High School Cuts Mic During Valedictorian Speech

[RX8er]

Do you agree or not?

The student did veer off of the approved script and was warned ahead of time. Is this censorship? Is it okay since you are in a public school.

I find it ironic that he was talking about free speech and was shut down.

The Joshua High School valedictorian veered off his prepared speech and talked about freedom of speech when administrators turned off his microphone during Thursday night's graduation ceremony.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/High-S ... 32391.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dadtodabone]

The Supremes have ruled that school sponsored events have a lesser level of protection of 1st amendment rights, Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al,. While you could argue that this was personal expression as defined in Tinker(Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District) , that it took place at an event that carried the school districts imprimatur and the speech could then be construed as having district support, the dead microphone was appropriate in the view of the District.

[LabRat]

What I think is so ironic is, this would have been a local event with no bruhaha and no exposure beyond the local news rag if they had left the mic on and done nothing.
Just cutting the microphone has escalated this to atmospheric levels.

In an attempt to silence the free speech of the student, they've effectively handed him a megaphone to the world.
Truth finds a way to be heard.

LabRat

[suthdj]

What I think is so ironic is, this would have been a local event with no bruhaha and no exposure beyond the local news rag if they had left the mic on and done nothing.
Just cutting the microphone has escalated this to atmospheric levels.

In an attempt to silence the free speech of the student, they've effectively handed him a megaphone to the world.
Truth finds a way to be heard.

LabRat

[JALLEN]

I wish we would close the public schools, give the parents or guardians a voucher to be spent as they see fit, and let the market place provide educational opportunities that parents desire.

The administration that "warned" against deviating from the approved speech doubtlessly required all graduates to appear for the event or suffer not getting the diploma.

Decades ago, when graduating from school was seen as a genuine accomplishment and an occasion of pride, you did not have to compel attendance, or even a dress code. People were proud the graduates were graduating and dressed in a manner befitting the occasion. Nearly the whole town turned out for the spectacle and welcomed the new graduates into the community of adults, etc.

Now that government compels every nuance, every step, down to what is allowed to be said at the ceremony, maybe it's not worth fooling with. Most of the "education" inflicted on these hapless innocent children isn't, and everybody knows it.

[n5wd]

I wish we would close the public schools, give the parents or guardians a voucher to be spent as they see fit, and let the market place provide educational opportunities that parents desire.

Frankly, I wished we lived in a society that didn't need lawyers. (Insert well known shark joke here). Looks like we're going to both be disappointed, huh?

The administration that "warned" against deviating from the approved speech doubtlessly required all graduates to appear for the event or suffer not getting the diploma.

Maybe, maybe not. I know that the high school where I work doe NOT require graduating senior to be present to get their diploma and diploma holder, but close to 99% of our eligible seniors (including ones who were finished with all of the graduating requirements from last year's summer school, and those that finished at mid-term have indicated that they will be there.

Decades ago, when graduating from school was seen as a genuine accomplishment and an occasion of pride, you did not have to compel attendance, or even a dress code. People were proud the graduates were graduating and dressed in a manner befitting the occasion. Nearly the whole town turned out for the spectacle and welcomed the new graduates into the community of adults, etc.

You are SO wrong about that generalization. Even when I graduated in 1969, administrators had to rein in over-enthusiastic graduation speeches (remember Vietnam - of course, then every high school graduate was facing at least the possibility of having that war in their immediate future, and the valedictorian in our class was ushered away from the microphone when she started railing against the government's policy of using draftees as "cannon fodder". dress codes had to be enforced as well - more than one young lady (remember the hippies?) tried to wear a tye-dyed loosely held shirt and/or low-slung hip-huggers (I do so miss those days!). It's not a modern phenomena, just ask any school administrator who's been doing graduations in the last 20 years.

Now that government compels every nuance, every step, down to what is allowed to be said at the ceremony, maybe it's not worth fooling with. Most of the "education" inflicted on these hapless innocent children isn't, and everybody knows it.

So, you'd allow a student to stand up at graduation and start railing against a particular church or group of churches, or would let them recommend violent revolution within your little burg, or suggest to the rest of their class that there shouldn't be rules that govern minor's use of alcohol, or praise the act of abortion, or start cussing up a blue streak?

And ruin every other parent's memory of when their little Suzy and Johnnie graduated from high school?

Nope, I didn't think you would, either.

That's why valedictorians speeches have to be pre-approved. And the school, any school whether it's public, private or parochial, has the right to insist that the student keep to his pre-approved script.

[Winchster]

The student was warned. His two previous drafts of his speech were not approved.

[OldCannon]

I, for one, am glad that speeches are approved, and I don't think the school did anything wrong. That doesn't mean the valedictorian didn't deserve to have a voice, but a graduation is not an event where people come to see the valedictorian. He is (technically) inserting himself into an event that only allows him to speak by tradition about the graduating class. It's possible his speech was too strident, or the approvers were too restrictive. Either way, he was asked not to do what he did. Frankly, I don't see it as much different from the Westboro Church people. The ultimate litmus test about _responsible_ application of the first amendment right is: Can your audience walk away/leave if they find what you talk about to be offensive?

[Beiruty]

What if the speaker, started his speech, I love bin laden.....

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[Beiruty]

It would have been smart to have an approval for text that promote free speech, 2nA and the constitution, the value of self motivation and reliance and never mention religion and so on. That way, no one can complain. The message would be easily understood.

[philip964]

I have a novel idea. How about the speech is given by the Valedictorian and he says what he wants. The school district can say in advance he is the Valedictorian and he is not censored and they are not responsible for his speech. Could actually make graduation interesting.

When you invite a speaker (there are usually lots of speakers besides the Valedictorian) do they have to provide advance copies of their speech? If Obama was speaking would he provide an advance copy?

It would be nice to hear stories that the Valedictorian said this shocking thing at a speech rather than stories of censorship. After all this is America.

We need to embrace freedom.

Or we will loose it.

In some ways I think we already have.

[Abraham]

...and there are those like me who can't stand speeches of any kind, be they Valedictorian or fill in the blank...

Prepackaged verbalizing isn't something I've ever volunteered to listen to.

Yes, I've been forced to listen to a few while in the military and corporate life, but not a one was worth a bucket of spit.

[OldCannon]

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

Yeah. Although I don't support what the student did, it seems likle it was an administrative overreaction.

[VMI77]

So, you'd allow a student to stand up at graduation and start railing against a particular church or group of churches, or would let them recommend violent revolution within your little burg, or suggest to the rest of their class that there shouldn't be rules that govern minor's use of alcohol, or praise the act of abortion, or start cussing up a blue streak?

And ruin every other parent's memory of when their little Suzy and Johnnie graduated from high school?

Nope, I didn't think you would, either.

That's why valedictorians speeches have to be pre-approved. And the school, any school whether it's public, private or parochial, has the right to insist that the student keep to his pre-approved script.

I sure would. Free speech means sometimes people are offended....tough. It would sure improve the quality of Valedictory speeches --maybe the audience would get to hear something interesting instead of a bunch of meaningless platitudes. It is highly unlikely that a Valedictorian is going to express himself in ways that you fear. It would be refreshing to hear a speech about the propaganda and imposition of conformity in public schools, from someone just escaping it. It would be refreshing to hear a speech about the idiocy of zero tolerance. It wouldn't ruin my memory of my son's graduation because unless he was the Valedictorian, the speech wouldn't have anything to do with him; and if he was Valedictorian, he'd be saying something I'd be proud to hear him say.