Religious valedictorian sues Nevada school

[kyleb]

This isn't selective censorship; it is the distinct separation between religion and government, the same standard which restricts teachers from proselytizing their faiths in the classrooms as well.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The difference is that Cranor didn't go up and say "I'd like to thank the Lilac for blessing me with his arboreal powers. By sacrificing himself to save the forest, he has cleansed us all of sin. You too can join us of the Lilac Cult, and absolve yourself of your prosetic ways! All hail the Lilac!"

 

[Smurf]

I don't know how valedictorians are chosen in the states, I hear it's different though. In my high school though the valedictorian was voted on by the student body. Religion in my school wouldn't have been an issue because someone with such strong religious beliefs (and outspoken enough to say them in such a position) would never have been voted in. But if she had, I would have said it's her right to say whatever she wants. However, I would also complain that, because we couldn't at my school, any student who didn't want to listen should be able to walk out of the assembly. (Just like they shouldn't be forced to take tolerate-homosexuality classes)

 

[Smurf]

This isn't selective censorship; it is the distinct separation between religion and government, the same standard which restricts teachers from proselytizing their faiths in the classrooms as well.

Personally I think that's a completely different issue. People have to listen to teachers every day, and they're also perceived authority figures. A Valedictorian is neither.

 

[BobG]

This isn't selective censorship; it is the distinct separation between religion and government, the same standard which restricts teachers from proselytizing their faiths in the classrooms as well.

McCombs isn't a teacher. She has the same relationship with the school as a customer winning a Big Mac in McDonald's Monopoly game. Likewise, the school bears the same responsibility for her conduct as the manager of a McDonald's has for the conduct of its customers.

You're also overstating the amount of separation between religion and government. The government can't be a proponent of any particular religion or of religion, period. That doesn't mean all government employees lose their religious rights as soon as they walk in the door to work. http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/article/219.html . The key is whether the employee is expressing the government's official position or whether they are expressing their own personal opinion.

 

[Astronuc]

What's the difference between her advice and McComb's except McComb uses an organized religion for her source while Cranor uses Dr. Seuss?

I think the difference is what or how she said what she said.

"God's love is so great that he gave his only son up," she said, before the microphone went dead. She continued without amplification, "...to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace."

That is very specific to a particular religion - in a secular environment - or rather at a social gathering in a government facility.

"I wanted to say why I was successful, and what inspired me to keep going and what motivated me. It involved Jesus Christ for me, period."

Fine, if McComb had said something like that, then it would have been OK.

The school's position (motivation for pulling the plug) -

"Proselytizing is improper in school-sponsored speech at valedictorian graduations," he said, adding the ACLU had sued in the past to ensure proselytizing was prevented at school-sponsored events.

 

[arildno]

I don't see why people are arguing about this issue.
The student in question had been warned by the school beforehand (and they had every right to do so), yet in her own disgusting self-importance CHOSE to defy that.
She is nothing but a wilful, arrogant girl who believes ordinary rules don't apply to her just because she is "saved" by Jesus.

 

[Curious3141]

I don't see why people are arguing about this issue.
The student in question had been warned by the school beforehand (and they had every right to do so), yet in her own disgusting self-importance CHOSE to defy that.
She is nothing but a wilful, arrogant girl who believes ordinary rules don't apply to her just because she is "saved" by Jesus.

I couldn't agree more with your assessment. We had one of these arrogant proselytizers plaguing the WRX board where I moderate. We banned him to high heaven.

 

[kyleb]

Where are these confusions on the concept of Valedictorian coming from; "voted on by the student body", "winning a Big Mac in McDonald's Monopoly game"? The title of Valedictorian is pretty much the highest academic honor you can receive in a high school environment. As for the Valedictorian speech, like any other activity in a public school, it is a state organized event and hence restricted by the rules which we place upon our state. Yeah, people are within their rights to wear a beard in accordance we various Muslim as well as other religious standards even when otherwise not permitted, as also people are within their rights to were various hats required by various Amish beliefs and those of other faiths even when hats aren't normally allowed; but people are most certainly not within their rights when they proselytize though the power of the state.

 

[arildno]

Just a further note:
Anyone should, of course, be free and uncensored when it comes to saying what have been the sources of inspiration/success for themselves.

However, this is not what this girl did.
Rather, she demanded that the shool should become the audience for her doctrinal ravings.

 

[MeJennifer]

Just a further note:
Anyone should, of course, be free and uncensored when it comes to saying what have been the sources of inspiration/success for themselves.

Well that is exactly was she was was trying to do, and she was censored.

Sorry but only an idiot would think that if a student makes a speech and mentions religion that that implies that the school is endorsing religion.

I suspect this is more like:

This is a public school, she mentions Jesus, I don't like Jesus. So how can I use 'reason" to block here from saying it.

So much for tolerance.

 

[arildno]

Well that is exactly was she was was trying to do, and she was censored.

Sorry but only an idiot would think that if a student makes a speech and mentions religion that that implies that the school is endorsing religion.

I suspect this is more like:

This is a public school, she mentions Jesus, I don't like Jesus. So how can I use 'reason" to block here from saying it.

So much for tolerance.

Don't bother to try coming off as the neutral observer. You are not, you are a partisan.
This is what she said:

God's love is so great that he gave his only son up," she said, before the microphone went dead. She continued without amplification, "...to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace."

This is intolerant, disrespectful, doctrinal raving and nothing else.
It is totally off-topic in a valedictorian speech.

 

[MeJennifer]

This is intolerant, disrespectful, doctrinal raving and nothing else.

I am curious what you think is intolerant and disrespectful about that?


And by the way I am an atheist.


""In my heart I couldn't say the edited version because it wasn't what I wanted to say," she told The Associated Press. "I wanted to say why I was successful, and what inspired me to keep going and what motivated me. It involved Jesus Christ for me, period." http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/jul/13/071310623.html"

Makes sense to me.

 

[arildno]

It is irrelevant whether you are an atheist or animist.

It is intolerant and disrespectful to heap unto non-believers doctrinal trash. Religious people can speak doctrine within their own assembly houses.

 

[MeJennifer]

It is intolerant and disrespectful to heap unto non-believers doctrinal trash.

Well I respectfully disagree.

I consider it greatly intolerant not to allow someone to express their religious beliefs. And I completely do not get why someone would consider it disrespectful?

Seems to me you got the meaning of intolerance mixed up.

 

[arildno]

Well I respectfully disagree.

I consider it greatly intolerant not to allow someone to express their religious beliefs.

Again, you deliberately twist the issue. She made her valedictorian speech into a preaching sermon, something that was totally out of order, and that she had been told beforehand was not acceptable.

No one would have protested if she had said that her faith had been a source of inspiration, strength and solace to her during her studies, but that is not what she did.


Rather, she showed by holding this sermon that she only regards the Bible and fellow Christians to have any sort of moral authority, that she belongs to the clique of the righteous few, and that everyone else are moral and human non-entities.
Against them, she can do whatever she pleases, not bothering about how they might feel about it.


And that is deeply disrespectful of her towards the audience (and humanity at large).

 

[MeJennifer]

Again, you deliberately twist the issue. She made her valedictorian speech into a preaching sermon, something that was totally out of order, and that she had been told beforehand was not acceptable.

No one would have protested if she had said that her faith had been a source of inspiration, strength and solace to her during her studies, but that is not what she did.


Rather, she showed by holding this sermon that she only regards the Bible and fellow Christians to have any sort of moral authority, that she belongs to the clique of the righteous few, and that everyone else are moral and human non-entities.
Against them, she can do whatever she pleases, not bothering about how they might feel about it.


And that is deeply disrespectful of her towards the audience (and humanity at large).

Well I am sorry but this whole posting does not make a lot of sense to me.

Must be me

 

[arildno]

Not surprising, in light of your previous posts.

 

[Astronuc]

""In my heart I couldn't say the edited version because it wasn't what I wanted to say," she told The Associated Press. "I wanted to say why I was successful, and what inspired me to keep going and what motivated me. It involved Jesus Christ for me, period." http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/jul/13/071310623.html"

Makes sense to me.

If McComb had stated "I was inspired by God and his only son to work hard, . . . " and left it at that, it probably would have been fine. Or she might have been restricted to "I am inspired by my religion (religious beliefs), Church, parents, . . .".

But I think she went over the line when she started preaching (or proselytizing) with

God's love is so great that he gave his only son up," she said, before the microphone went dead. She continued without amplification, "...to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace."

She had been warned, and she simply ignored the officials (which shows contempt for others who do not believe the same way), and delivered her message. She abused the privilege given to her - which in itself is rather hypocritical.

 

[Smurf]

woah, Americans are so weird.

 

[arildno]

(This is a comment to a now deleted post):
Hmm..why should exactly 3 abortions be conducive to her academic success?
Unless she actually shows that this is, indeed, conducive for her academic success, it is irrelevant information of a too private nature.

However, that a personal faith may impart a sense of purpose, that your life is seen as meaningful, and at times, helpful as a crying pillow is well known.
Hence its relevance.
It by no means follow from this that hammering religious DOCTRINE into her public as she did is acceptable.
In particular since she had agreed not to do so.

 

[selfAdjoint]

woah, Americans are so weird.

Which weirdness are you commenting on here?

 

[arildno]

I am Norweirdish, not American...

 

[kyleb]

Which weirdness are you commenting on here?

I'm sure he is talking about those of us who respect the separation of church and state.

 

[arildno]

Hmm, coming from a Canadian, I would think he referred to the actual existence of churches in the US..
(I've heard there are a couple of such buildings in Quebec, but I'm not sure..)

 

[SpaceTiger]

It seems pretty clear to me that a student shouldn't be allowed to proselytize in a school commencement speech. She was warned too...if I were running the school, I would have done more than cut off her mic.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'm sure he is talking about those of us who respect the separation of church and state.

I thought it was maybe the somewhat incoherent behavior of priding ourselves on our prescriptive right to freedom of speech, and then tying ourselves in knots when somebody excercises, according to her own lights, that right.

 

[BobG]

She had been warned, and she simply ignored the officials (which shows contempt for others who do not believe the same way), and delivered her message. She abused the privilege given to her - which in itself is rather hypocritical.

To be complete, she had been warned, asked for justification for the decision, received an ambiguous response (the reason was ambiguous, not how the school would respond), and then decided to ignore the officials.

The issue is whether the school had the right to censor the speech in the first place based solely on religious reasons and whether the school even followed national guidelines.

When it comes to the content of graduation speeches, the school has to be religiously neutral. That means the school shouldn't use the religious content (or lack of religious content) as the reason for prohibiting or censoring a graduation speech - it doesn't mean the speech has to be religiously neutral.

Of course, that is just my interpretation of a 'guideline' that is really just a long case history of numerous lawsuits that have occurred nationally. While school districts are required to have guidelines on what they have to avoid or what they have to allow, it's kind of hard to avoid being ambiguous when policy is based on court cases. If the cases avoid conflicting with each other, they only do so because the cases are decided on some fine point of law vs a defining principle that someone could base a policy on.

The Department of Education gives some guidance:

Prayer at Graduation

School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation or select speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech such as prayer. Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate, neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech (whether religious or nonreligious) is the speaker’s and not the school’s.

That's easy for the Department of Education to say, but lawyers for individual school districts are more interested in finding a path through a mine field of lawsuits.

In general, schools can't actively promote school prayer at a graduation. That would include having a school official lead the prayer, arranging for some outside speaker to lead the graduation prayer, selecting a student to lead a school prayer. Schools also need to avoid giving the impression of endorsing religion by allowing religious content in graduation speeches while prohibiting other topics (i.e - the school can't get around the rules by only selecting speakers who they know will include religious content). It also includes putting the issue of school prayer up to majority vote by the students. Schools may think they're avoiding playing an active role by letting the students decide, but they're playing an active role in the process by holding the vote in the first place.

Schools also have to ensure they don't violate the First Amendment rights of their students or their community. They can't censor or prohibit a graduation speech or decide against a particular speaker solely because of the religious content of the person's speech. They also can't put the issue of who could lead a school prayer up to majority vote (the school gets slammed on both sides for this one, since the majority vote ensures religions in the minority never get expressed - hence a violation of the First Amendment rights of students in a minority religion). The school also can't bar religious organizations from using school facilities after hours if the school makes the facilities open to other community groups.

The only leg the school has to stand on is that they may require the student to delete content that falls outside the scope of the purpose for the presentation. I haven't seen a transcript of the speech, but if she is crediting religion for motivating her to be successful, the school is going to have a hard time saying the content falls outside the scope of the purpose. In fact, so far, it seems news articles all quote the same single sentence that occurred immediately prior to the microphone being cut off, but also say there were other religious references in the speech. A single sentence isn't a religious 'sermon' and 'other references' is pretty ambiguous.

I also like the part where schools can "make appropriate, neutral disclaimers". If the school isn't careful, they can get themselves in trouble with their disclaimers, as well. They really are walking through a minefield when it comes to religion, but they stepped on one of the mines in this case.

 

[kyleb]

I thought it was maybe the somewhat incoherent behavior of priding ourselves on our prescriptive right to freedom of speech, and then tying ourselves in knots when somebody excercises, according to her own lights, that right.

Yet it isn't here right to freedom of speech that is taken issue with here; but rather, again, her attempt to proselytize though the power of the state.

 

[Office_Shredder]

For a full transcript:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-20-Tue-2006/opinion/8027170.html

 

[pcorbett]

Students in schools do not have the freedom of speech that citizens in public do.

This doesn't address any point made so far. Since administrative restriction of free speech is permissible to achieve certain educational aims and is not discretionary, it is not sufficient to point to such a diminution is justification for restraining or punishing a student's expression. See Sante Fe ISD v. Doe, Widmar v. Vincent, and West Virginia v. Barnette. You can start with Santa Fe [1].

Neither do soldiers in the army or employees at work.

Neither situation is comparable in the sense you imply. Public school students are minors, receive no renumeration for being students, and do not volunteer into such status. Even so, the point stands that employees, public and private, enjoy free speech protections. Once again, it isn't sufficient to point to dimunition as evidence of administrative discretion in restricting speech.

In all these cases there is legal authority to squelch, censor, bleep and delete speech that is incompatible with the authority's purposes. And this is all part of US law and conformable (say the courts) to our constitutional liberties.

See above.

The Cardinal of Chicago can't go with a bull horn and hector women going into an abortion clinic either. He calls it counseling and considers the ban a restriction on his freedom of speech.

Wow. Where'd you get that idea? [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-1118.pdf]

 

[Smurf]

Which weirdness are you commenting on here?

All of them? :rofl:

 

[vanesch]

(This is a comment to a now deleted post):
Hmm..why should exactly 3 abortions be conducive to her academic success?

I deleted my post because after re-reading I found it not very appropriate in the conversation - sorry that you already replied.

As to your question: academic achievement is in a (large) part a social convention: you're judged by people on not always objectively measurable criteria. As is well known, pleasing your judges in one or another way might give you a favorable bias

However, that a personal faith may impart a sense of purpose, that your life is seen as meaningful, and at times, helpful as a crying pillow is well known.
Hence its relevance.
It by no means follow from this that hammering religious DOCTRINE into her public as she did is acceptable.
In particular since she had agreed not to do so.

I think nobody would have objected her saying that her religion helped her through hard times, motivated her, gave her wings :tongue2: . That her belief in [...] was a source of inspiration. Etc... But that wasn't what she was saying. She was stating elements of her religion as facts without a relationship to her success.

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[daveb]

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