have been reluctant to give a free mic to students who were themselves facing the draft and the possibility of being sent off to an unpopular war. But I can also tell you that if a valedictorian classmate of mine had departed from his prepared remarks to make a statement urging citizens to be vigilant about protecting their rights, he would have been allowed to speak—because the person at the switch was not a binary-minded robot. He was a thinking human being with the innate ability to make sound decisions.

When we expect human beings to be binary thinkers, we get all of the crap that can go wrong with robots and computers, and the GIGO principle takes over in place of rational thought. So whenever the logic process which throws the switch is garbage, only garbage results. God (or nature, or blind chance, or whatever you believe in) has given us wonderful brains. It is a sin against God and/or nature (etc.) to refuse to use them. Zero tolerance policies are an abdication of our ability to use our brains.

Like I said, I understand the administrator's motivation, but he/she absolutely displayed an absolute lack of critical thinking skills.