Congratulations, you're the valedictorian. Your school claims they want you to be an independent thinker...as long as you do and say what they tell you.
She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but Brittany McComb was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart.But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her -- Christ -- her microphone went dead.
The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.
However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.
They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.
If their only concern was that it might be perceived as school-sponsored, couldn't they just have introduced her with the statement that her speech was her opinion and didn't necessarily reflect that of the school?
It's common to have an announcement that the claims made during an infomercial are not those of the station that is broadcasting it. Would something similar have been so difficult? Does the peddling of crap to insomniacs deserve a higher standard of free speech than an address by a valedictorian?
The Clark County School Board's regulations even state that a speech "may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content, and "[t]o 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 is not school sponsored."
The district's legal counsel said that this just covers a discussion of religion but not preaching, which is what they believe she was doing. I don't see where they get "no preaching" (if that's what it was) out of "may not be restricted".
Do you think if she had agreed that what she was going to say was preaching and had put some of these adults in charge of passing around the collection plates that they might have been more amenable? If infomercial advertisers can make any claims they want as long as they pay, maybe a little cash was all that was needed here.
Posted by marybeth at June 20, 2006 07:15 AM NewsMarybeth,
I am old enough to remember when the ACLU was a good and useful organization, protecting the people. I no longer feel that way.
However, I think that Brittany McComb, with her high cum, and broad studies should have thought a bit more about better ways to say what she wanted to pass on, to skirt the aclu proscribed words, and cover the subject in great detail. Maybe, next time, more wisdom and political savvy will prevail.
My faith carried me through tough times in school and at many jobs, and saying it is always necessary, but saying it so people will listen and believe is more difficult. She will have lots of opportunities with the press, and many new forums now open to her, to pass on her message.
Dave Hessler Sr.
Posted by Dave Hessler at June 22, 2006 12:34 PMIt's difficult to say without having seen a transcript or heard her speech, but I'm inclined to believe that her speech would have been more appropriate to deliver to a church youth group while discussing the value of a good education would have been better for graduation. Despite this, I do think that she had earned the privilege of choosing what to say.
Posted by marybeth at June 23, 2006 01:40 AM