Religious valedictorian sues Nevada school

[Astronuc]

Religious content aside, is it me or are all valedictorian speeches that self-centered and self-indulgent?

Not all, but some tend to be.

BTW - in the US, from my experience, the valedictorian is selected on the basis of grades and participation in school and community activities. It is supposed to be impartial.

 

[arildno]

Religious content aside, ...

Then she would have had to remain mute. Which would have been for the best.

is it me or are all valedictorian speeches that self-centered and self-indulgent?

Eeh, it rather has to do with the self-centredness of religious fanatics of her ilk.

 

[Gokul43201]

Personally, it doesn't rattle me that she essentially took the pupit to give a sermon. Heck, she could be urging the audience to murder, pillage and plunder, for all I care. Nor does it astonish me that all the audience wanted. I really couldn't care less.

What I do take away from this is to try and make sure no one I give a damn about goes to Foothill High (fortunately, I know no one in Vegas) - if the best they (the school) could do was that twit, it must be a pretty pathetic school.

 

[Danger]

The reference at the end of her first paragraph wasn't too bad; it's what I'm used to hearing from just about everyone expressing good luck or whatever.
If I had been a member of the audience, student or otherwise, I would have been extremely offended and walked out when she got into it about half-way through. No one should have to put up with that kind of crap unless they go someplace specifically to hear it. It's a whole different situation than if one went to a church or even a concert with a musician whose religious views are known. This nut-burger ruined what should have been a joyous occasion for her classmates.

I will thrive whether I attend a prestigious university next fall and become a successful career man or woman or begin a life-long manager position at McDonald's.

No wonder she's so screwed up, if she doesn't even know what sex she belongs to.

 

[Gokul43201]

If I had been a member of the audience, student or otherwise, I would have been extremely offended and walked out when she got into it about half-way through. No one should have to put up with that kind of crap unless they go someplace specifically to hear it. It's a whole different situation than if one went to a church or even a concert with a musician who religious views are known. This nut-burger ruined what should have been a joyous occasion for her classmates.

Did you not see the video? The audience was booing the school for pulling the plug. The girl became an instant hero and celebrity with the audience, and got a standing ovation for her canting.

 

[arildno]

Did you not see the video? The audience was booing the school for pulling the plug. The girl became an instant hero and celebrity with the audience, and got a standing ovation for her canting.

The video wasn't working for me.
Seems like a disgusting neighboorhood where the Christians are holding everyone in the iron grip of orthodoxy, and the sole light of sanity is the headmaster at this school.

This is akin to the type of petty, dangerous religious brainwash mentality scientists had to battle against in the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

[Danger]

No, I didn't see the video; I doubt that I could stomach it. The point, however, is that the whole situation with the audience would never have arisen in the first place if she hadn't ignored the guidelines.

 

[kyleb]

Personally, it doesn't rattle me that she essentially took the pupit to give a sermon. Heck, she could be urging the audience to murder, pillage and plunder, for all I care. Nor does it astonish me that all the audience wanted. I really couldn't care less.

That is of course your choice not care here, but using the power of the state to insight such a riot isn't covered by freedom of speech either.

 

[BobG]

I urge everyone to actually read that girl's "valedictorian" speech.
It is nothing of that sort, in fact, it is quite clear that she couldn't care less about holding a speech RELEVANT for this particular audience.

It is, simply, a SERMON, where everything else than her religious devotion is deemed irrelevant and without significance.

That alone makes her speech wholly inappropriate and irrelevant as a valedictorian speech.

You've got a point about what message she wanted to send. It was a recruitment speech for Christianity squeezed into the cut-out of a graduation speech.

However, if after the fourth paragraph, instead of talking about God and Jesus, she had talked about how she had discovered the relationships she developed with friends and teachers were far more important than any of her personal achievements, thanked those that had meant so much to her during her high school years, and urged her fellow students to remember their relationships with friends and families would always dwarf their personal achievements or failures, would the speech have been acceptable?

If so, then the speech she gave is probably going to be deemed as acceptable. Whether the speech offends people or makes them feel good about their high school days isn't a factor in determining the relevance of the speech. You have to look at all graduation speeches and hers only has to be as relevant as other speeches that are typically given at graduation. I think it's usually a pretty lenient standard - especially if a school has allowed other speeches only slightly relevant just because they liked the speech - they've redefined the standard for how relevant speeches have to be.

The school's lawyer misinterpreted court rulings (or, more likely, felt that very strong coercion preventing controversial speeches in the first place carried less risk than a small chance of the school being associated with religious speeches). The argument that the school could be found responsible for the student's speech won't hold water unless the school actually does something to at least increase the odds of students giving religious speeches.

They'd be on more solid ground to argue the speech was clearly aimed at recruiting new Christians and was only superficially related to graduation. Even that's a tough road because so much leniency is normally given on whether a speech is relevant to the graduation ceremony or not.

 

[arildno]

The difference is that God cannot be shown to exist, it remains a personal fantasy, whereas friends demonstrably exist.

Don't degrade real, actual friendships by comparing them with subjective flights of fancy.

A proper analogy would rather have been:
If she prattled on about leprechauns and unicorns in her valedictorian speech, would you regard it as appropriate that the plug was pulled when she started this?

(She had, of course, been warned beforehand that she should not talk about Mickey the fat Leprechaun).

 

[kyleb]

The school's lawyer misinterpreted court rulings (or, more likely, felt that very strong coercion preventing controversial speeches in the first place carried less risk than a small chance of the school being associated with religious speeches). The argument that the school could be found responsible for the student's speech won't hold water unless the school actually does something to at least increase the odds of students giving religious speeches.

They did increase the odds of students giving religious speeches by aranging audince for a girl who showed clear intention to use her opertunity to proselytize in public. That is why they asked her not to, and that is why they are required to pull the plug on her as well.

 

[BobG]

They did increase the odds of students giving religious speeches by aranging audince for a girl who showed clear intention to use her opertunity to proselytize in public. That is why they asked her not to, and that is why they are required to pull the plug on her as well.

If the first time they ever had the valedictorian give a speech at graduation, then, yes, the coincidence that the person chosen was going to give a Christian infomercial would raise some suspicion about why the school suddenly decided valedictorians should give graduation speeches.

There is a definite chance someone could bring a lawsuit if the school had allowed her to give her speech the way she wanted. There is even a remote chance that the court could find the school responsible for the speech. It would be a ludicrous decision in this instance, but it would be possible.

Deciding her speech was inappropriate because of its religious content is a violation of the constitution if the religious content resulted in a different standard being applied. To be on sound legal footing, the school has to have a different reason than the religious content.

They will be on more solid footing if they compare the situation to a student taking advantage of the opportunity to speak by trying to sell Amway products in the middle of the graduation ceremony. That gives a reasonable chance that a judge would dismiss the case before it ever gets to court (after all, the student was gaming the system by relying on legal technicalities - her speech was superficially related back to something pertinent to graduation, but the intent of the speech was clear).

If the case does make it to court, the court will get the opportunity to read past graduation speeches that were approved so they could compare the standards those speeches were held to to the standards that McComb's speech was held to.

I just doubt there's much of a standard to compare to. If the speech doesn't contain foul language or strong sexual content, I'm guessing students were allowed to say just about anthing they wanted. After all, aside from the speaker and their family, and maybe an individual or two mentioned in the speech, no one is going to remember what the valedictorian said, anyway. Most of the things said at a graduation are to fill up time and provide a little more 'pomp and circumstance' than would be provided by just having students stand in line in the cafeteria to pick up their diplomas.

I doubt the school will even go to court in that position. If a judge doesn't toss the case immediately, the school will settle out of court with monetary damages and an apology.

Even so, this is nothing more than a Super Bowl bet. There's enough conflicting cases that you can't know how it will turn out. You can bet on who you want to win, or you can bet on who you think will win, but there is no clear cut up or down here.

As far as who I think should win? In general, I'd fall towards being very lenient on what you allow the students to say. In this case, I'm a little ambivalent. She definitely gamed the system, so she doesn't get a lot of sympathy. Still, there's a lot less damage done by allowing her to speak than there is by censoring speeches based on whether someone agrees or disagrees with her. I'd say she should win.

 

[BobG]

The difference is that God cannot be shown to exist, it remains a personal fantasy, whereas friends demonstrably exist.

Don't degrade real, actual friendships by comparing them with subjective flights of fancy.

A proper analogy would rather have been:
If she prattled on about leprechauns and unicorns in her valedictorian speech, would you regard it as appropriate that the plug was pulled when she started this?

(She had, of course, been warned beforehand that she should not talk about Mickey the fat Leprechaun).

Your analogy is a proper analogy.

You're not going to have a court declare that God exists or that God does not exist. You won't even get a court to declare that leprechauns or unicorns exist or don't exist. In fact, you won't get a court to declare that gravity exists. That's not the type of thing that's in the purview of the courts.

You could have a state legislature decide to pass a law saying God exists or a law saying God does not exist. You could even have a legislature pass a law saying gravity or leprechauns exist. None of these things are within the purview of legislature either, but politicians are silly enough that nothing is completely out of the question.

If you think the issue depends on whether God does, in fact, exist or does in fact, not exist, then you don't understand the concept between separation between religion and state. Which is correct is irrelevant when religion doesn't even fall under the purview of government.

There's only two issues: Was a government organization endorsing a particular religion? Does the student have the right to express her views?

 

[loseyourname]

Isn't there a third issue as well? Sort of "he who giveth the stage can taketh it away?" She was not standing out on the street or in her frontyard with a crowd of people gathered to listen to her speak about her religious leanings. She was provided with a stage, an audience, and a microphone by the school. It would seem they have the right to take any of those things away for any reason whatsoever. Or is it actually written into law that a valedictorian has the right to speak at a commencement ceremony? I was under the impression it was simply custom and the school was under no legal obligation to let her speak at all about anything.

 

[kyleb]

"he who giveth the stage can taketh it away?"

And he who giveth the stage has the reasonability to taketh it away when the person on the stage oversteps the rights of he who's stage it is.

 

[Gokul43201]

If I stand up in a restaurant or movie theater and generally start behaving idiotically, would the management be violating my rights by having security throw me out?

Isn't there also - in addition to the argument on separation - the argument that the audience came to attend a Graduation ceremony, and not a sermon, and hence were having their rights infringed upon?

And finally, is a school a democracy? May schools not have rules that curb the individual freedoms (afforded by the Constitution) within the school environment? Haven't school uniforms, for instance, survived such a challenge?

 

[arildno]

Your analogy is a proper analogy.

You're not going to have a court declare that God exists or that God does not exist. You won't even get a court to declare that leprechauns or unicorns exist or don't exist. In fact, you won't get a court to declare that gravity exists. That's not the type of thing that's in the purview of the courts.

You could have a state legislature decide to pass a law saying God exists or a law saying God does not exist. You could even have a legislature pass a law saying gravity or leprechauns exist. None of these things are within the purview of legislature either, but politicians are silly enough that nothing is completely out of the question.

If you think the issue depends on whether God does, in fact, exist or does in fact, not exist, then you don't understand the concept between separation between religion and state. Which is correct is irrelevant when religion doesn't even fall under the purview of government.

There's only two issues: Was a government organization endorsing a particular religion? Does the student have the right to express her views?

No, the issue is should the student be allowed to blather on about irrelevant religious doctrines when she has been told not do so?

 

[BobG]

Isn't there a third issue as well? Sort of "he who giveth the stage can taketh it away?" She was not standing out on the street or in her frontyard with a crowd of people gathered to listen to her speak about her religious leanings. She was provided with a stage, an audience, and a microphone by the school. It would seem they have the right to take any of those things away for any reason whatsoever. Or is it actually written into law that a valedictorian has the right to speak at a commencement ceremony? I was under the impression it was simply custom and the school was under no legal obligation to let her speak at all about anything.

Yes, there is. Schools could decide these things are just more trouble than they're worth and drop them completely. They just can't selectively give the right or withhold the right based on the speaker's personal views.

In fact, eliminating student speeches and guest speakers will probably be the eventual outcome in many school districts.

Groups wanting to ban prayers from graduation (reasonable) and to ban speakers even mentioning religion (unreasonable) use lawsuits as their weapons. Even if the school could win a lawsuit, they're facing legal costs and at least the risk of losing the lawsuit. The safest solution winds up being to settle out of court to minimize the risk, but it's a solution that definitely impacts the school's budget. Prevention winds up being the best solution. Avoid any risk of someone bringing a lawsuit about the school's association with religious statements.

With groups wanting school prayer and a closer association between schools and religion also bringing lawsuits, there is no safe route. The school faces the risk of a lawsuit whichever option they take. Of the two groups, the advantage tends to go towards the side promoting religion, since that group also tends to support school vouchers (people who would rather send their kids to religious schools tend to support school vouchers - don't they realize that anti-religious groups would then just bring lawsuits to prevent religious schools from promoting religion at government expense?). The pro-school voucher side is less likely to worry about damage to the public school system.

Dealing with lawsuits just becomes a permanent part of school budgets unless they just avoid the whole situation by eliminating speakers they can't control. Only official school officials will be able to speak at graduations.

 

[kyleb]

In fact, eliminating student speeches and guest speakers will probably be the eventual outcome in many school districts.

Just the ones who are intent in oversteping the rights of the state.