, who - while giving her valedictorian speech at her graduation ceremony - had her microphone cut off because she repeatedly referenced her Christian beliefs.
I have to politely disagree.
She didn't get her mic cut off for mentioning God, she had it cut off for deviating from the speech which had been previously approved by the school board - as she had been warned beforehand would happen. She agreed to the rules, then broke her agreement. What other recourse did the school have?
I think the essential question here is - did the school have the right to edit her valedictorian speech in the first place? Well, they're paying for the mic, so I think they do, for this particular venue.
Brittney's still perfectly free to praise God on her blog, or in her church, or even on random street corners. Her right to free speech in general is not being threatened here. The democratically elected school board has been granted the authority by their electors to set guidelines on graduation speeches. Given the information in the article, I don't see anything to indicate that they've misused that authority.
And I *do* have to wonder about Brittney's choice to go ahead with the unedited version of her speech. Why did she feel the need to mention Jesus over and over again? Wouldn't a simple, humble, "and I'd like to thank God" have been sufficient?
Perhaps she should re-read Jesus' opinions on the habit of indulging in pious public acts for the purpose of impressing other men.
As for the secular issues involved, the solution when butting heads with a rule you don't like isn't to violate the rule, it's to either complain loudly enough to get the rule changed beforehand, or to find an alternative means to reach your goal WITHOUT violating the rule. She could have printed her original speech out and passed it around as a flyer. She could have posted it on the internet as an MP3. She could have discussed it with her peers, one-on-one.
As it was, her actions were disruptive and uncalled for. She behaved like an undisciplined, spoiled brat, throwing a tantrum because she HAD to have HER way, right NOW.
Hopefully, as she matures, she'll discover that going over, under, or around are sometimes better methods of getting past a brick wall than trying to bulldoze through.
1
Substantively, Harvey, I agree. A larger question is: Is the school legally able to violate her constitutional right to freedom to exercise her religion? "Separation of church & state" obviously doesn't enter into it, as it is nowhere in the Constitution. However, may one voluntarily agree to the curtailment of one's constitutional rights?
As former sailors, I guess you and I both know the answer to the last question.
Posted by: Tennessee Budd at June 20, 2006 07:06 AM (wXSVh)
2
TB - I think you're right that this probably falls under "voluntary curtailment", assuming the laws in her state allow her to refuse to attend public school at her age.
If her attendance was state-mandated, then the "voluntary" aspect gets a little more questionable.
By the way, although the phrase "Separation of church & state" isn't in the Constitution verbatim, I believe that it's generally accepted as a short way of referencing the part of the First Amendment that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It's not a legal principle, it's just quicker to write.
By the way, is "establishment" in this context a verb or a noun?
Posted by: Harvey at June 20, 2006 07:25 AM (L7a63)
3
Harvey, establishment is a verb. It goes back to the reign of Henry VIII when he established the Church of England to get around the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce. (Everyone in England was forced to change religions and the monestaries and nunneries were sacked for ol' Henry's purse.)
Our forefathers did not want the new government to have the ability to do the same, so the first amendment not only prohibited the establishment of a religion, it also made sure the government couldn't interfere in a person's right to exercise their chosen religion.
Personally, had the school not required prior approval, she should have been able to say what she wanted. Usually the school only prohibits profanity or inciteful speech and it's a sad day that being thankful for God's blessings is considered inciteful speech.
Posted by: Anna at June 20, 2006 08:41 AM (rZYE5)
4
Anna - "verb" does seem to be the general consensus that I've found by Googling, but it's hard to find a serious legal discussion of the matter.
I agree that a simple bit of thankfulness to God is hardly inciteful. However, the article seems to indicate that her thankfulness was included so often in the speech as to make it seem inappropriate for a secular occasion, i.e. graduating from a public (not parochial) school.
Barring the release of the original version of her speech, it's hard to judge, though.
Posted by: Harvey at June 20, 2006 10:03 AM (L7a63)
5
The democratically elected school board has been granted the authority by their electors to set guidelines on graduation speeches.
Bullshit. Utter, contemptible bullshit.
The United States Constitution SPECIFICALLY forbids placing restrictions on the free expression of ANY religion. Including Christianity.
The school board had no right to edit her speech. Period. Just because the majority of the school board are atheists does NOT mean they can impose THEIR religion on the Christians.
Do some fucking research into the ACTUAL US Constitution sometime. Like, how about using original documentation of what the writers, such as John Jay, said about what the Constition meant. It will burst your atheist bubble. Sorry. Just because a majority of idiots in black robes decided that "will not prohibit the free expression thereof" was trumped by "make no law RESPECTING a religion", and added a few more clauses that aren't actually there, doesn't make it correct.
The ONLY thing you need to know about the Supreme Court is that they're not.
Posted by: the Humble Devildog at June 20, 2006 01:39 PM (TIYju)
6
Schools have never been a democracy. They have always been a dictatorship. They set the rules, you follow or move on. Period. This is no exception. This rule is in place in our schools as well... valedictory speeches get pre approved. You deviate from what you submitted, *snip* mic is cut off.
She knew the consequences. She gambled. She lost. End of story.
Posted by: Bou at June 20, 2006 05:56 PM (iHxT3)
7
Happy Blogiversary! And - Yes - you're probably right!
Posted by: chrys at June 21, 2006 01:19 AM (Wdgi/)
8
BlogDad, I have to admit -- you've got me reconsidering my position now...
Posted by: PC Jeff at June 21, 2006 03:29 AM (NYw9n)
9
And -- BTW -- I'm delighted to have stirred up such intelligent and stimulating debate!
Posted by: PC Jeff at June 21, 2006 03:33 AM (NYw9n)
10
Intelligent except for Bou, that is...
She reminds me of an ex-wife of mine: high IQ and the common sense the a box of rocks have.
Posted by: PC Jeff at June 21, 2006 05:11 AM (NYw9n)
11
Jeff - That last comment was gratuitous & uncalled for. Please stay on topic.
Anyway, the point is that free speech is NOT an "always and everywhere" kind of thing. You have it on your own property. You have it on public property. When you're on someone else's property, it's their rules.
Public schools make this a little dicier in principle, since they're both "public property" and "someone else's property" at the same time. However, from a legal standpoint, when the government runs something, they generally compromise by checking for "due process" and "equal treatment" when there's a question of fairness.
In this case, it sounds like Brittney had her "due process". Her speech was reviewed (just like everyone else's), it was edited, her and her father appealed the editing decision, and the board didn't change its mind on appeal. They didn't say "we refuse to listen to you because you're a Christian", they said "we still don't think your speech is appropriate for this venue. Accept the changes or don't give the speech at the graduation ceremony that will be held on school property".
They gave her her "day in court". She lost.
If you want to make the case that she didn't receive "equal treatment" because she was a Christian, you'll have to find evidence to prove your assertion, otherwise it's just a baseless accusation of "religious bias". Which I find uncomfortably similar to the way accusations of "racism" get hurled when minorities don't have proportional representation in a given profession, regardless of whether there are non-racist reasons why this may be so.
Now personally, I don't think government should be in the schooling business at all, but - since it is - I'm examining it from a "law as it exists" standpoint, using what I remember from my one miserable year of law school. I didn't graduate, so take it for what it's worth.
Posted by: Harvey at June 21, 2006 06:21 AM (L7a63)
12
Don't sweat it, Harvey. Some people never change. It is what it is.
Posted by: Bou at June 21, 2006 06:58 AM (iHxT3)
13
I have given commencement speeches for 6th & 12th (private) grades, and for grad school (public university). Every school had speech guidelines and codes of behavior.
The one thing that has stayed with me is that commencement speeches not about the individual but rather are meant to reflect the collective educational experience as seen through an individual's eyes. It's not about "thanking" a person, thing or entity. It's about summarizing an experience and using it as a springboard to look at the future while at the threshold of change.
I think where this girl went wrong is believing the speech was to be about her. That's not only a bad speech, it was selfish and unchristian (& I'm a christian). Of course she tried to personalize it, but the truth of the matter is her speech obviously lacked substance and was mired in egotism and repetitiveness.
A better speech might have been one in which she posed the question: What were you most thankful for during your educational experience, why and how can those present continue to improve and contribute to society and future generations.
What aspects of your education will have a longlasting effect into your adulthood.
Those were the last 2 topics I covered at comencement.
My only wish is that more people either would receive guidance or would get cut off at commencement speeches.
Blog pappy, I agree with you. you're points were very much on target.
Posted by: Michele at June 21, 2006 11:14 AM (FJ2Bh)
14
Sounds like the school edited the speech, and she went with her original... not her deviating from her submitted speech.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/news/8014416.html
Posted by: That 1 Guy at June 22, 2006 09:31 AM (gMMvi)
15
If you look at the first amendment the school board was wrong for doing that They Violated her righst to free speech By her saying that dooes not mean the school endorses it. If next year someone gets up there and they let a valedictorian bash the government which is also free speech then they have serous issues she was thanking god and cited a few versus
WWW.firtsamendment.org is the website i believ
Posted by: doug at June 27, 2006 11:48 PM (flB4T)
16
Brittany said what she wanted to say in her speech. By the way... it is HER speech,not the school board ( who by the way sound like a bunch of jerks) and so do you man get over yourself. Yall are the ones who need to get over yourselves and let people say what they want to say in there speeches as long as it isn't hurting anyone. Please tell me how is Brittany telling people about her beliefs hurting anyway... Maybe people dont want to hear the truth. People dont want to hear about Jesus and doing right when they know they are doing wrong.. it's true even Christians. But anyway back to the point Brittany should of been able to say what she wanted to say... Way to go Brittany!
Posted by: Rachel at August 12, 2006 08:12 PM (a6kuN)
17
No, Brittany's speech didn't HURT anybody, but "hurting" isn't the standard. The standard is whether the speech represents a government-sponsored promotion of religion. According to previous rulings by the 9th Circuit Court, it would have. That's why it wasn't allowed:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/news/8014416.html
You may not agree with those rulings, but they represent the law in America as it currently stands.
Personally, my problem with Brittany wasn't the content of her speech, it was her behavior. The school board told her that her speech in its original form wasn't acceptable, and told her that if she wanted to give her speech, she'd have to give an edited version. She agreed to those terms in order to get her shot at the podium, then she broke her agreement by giving the unedited version of the speech.
She lied to get what she wanted, and that's indefensible. Especially for a Christian.
Posted by: Harvey at August 13, 2006 08:22 AM (L7a63)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
