Salutatorian forced to change her graduation speech, is praised for doing so

[crazygameguy4ever]

even though her ideas are wrong and we have science to back things up, she still should have have the right to say her original speech.. (though i wouldn't say she was brave for sticking up for it, she was only trying to give speech not cure cancer or something important.. that's like saying an actor who starved their self for movie role is brave)

 

[AntiChri5]

She has a right to voice her beliefs, but the school has no obligation to provide her with a platform from which to preach them. If they are giving her a platform, they can dictate what she can and can't say. They can declare certain topics irrelevant or too touchy.

 

[Lieju]

Isn't she being given this platform of expression by the school? The school being a publicly funded organization and the speech being a part of an official ceremony held by them. Isn't her speech than in fact publicly funded? Does funding a religious speech not constitute "respecting an establishment of religion"?

Yeah, that was my thought exactly.
It's not a private thing, and not something that should be turned into a platform for political and religious beliefs.

What if she would have been involved in politics and took this chance to talk about a political candidate and to endorse them?
Or to advertise a local burger joint?

I think it's fine to talk about your beliefs in some extent, but making your audience listen to proselytizing or you reading your holy book is not what a speech like this should be about.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

snip

This is tricky. I'd like to see the original speech, see if I can't figure out why it was changed. I know if someone had showed up at my graduation and claimed that all of my successes were the doing of an invisible entity and not the product of my own hard work and skill, I'd be pretty fucking pissed off, but I wouldn't by any means want to stop them from saying it. Though if I were a teacher, I wouldn't let them take to a platform and tell my students that they had no influence on their success, as that would run directly opposite to what I had spent my time teaching them. I might have a rather long discussion about their ideas with the speaker, provided they were interested in that.
I can't help but feel there's some missing information here, perhaps there were sections of the original speech that came across as inflammatory or disrespectful to non-christians.

But as an American, I think the school was wrong for making her change it.

I don't mean to come across as rude, but I don't see how you being an American has anything to do with that view point. A respect and desire for free speech is a pretty universal thing, I would think. It's worth considering however, that the school are providing her the platform to speak, and it is meant to be a graduation ceremony, celebrating the success and achievements of the students. To then have a speaker claim that all of those successes and achievements were the act of some invisible entity (that a significant portion of the graduates probably don't even believe in) and not of the students themselves, seems to run pretty counter to the whole idea of the ceremony. As the organisers of the whole thing, the school has the power to say who can and can't speak, if somebody wants to speak but their message runs counter to the spirit of the event, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to either change what they say or not speak at all. It's not like this was a discussion of religious ideas.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I don't mean to come across as rude, but I don't see how you being an American has anything to do with that view point. A respect and desire for free speech is a pretty universal thing, I would think. It's worth considering however, that the school are providing her the platform to speak, and it is meant to be a graduation ceremony, celebrating the success and achievements of the students. To then have a speaker claim that all of those successes and achievements were the act of some invisible entity (that a significant portion of the graduates probably don't even believe in) and not of the students themselves, seems to run pretty counter to the whole idea of the ceremony. As the organisers of the whole thing, the school has the power to say who can and can't speak, if somebody wants to speak but their message runs counter to the spirit of the event, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to either change what they say or not speak at all. It's not like this was a discussion of religious ideas.

It has nothing to do with desire or respect. In the United States, speech is a legally protected right. I can't say one way or another whether that is true in other countries, which is why I can only speak as an American. Members of other countries may speak for themselves or not as they choose.

A for the organizers choosing who can and cannot speak, they already did that. The valedictorian and salutatorian are allowed a speech of their own devising. They certainly can change that if they wish, but such a decision would carry consequences within the community. As for choosing what is said, no, they do not have that right. That is the choice of the person speaking, and as such people are almost certainly of the age of majority, and since most American schools are publicly funded and organized by the state government(and therefore cannot be considered private property), any speech that takes place within the school's guidelines would be protected.

Again, I think that the planned speech itself was insulting, and I would certainly not respect the contents. But as speech is a protected right in my country, I would certainly respect her right to say whatever nonsense she felt necessary. Just so long as it wasn't expected that I would applaud at the end.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I'm with the school on this, yes everyone has a right to sell whatever it is they sell... not under your roof however, there are rules that apply. And I doubt anyone would be so quick to come to the defence if someone was trying to spread the good word of Jihad.

 

[Odd Owl]

Girl was invited to give her personal remarks to the graduating class. Girl's remarks reflected her personal religious convictions. Girl was forced to change her remarks. Girl has a persecution complex.

Nah, like I said, in that instance, she has a point, and it would've been the right call to not censor it. Its in other instances where people tend to take things like basic separation of church and state as "persecution".

I missed that nuance in your post. My mistake. In that case, seconded.

 

[Quadocky]

Well OP you are in luck. All Graduation speeches are always always very awful and dumb.

At least this one was notable in some fashion. Most of the time its some privileged individual going on stage in some capacity saying "You just gotta believe in yourself!" then proceeding to talk about rich relatives who paid for and 'inspired' them to go into higher education.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

The separation of church and state is only there so that the state cannot dictate what one believes and the church does not dictate what laws are passed and what are not. Its about choice, not limiting one's choice. By censoring someone's beliefs you are dictating what they can and cannot say in a public forum, violating the First Amendment. One has every right to speak out on what one believes, just as anyone has the right not to listen to those beliefs. No one has the right to tell you you cannot say what you believe in a speech, whether its on school grounds or not. I may have my own sets of beliefs and they sometimes clash with multiple religious views, but I know I've no right to hold another's beliefs down either. You might not like it, but thats the truth. This is a situation where the term "deal with it" applies. That is what freedom, liberty is all about. Its not freedom to stamp out beliefs you don't agree with.
Sorry but this whole idea that separation of Church and State meaning that no one can express what they believe is contrary to why this country was founded. Principles and the like. Defending to the death someone's right to say something whether you agree or not, etc. etc.
People like to spout about tolerance and such, but will turn around and be intolerant of things like this... so hypocritical.

 

[AntiChri5]

I don't mean to come across as rude, but I don't see how you being an American has anything to do with that view point. A respect and desire for free speech is a pretty universal thing, I would think. It's worth considering however, that the school are providing her the platform to speak, and it is meant to be a graduation ceremony, celebrating the success and achievements of the students. To then have a speaker claim that all of those successes and achievements were the act of some invisible entity (that a significant portion of the graduates probably don't even believe in) and not of the students themselves, seems to run pretty counter to the whole idea of the ceremony. As the organisers of the whole thing, the school has the power to say who can and can't speak, if somebody wants to speak but their message runs counter to the spirit of the event, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to either change what they say or not speak at all. It's not like this was a discussion of religious ideas.

It has nothing to do with desire or respect. In the United States, speech is a legally protected right. I can't say one way or another whether that is true in other countries, which is why I can only speak as an American. Members of other countries may speak for themselves or not as they choose.

A for the organizers choosing who can and cannot speak, they already did that. The valedictorian and salutatorian are allowed a speech of their own devising. They certainly can change that if they wish, but such a decision would carry consequences within the community. As for choosing what is said, no, they do not have that right. That is the choice of the person speaking, and as such people are almost certainly of the age of majority, and since most American schools are publicly funded and organized by the state government(and therefore cannot be considered private property), any speech that takes place within the school's guidelines would be protected.

Again, I think that the planned speech itself was insulting, and I would certainly not respect the contents. But as speech is a protected right in my country, I would certainly respect her right to say whatever nonsense she felt necessary. Just so long as it wasn't expected that I would applaud at the end.

The school is under no obligation to provide a student with a platform from which to speak. They grant them one with the understanding that the speech will be relevant and about graduation, with (i very strongly suspect) the unstated requirement that they will approve a students speech before hand.

If a student wanted to make a speech where they talked about Mass Effect for the entire time, the school would not let them, and rightly so. No one would have a problem with it. It has fuck all to do with graduation. If a student wanted to make a speech where they were advocating a political ideology or ranted about the evils of feminism, the school wouldn't let them, and rightly so. It has fuck all to do with graduation and is way too touchy a subject.

But bring religion into it and people start to bring up freedom of speech. This isn't the fucking sharing hour. They aren't there to get to know each other better. It's a fucking graduation speech. Bringing religion into it is inappropriate. This is an official ceremony where the state funded school is providing a student with a platform. The student may not be a faculty member, but they will be representing the school.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I don't mean to come across as rude, but I don't see how you being an American has anything to do with that view point. A respect and desire for free speech is a pretty universal thing, I would think. It's worth considering however, that the school are providing her the platform to speak, and it is meant to be a graduation ceremony, celebrating the success and achievements of the students. To then have a speaker claim that all of those successes and achievements were the act of some invisible entity (that a significant portion of the graduates probably don't even believe in) and not of the students themselves, seems to run pretty counter to the whole idea of the ceremony. As the organisers of the whole thing, the school has the power to say who can and can't speak, if somebody wants to speak but their message runs counter to the spirit of the event, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to either change what they say or not speak at all. It's not like this was a discussion of religious ideas.

It has nothing to do with desire or respect. In the United States, speech is a legally protected right. I can't say one way or another whether that is true in other countries, which is why I can only speak as an American. Members of other countries may speak for themselves or not as they choose.

A for the organizers choosing who can and cannot speak, they already did that. The valedictorian and salutatorian are allowed a speech of their own devising. They certainly can change that if they wish, but such a decision would carry consequences within the community. As for choosing what is said, no, they do not have that right. That is the choice of the person speaking, and as such people are almost certainly of the age of majority, and since most American schools are publicly funded and organized by the state government(and therefore cannot be considered private property), any speech that takes place within the school's guidelines would be protected.

Again, I think that the planned speech itself was insulting, and I would certainly not respect the contents. But as speech is a protected right in my country, I would certainly respect her right to say whatever nonsense she felt necessary. Just so long as it wasn't expected that I would applaud at the end.

The school is under no obligation to provide a student with a platform from which to speak. They grant them one with the understanding that the speech will be relevant and about graduation, with (i very strongly suspect) the unstated requirement that they will approve a students speech before hand.

If a student wanted to make a speech where they talked about Mass Effect for the entire time, the school would not let them, and rightly so. No one would have a problem with it. It has fuck all to do with graduation. If a student wanted to make a speech where they were advocating a political ideology or ranted about the evils of feminism, the school wouldn't let them, and rightly so. It has fuck all to do with graduation and is way too touchy a subject.

But bring religion into it and people start to bring up freedom of speech. This isn't the fucking sharing hour. They aren't there to get to know each other better. It's a fucking graduation speech. Bringing religion into it is inappropriate. This is an official ceremony where the state funded school is providing a student with a platform. The student may not be a faculty member, but they will be representing the school.

You seem to be missing something. Her speech was going to be a graduation speech. It was a topically relevant speech. It wasn't one that I agree with, but that doesn't matter. If she had wanted to claim that everyone had graduated due to the Force being strong with them, I'd be equally fine with that, and then at least the hardcore Christians could think that she's as crazy as I would(though I'm betting they'd be less tolerant than I). Now if she just wanted to stand up there and do a reading from the Bible or whatever, then sure: off topic. But from what the OP says, that wasn't the plan.

 

[AntiChri5]

I don't mean to come across as rude, but I don't see how you being an American has anything to do with that view point. A respect and desire for free speech is a pretty universal thing, I would think. It's worth considering however, that the school are providing her the platform to speak, and it is meant to be a graduation ceremony, celebrating the success and achievements of the students. To then have a speaker claim that all of those successes and achievements were the act of some invisible entity (that a significant portion of the graduates probably don't even believe in) and not of the students themselves, seems to run pretty counter to the whole idea of the ceremony. As the organisers of the whole thing, the school has the power to say who can and can't speak, if somebody wants to speak but their message runs counter to the spirit of the event, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to either change what they say or not speak at all. It's not like this was a discussion of religious ideas.

It has nothing to do with desire or respect. In the United States, speech is a legally protected right. I can't say one way or another whether that is true in other countries, which is why I can only speak as an American. Members of other countries may speak for themselves or not as they choose.

A for the organizers choosing who can and cannot speak, they already did that. The valedictorian and salutatorian are allowed a speech of their own devising. They certainly can change that if they wish, but such a decision would carry consequences within the community. As for choosing what is said, no, they do not have that right. That is the choice of the person speaking, and as such people are almost certainly of the age of majority, and since most American schools are publicly funded and organized by the state government(and therefore cannot be considered private property), any speech that takes place within the school's guidelines would be protected.

Again, I think that the planned speech itself was insulting, and I would certainly not respect the contents. But as speech is a protected right in my country, I would certainly respect her right to say whatever nonsense she felt necessary. Just so long as it wasn't expected that I would applaud at the end.

The school is under no obligation to provide a student with a platform from which to speak. They grant them one with the understanding that the speech will be relevant and about graduation, with (i very strongly suspect) the unstated requirement that they will approve a students speech before hand.

If a student wanted to make a speech where they talked about Mass Effect for the entire time, the school would not let them, and rightly so. No one would have a problem with it. It has fuck all to do with graduation. If a student wanted to make a speech where they were advocating a political ideology or ranted about the evils of feminism, the school wouldn't let them, and rightly so. It has fuck all to do with graduation and is way too touchy a subject.

But bring religion into it and people start to bring up freedom of speech. This isn't the fucking sharing hour. They aren't there to get to know each other better. It's a fucking graduation speech. Bringing religion into it is inappropriate. This is an official ceremony where the state funded school is providing a student with a platform. The student may not be a faculty member, but they will be representing the school.

You seem to be missing something. Her speech was going to be a graduation speech. It was a topically relevant speech. It wasn't one that I agree with, but that doesn't matter. If she had wanted to claim that everyone had graduated due to the Force being strong with them, I'd be equally fine with that, and then at least the hardcore Christians could think that she's as crazy as I would(though I'm betting they'd be less tolerant than I). Now if she just wanted to stand up there and do a reading from the Bible or whatever, then sure: off topic. But from what the OP says, that wasn't the plan.

We don't know enough to declare whether or not the speech was on topic and touched on religion, simply had the word "god" once or was a full on sermon. My point was, the school was always going to censor and pre-approve the speech. For entirely valid reasons.

But bring religion into this, and suddenly it is a huge deal.

Yeah, the government isn't allowed to stamp on religious expression. But they don't have to provide a stage for it. They aren't even allowed to.

Are students required to attend these things in the U.S? Because if so, without the speech being censored and edited and vetted that could result in a lot of people forced to attend a sermon, im sure i don't need to explain the problems there.

 

[AntiChri5]

It seems i was wrong. My first paragraph there is way off. The OP provided much more information then i remembered.

Apparently, the edited, censored version of the speech still contained 20 references to god. If that's what got through, the original speech must have been.....interesting.

I don't think anyone can claim their religious expression is being limited when they reference their god twenty times during a speech in a state funded ceremony.

 

[Something Amyss]

Schools execute this sort of control over more than just religious speech and it's naive to pretend otherwise. This isn't about free speech, it's about speech at a school function. Her rights were not violated.

And yes, if she had said "there is no God," or "you all did this because of Allah," tables would be flipped.

 

[Something Amyss]

By censoring someone's beliefs you are dictating what they can and cannot say in a public forum, violating the First Amendment.

Not at a school function, you're not.

But that's the thing. It's not a "public forum."

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

This is a tough one.

I get what you're saying about separation of church and state. But the key here is that no religion will be
ESTABLISHED - as I read it, endorsed by an authority figure. That doesn't mean faith can't be mentioned in schools.

Now, I feel you, OP. I think it's crass for this girl to insult her classmates by saying that their hard work is all down to god, and I probably wouldn't have stayed to listen to it, had I been there. But as much as I despise faith, I despise censorship more - perhaps more than anything.

Shame on your school for censoring that girl.

 

[omega 616]

The only thing I get pissed about is "thank god" ... what the fuck did he/she do? You passed all your classes by putting in hard work and now you're giving the praise to god? Should be patting your own back. It's like when a surgeon, who has been training for many years, operates on a person and then the family say "thank god he is alive" .... what the fuck did god do? Make that person need the operation, the surgeon was the one who saved the persons life!

As for "isn't there more than one religion" not to the religious, if you are a religious person, there is only one religion and all others are wrong/heretics. A Christian is never going to say "thank god/Allah/whoever else".

 

[jurnag12]

Honestly, as an Atheist who advocates seperation of church and state... they shouldn't have censored her. Chosing her as valedictorian means you ask her to give a speech from her viewpoint, which obviously includes her personal beliefs. If she says that God has helped people reach this point in life? You know what, sure. She's equating your achievements with the hand of God itself, the being of highest importance and holiness in her worldview. That sounds like a positive thing to me. I might not agree with it, but I see the intent and appreciate the message.

If you don't want someone discussing their religion and it's relation with the current situation in front of you, don't invite her to do that exact thing and then get angry when she does what you asked her to do.

 

[VoidWanderer]

I can understand a reason to change it, after working my ass off to graduate and being told you did it because God says so, is a slap in the face, IMO.

Bible quotes are fine though.