I recently wrote about the Michigan legislature sipping the "academic freedom" koolaid, trying to pass an unconstitutional bill that will make it OK to teach religion in the classroom.
Shortly thereafter, I got an email from a reader about a related incident in that same state, where a high school student was asked to change his speech at graduation because he wanted to give a Bible sermon:
If Jed Grooters didn’t agree to make changes requested by West Ottawa Public Schools, he wasn’t expected to be allowed to speak at Sunday’s ceremony, The Holland Sentinel and The Grand Rapids Press reported.
“We want to hear our valedictorians talk about their life lessons, but that’s not what was coming from Jed. He was giving a religious speech,” West Ottawa Superintendent Patricia Koeze said.
This is an interesting situation. Commencement ceremonies are held by the school, and are therefore publicly funded. But the speech itself is by an individual, who has First Amendment rights.
You may be surprised by this, but my feeling is that he should be allowed to say what he wants to say.
The school is not endorsing what he says. It’s clear these are his thoughts, not the school district’s. He was not hired to appear at an assembly that was mandatory, and he is not employed by the school. He is co-valedictorian, and earned the right to make a speech. I also suspect — though I am not a lawyer, of course — that he has a valid First Amendment issue here. The ACLU may be interested in this; despite what many on the far right say, the ACLU does actively pursue these sorts of things and supports peoples’ rights even when it’s religion that’s being persecuted. And also, in general, I think it’s best to err on the side of more freedom, not less.
Let me also be clear and say that what the student chose to say is, at best, rude. I think it is in poor taste, extremely poor taste, to proselytize to a captive audience, but it’s his right.
Just as it’s the right of the audience to let their feelings be known, too. When I graduated from the University of Michigan, Mike Wallace was the commencement speaker. He was involved in some minor scandal at the time, and a few students protested his speech by standing up and facing the other way. I disagreed with them at the time, but I had to admit it was an effective statement.
That’s part of the essence of the First Amendment: people have the right to speech, and others have the right to protest. Don’t like what someone is saying? Then the answer is more speech, not less. Let the kid talk. But let others have their say as well.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
“I think it is in poor taste, extremely poor taste, to proselytize to a captive audience, but it’s his right.”
Ahh, but is it? You know the old saw, “You have a right to free speech, but you don’t have a right to be heard”. He can feel free to stand on a street corner and give his speech. But does he have the right to deliver that speech to those attending, and does the school have the right to force the students to listen to that speech (and I say “force” because, as you say, the “assembly … was mandatory”)?
Frankly, I don’t know. It’s a thorny one, that’s for sure. But I do know it’s not 100% black or white…
June 9th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Could they strike a comprimise? Maybe make him speak after the sheepskins had been handed out, that way anyone who didn’t want to listen to him could just walk out?
June 9th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Last year there was a similar minor media fuss over a valedictorian in Jacksonville, Florida who talked about God for 20 minutes during her commencement address. The ACLU took the position that as the school board had the ability to review and reject the speech prior to its delivery, “that message becomes the school board’s message by right of approval.”
http://www.news4jax.com/news/13429920/detail.html
June 9th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I think Carl Sagan mentioned once that a persons’ views must be allowed to be aired, even when its most offensive…so it can be properly debated.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
It really depends on the contents of his speech, doesn’t it?
To just say it was a sermon is somewhat ambiguous. I’ve been to plenty of graduations in recent years, and its fairly common it seems in high school ceremonies to have at least one guest speaker (student or otherwise) who slips something in about Jesus’s strength and guidance or God’s will or something like that. And if they’ve worked hard enough to earn a spot of recognition during the ceremony, then let them speak about what they feel helped them get there.
But maybe his speech is over that line, or too far into the gray area. I’m sure if they just talked it out and negotiated they could find a balance everyone was happy with.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Depends on what he was going to say. If it is “you are all gong to a very warm place located in the center earth because you do not believe what I believe” then no. Graduation is about looking forward to the future not getting other people upset at you, you have the rest of your life to do that.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Phil:
I know you’ve been on Penn Jillette’s radio show, so you might be interested in listening to this episode, where Penn talks about something exactly the same (except it’s a high school graduation) that happened a couple years ago:
http://www.pennfans.net/view/Audio_Archive/PennRadio/The.Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.06.20/
June 9th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
“That’s part of the essence of the First Amendment: people have the right to speech, and others have the right to protest. Don’t like what someone is saying? Then the answer is more speech, not less. Let the kid talk. But let others have their say as well.”
It all sounds so great when written and said, but all rational beings should understand that not a word is true. The First Amendment only applies to those who are considered to have the right opinion. Of course some opinions are morally and ethically questionable, but does that make them any less worth as long as the First Amendment is concerned?
It is easy to go to extremes. Even if I do not approve of rasistic behaviour (just to make that clear before I move on to the extreme) are not rasists entitled their own opinion, no matter how immoral the rest of us see their opinion as being?
The above was just an example – there are many more which can be given. I recall watching a TV show (an ABC medical drama if it carries any importance) where one of the patients was a nazist. His belief was condemned by the show and the episode ended with his swatsika-tattoo being unrecognizeable.
(Please just follow my theroretical reasoning here.) As far as I percieved it, the show’s plot violated the First Amendment as the patient in question was not entitled to his own opinion (no matter how immoral it was). It is clear that he was not entitled to the right of free speech, simply as his world-view failed to correspond to that of the rest of the world.
I hope you understood the core of what I tried to express. I realize that I must have failed in making my point clear. And, finally, I would once again want to say that I do not support such rasistic opinions, I just used them as extreme examples.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
That’s certainly a very good point. In effect, by allowing the student to speak, the school (and therefore the government) is endorsing the position as their own.
Similarly, I would expect a religious school to object if a student wished to give a speech that ran counter the the beliefs of that institution. And wouldn’t I consider that censorship (and, more importantly, I’m willing to be it wouldn’t get any airtime in the press).
June 9th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
What if he were talking about how women should be submissive to men? Or if he were saying that the white race is superior? I think you would feel differently about it. But if “free speech” is the argument, he should be able to talk about anything he wants to. Right?
June 9th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I dont see how free speech applies to a graduation ceremony. The guy can say whatever he wants, but presumably he was “invited” to speak and knew his speech was going to be reviewed to make sure it met the goals. This is a memorable moment for the graduating class and if the speech did not enhance the experience, I see no reason to allow it to be included.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I can’t speak for the BA, but I would feel about the same either way: he has his right to be a nimrod in public, and I have my right to stay home and take a nap.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
In short, yes, so long as it isn’t a threat to national security, the speaker, those listening, and is not slander. (I think that’s the list, right?)
In long, hell yes. If we as a society do not allow unpopular and even insane ideas to be aired, then we once again fall short of our ideals as a free country. Yes, misogyny and racism no longer have any place in our society, but we cannot simply censor such ideas. Instead, let the public have their say against them. Let the people come out and say to someone espousing such sentiments, “That’s a stupid thing to say, and you’re stupid for saying it. Here’s why…” and so on.
Ideas like your examples will wither and die when exposed to free speech, and indeed keeping them behind closed doors may well be what allows such backwards notions to thrive. Look at Scientology; they keep their people sequestered from the real world and rush to keep their doctorines secret. Why? Because anyone seeing what they really believe will walk away quicker than you can say “e-meter.”
What I’ve said here is nothing new. It shocks and appals me to think how far we’ve come from “I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it.”
June 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I like the idea of standing with your back to the speaker as protest.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Many schools exercise editorial control over student speeches, usually to be sure that the speaker doesn’t say anything inappropriate. Further, many parents expect that the school will do so.
If a speaker says something filthy or racist or dishonest otherwise inappropriate, parents will ask, “How could the school allow him/her to say that at such a gathering?” In effect, a sanctioned speech at a school event is deemed to include content authorized by the school, even if not endorsed by the school.
In the case of Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), the US Supreme court ruled that public high school students do not have a First Amendment right to say whatever they want at a school function. (At issue was the discipline of a student who gave a nomination speech laced with lowbrow sexual innuendo.)
The majority in that case said: “The schools, as instruments of the state, may determine that the essential lessons of civil, mature conduct cannot be conveyed in a school that tolerates lewd, indecent, or offensive speech and conduct such as that indulged in by this confused boy.” (The opinion was by Chief Justice Burger, who really had a hang-up about sexual innuendo, as his opinion makes plain. The Chief also took the opportunity to take pot shots at George Carlin, belittling him as a “a self-styled ‘humorist’”. Fifteen years later, Carlin won the Lifetime Achievement Award in Comedy, suggesting that Carlin wasn’t the only person who thought he was pretty damn funny, and that on this issue, Chief Justice Burger was really in the minority. But I digress.)
Even Justice Stevens, the only DISSENTER in that case, said: “For I believe a school faculty must regulate the content as well as the style of student speech in carrying out its educational mission. … The fact that the speech may not have been offensive to his audience – or that he honestly believed that it would be inoffensive – does not mean that he had a constitutional right to deliver it. For the school not the student – must prescribe the rules of conduct in an educational institution.”
The point here is not that Phil is wrong in what he said in his remarks. Rather, the point is that the legal issues are not quite clear as we might like, and students (perhaps sadly, perhaps not) do not have the same degree of First Amendment rights as adults.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Obvioiusly everyone is going to have a different take on this. This quote from the story bothers me.
“The district, which includes part of Ottawa County near Holland in western Michigan, concluded that allowing him to read the speech would violate the constitutional separation of church and state.”
I think that’s the equivalent of saying the constitutional right to abortion, or the constitutional right to look at pr0n on public library computers. It’s an interpretation of what the constitution means when applied to an area outside the scope of what the document says.
This will probably cause the usual uproar, but, the “constitutional separation of church and state” is terminology that was introduced into the legal sphere by SCOTUS. A casual reading the First Amendment would not indicate there is any problem with what this kid wants to do.
The school is fearful of a federal lawsuit, so naturally they said what they did. They should have just said they won’t allow relgious messages in the speech. The true test wll come when a Muslim student wants to do something similar.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
@ Mark …
Unfortunately, it would be Just Like The ACLU to Take Opposing View-Points in Different Cases …
While it’s Pretty Obvious they ONLY do it to Maintain Moderation, it can be Quite Off-Putting at Times!
:-p
June 9th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Ok, this is going to sound weird (especially coming from a liberal), but bare with me: It really doesn’t help that the 1st Amendment is super vague when you really look at it. That’s why we rely more on the “intent” of the 1st, rather than the actual word-for-word definition of it. It opens with “Congress shall pass no law…” so… is it only a freedom of speech violation when there’s a law involved? How about this: the part about separating church and state comes before the part about freedom of speech. So what happens when the two collide? Is it ok to abridge someone’s freedom of speech in order to maintain the separation of church and state? Is letting someone talk about religion in a school considered “respecting an institution of religion?” and if so, is not letting other students of different religions talk about their religious beliefs as well considered “prohibiting” their religions?
I’ve posted about free speech and the reality of the 1st Amendment on other blogs and have gotten blasted because I point out that the language of the 1st Amendment itself doesn’t really grant “Freedom of Speech” as a constitutional right, but instead we ignore that and talk about the intent of it. Personally, it’s a topic that has me conflicted. I am a liberal, but… I’d be happier to know that there’s a law in place that specifically grants freedom of speech and outlines it’s restrictions (if any), rather than some guy on a bench saying “well… the intent of the 1st Amendment is…” That just seems like a slippery slope to me.
sorry if a little off-topic there
June 9th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I agree with the school here. There are two issues here. One is that students are a captive audience. They must listen. They cannot leave. What this, in essence, does is force students to listen to a religious sermon (if that is what it really was). Second, as others have said this is a school function with the speakers essentially invited to speak. The school has a responsibility to
That terminology was not introduced by SCOTUS, it was introduced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (although the latter referred to “seperation of religion and government”).
June 9th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
“That’s part of the essence of the First Amendment: people have the right to speech, and others have the right to protest. Don’t like what someone is saying? Then the answer is more speech, not less. Let the kid talk. But let others have their say as well.”
I wholeheartedly agree with you on the second part. But I’d caveat the first – I don’t really agree with protests that have the goal of preventing the speaker from speaking.
My personal experience of this happened at Berkeley in the ’90s. A student organization (debating society or speech society or something like that) invited a Holocaust denier to speak, and some students essentially barricaded the building in protest, preventing him from even going inside. The event was canceled.
I never really understood that. Instead of spending hours manning a barricade, spend the same time in the library researching the idiot’s claims. Then tear him apart in the Q&A. Or alternately, organize a no-show. You could make a powerful statement by having 10-20 people total show up for a lecture in a giant lecture hall on a university of 30,000 people.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Sorry, something happened to part of my text.
The school has a responsibility to make sure school-supported functions follow legal and constitutional requirements. The student has a right to say what he wants on his own time, but the school has no obligation to provide anyone with a forum with which to exercise that right. You have a right to say what you want, but the school likewise has a right to not provide you a place to say it. There is nothing stopping him from saying what he wants, as long as he finds his own place and time to say it. The school is not obligated to provide him with either.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
That’s nothing Phil, when Andy Card was going to give the commencement speech at UMass last year, the students and faculty booed him off the stage before he even got to the podium.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I agree with that, they are denying someone their right to free speech. Not providing someone with a forum for their speech is fine, but forcibly preventing someone from having access to a forum they have rightfully secured is not acceptable.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Josephine, the first amendment protects the right of free speech. It says nothing about opinions. Surely, majority opinion cannot be the arbiter of who is allowed to speak and who is silenced.
If the school requires prior approval of such speeches, then it seem to me they’d be within their rights to ban any speech that placed them in legal jeopardy. Delivery of an approved and aggressively evangelical speech by a student at an official school function would certainly expose school officials to legal action, as would a blatantly racist, or anti-Semitic, or sexist, or pro-drug speech if it was delivered after approval by the school.
If the school did not require prior approval, they might still be in jeopardy because the right of free speech is not absolute in such situations, i.e., where the speaker might logically be seen as expressing the opinions of a government-funded agency.
Clearly, no one has a right to use government-funded events to preach a sermon extolling the virtues of his or her personal faith.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Well I have to disagree with you phil.
First I would like to say that from the post I will assume it is a heavy religious speech. ( on the flip side if he simply thanks god or talks about how god helped him, I see no problem) What I am gathering is that is it more than a simple thank you or how god helped him. The speech sounds like it is more persuasive or talking about god in another light.
With that being said we have to remember it is in High School and High school is a captive audience of minors and a government entity. The main point is that it is a captive audience of minors by law they have to attend school. This means that the school district has more of an obligation to control what is being said since by law they have to be there. I would agree with you Phil if school was not mandatory. Students in high school and below have restricted rights. This means the Students freedom of speech is not the same as an adult.
I think it is good that they made the decision to reject his speech on religious grounds.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
You may be surprised by this, but my feeling is that he should be allowed to say what he wants to say.
I agree completely, even if as you say may be in “extremely poor taste”. Sometimes freedom of speech upsets, offends, challenges, and questions, but what is really important is that it is free.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I agree. If the guy is a religious zealot I’m sure lots of people wants to know. He has the right to say what he believes. He doesn’t speak for the state so it’s cool.
Who knows, it could be amusing.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
There is a column by Nat Hentoff in the February/March 2007 issue of Free Inquiry that talks about a near-identical case in Henderson, Nevada. Hentoff comes down on the position Phil does, and rightly I think (The op-ed column is titled “An Atheist for the Free *Personal* Exercise of Religion”).
Unfortunately, the ACLU apparently comes down against God-talk in graduation speeches consistently.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Hi Phil,
That’s Right!!! I may not agree with what the lad has to say but I’ll defend his right to say it!!! That’s why were in “this” country.
Another subject whadda you have in store for Lunar “X” this month? Ina day or two???
Allthebest Winslow
June 9th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I agree, let the kid speak. I hardly believe that a graduation ceremony is a “captive audience” in the sense that it is a mandatory school function. We didn’t even get our diplomas until after our ceremony in high school, just to ensure that no one goofed off once receiving it on stage. And some people seem to lean towards the belief that if what he says is not morally objectionable to the majority of the audience, only then is it okay. And I find that appalling. Does speech really have to conform to the social norms in order to be protected? Even if a graduation speaker were to go overboard and start with racial slurs and the like, he or she would be booed or shouted down, or walked out on, with no harm done. The school just wants to protect themselves against whiny parents who also have a skewed view of the First Amendment.
/rant
June 9th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
After reading the comments I’ve come to the conclusion that the school has the prerogative to censor the student. Beyond the legal posturing and precedent that clearly falls on the side of the school. (And of course the courts do make bad decisions sometimes that become precedent and therefore law) If a sermon was delivered than in fact an atheist should be given equal time.
This does not mean that a religious student couldn’t give credit to God (in which case Allah or Jehovah possibly should be on the sheepskin!) or even a small blurb about how important their religion was in their school years. (A bit of “magic feather” before a test can indeed pay great dividends!) But a sermon has nothing to do with the context of graduation. If a bit of religious metaphor was used like say commencement is like Jesus’ resurrection sure go with it (or any other mythological metaphor such as the two faces of Janus)
At my own commencement there was a minister there to give a blessing. A student in the class who was atheist did not take his cap off in respect which upset other students. This is probably the biggest reason of all to keep it out of the ceremony.
Other commenters made allusions to Nazis, as a bit of reductio ad absurdum. At my own college graduation the mixed race or black speaker went on a tirade about why racism is bad. This was not as bad as a pro-racist tirade but it was annoying because it was not the experience I or most of the students got out of our education experience. It was similar to a sermon in that you want to change people’s attitudes. It isn’t the proper time or place for that.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
BA, despite what most others have posted here, you are entirely correct. The student does have the right to express religious views. To curtail that both infringes on his rights for free speech and teaches the students that freedom of speech is only applies to *approved* speech.
Quite frankly, history shows that how Jefferson viewed separation of church and state is far different than is assumed today. The very Sunday after writing his letter to Danbury baptists, Jefferson attended the church service in the U.S. capitol building. There are other examples, but the main point is this: The writers of the Constitution did not want a Federally sanctioned denomination, in the same manner as Great Britain had the official Church of England. Jefferson and others had no problem with the church services at the capitol because, while they were strictly Christian, they were non-denominational.
Nowadays, thanks to a 20th Century interpretation of the 15th Amendment, the phrase “Congress shall make no law” as been interpreted as meaning government officials all the way down to the dogcatcher in Podunk, Mississippi. The general thrust now is that if a teacher so much as puts a bible on her desk, she is violating the 1st Amendment.
About ten to fifteen years ago there were a flurry of incidents where students 1st Amendment rights were infringed simply because they made some religious comment or statement. One of them was an elementary school student who found his Christmas drawing of Jesus in a manger banned from display in the school hall. School officials relented – but covered the image of Jesus. It became so bad that the Clinton administration issued guidelines to schools explaining there was a difference between officially sanctioned religious observances and student religious comments. You can read these guidelines at http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html
June 9th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Sure, it’s his right to free speech, and while IANAL and not even american, I do support the right of the audience to constantly drown out his babbling with booing and shouting.
At least, that’s what happened when the cardinal gave a speech at my uni about the requirement of religion at the university and how everything was better with god. It was followed by everone walking out in mid-speech, right past the security people who were smart enough to get out of the way.
I suggest a similar behaviour when this guy delivers his speech, after all, it’s your right not to listen to his inane ramblings, correct?
June 9th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Phil, here’s a possibly irrelevant nitpick:
It has always amused me that “drinking the Kool Aid” has entered the lexicon as a result of the Jonestown cult. Everyone who was around in those days gets the reference. But it wasn’t Kool Aid. Actually, it was another brand of powdered drink: Flavor Aid.
A serious reality-defender, such as yourself, should have all the facts regarding one of the most egregious examples of reality-denial in history.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
The fact that the speech in question was only two minutes long ought to be taken into account, as well as that this is a commencement ceremony, not a mandatory school assembly.
At my commencement, the salutatarian, a friend of mine, made a mistake and ejaculated “Oh God” as a profanity rather than a supplication.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Graduation ceremonies are not mandatory, and thus the students involved are voluntarily attending an event at which various speakers will be giving speeches reflecting their personal thoughts.
If a sermon were to be given by anyone representing the faculty or administation, then issues could be raised, but the student speakers, especially, are known by all present to be presenting their own views.
I may have stood with my back to such a speech, I may have even tried to raise a few boos to discourage the speaker, but there is no resonable way that one could interpret a valedictorian’s speech as coming from anyone other than the person speaking.
I attended the graduation of the class after my own, and the valedictorian chose to criticize a particular teacher’s teaching. She mentioned no names, but since only one guy taught AP Physics, the target was obvious. The school could not possibly have been regarded as agreeing with the student’s speech, as the gentleman in question was a senior faculty member.
Err on the side of allowing speech.
Even really vapid speech.
Looking back, I think that the band was actually required to attend, as we were to play all the music, Pomp and Circumstance and whatnot, but we sure as hell never listened to a bit of the ceremony.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Two points: 1) It’s a graduation. There won’t be a quiz later.
2) Even if the students (and band) have to attend to get their diplomas, no one can make them pay attention… the audience members can comment vocally, put their fingers in their ears and say “La la la la la”, or just zone out and go to their happy place.
I remember my public high school graduation had at least one religious speaker (a protestant minister, and maybe a rabbi), and I wondered about it at the time. Apparently the local clergy either rotated the job each year or chose one or two at random. (There were lots of them to choose from. It was a dry town, and as Ed Abbey used to say, any town with more churches than bars has got problems.) I don’t know if they still do that, or if it is even regarded as legal anymore.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:45 am
With the caveat that perhaps graduation ceremonies in US has a purpose to let people make free speeches, I would have to agree with TheBlackCat.
Graduation over here is to commemorate the passed time and effort, and to wish the students luck in their coming endeavors. It is not the time to make political speeches, and the schools has, and take, the responsibility to make the ceremonies joyous and conflict free. (As it would make the related parties troublesome otherwise.)
June 10th, 2008 at 5:05 am
Actually, about three or four years before I graduated, a student did make a wordless political statement. He accepted his diploma, shook the school superintendent’s hand, then turned his back to the auditorium, and mooned the crowd. And at my own graduation, I confess that after getting our diploma’s, my friends and I gave a running commentary of the proceedings. Think Mystery Science Theater 3000, except we predated that show by years.
I can think of a rather nasty speech a censored valedictorian could give, one in the same vein as Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” honorable men speech. It would stress that the school board is elected – and that the graduating class now has the power to vote.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Science Pundit-
Your post gives the impression that you’re proud about not letting someone speak…probably not the best way to forward discourse. All of you standing up and facing away would have been much more effective and civilized.
I agree with Phil on this post, but maintain that this type of post isn’t his strength.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Some of you left wing Constitutional “scholars” might be inclined to start with this website: http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
You may wish to peruse this particular section:
(Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
“The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens — but only from restriction by the Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, by state legislatures, too). There are plenty of other places where you could speak but where speech can and is suppressed. For example, freedom of speech can be and often is restricted in a work place, for example: employers can restrict your right to speak in the work place about politics, about religion, about legal issues, even about Desperate Housewives. The same restrictions that apply to the government do not apply to private persons, employers, or establishments. For another example, the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper lest it breech the freedom of the press. No newsstand, however, must carry every paper against its owners’ wishes.”
Another good portion of the site is: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html, which directly deals with religious issues. It points out something that should be obvious, well, at least for everyone except Liberals, for whom history began yesterday: “Jefferson did not have a hand in the authoring of the Constitution, nor of the 1st Amendment, but he was an outspoken proponent of the separation of church and state, going back to his time as a legislator in Virginia”
In other words, Jefferson didn’t participate, in the Constitutional Conventions, nor was he present, nor did he contribute, so his opinion of the Constitution is no different nor more important than anyone else. So why continue to quote a phrase that isn’t in the Constitution, by a man who didn’t participate in writing the Constitution, and wasn’t present at the Constitutional Conventions, and then attach some sort of importance to it?
Robert
June 10th, 2008 at 6:26 am
The Supreme Court has held that first amendment rights do not stop at the front door of a school, publicly funded or not.
In Tinker v. Ohio a school tried to suspend students who were wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam war.
The court overruled that ban saying that such “content-based discrimination” is unconstitutional.
I think the same principle applies here. If the school were to ban this person from giving a speech BECAUSE of its religious character that is regulating the speech based on its content and would fall under the Tinker standard for being unconstitutional.
Graduation is NOT mandatory, people don’t have to go if they feel that strongly. Frankly, I’ve had to sit through from speeches I thought were terrible, wrong, boring, or offensive, but I sat through them.
The funny thing is that I really don’t think this would be a huge problem if his speech was talking about “the human spirit…human strength…human inspiration.”
I agree with Phil that is in extremely poor taste and is a pretty bad judgment call by this student…but well…
The first amendment is there to protect speech that you hate, not speech that you love.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:43 am
EXACTLY! Every lefty argument I hear against religious speech is based on the “I’m offended and shouldn’t have to hear it” argument. As horrible as it seems to them, the First Amendment protects religious speech, it doesn’t prohibit it. That has been very clear over the centuries. Most people who like to throw around the Jefferson quote have never even read the infamous “letter” to the Danbury Church. I use quotes because there are several drafts and versions, and no one is quite sure exactly which one he actually sent! As for the Supreme Court: “Addressing the issue in 1985, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist lamented that “unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.” – http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html
In fact, Jefferson penned the letter as a political explanation to a constituent, not as some authoritative treatise on the Constitution. But like most things, liberals and lefties believe what they want to believe, and disregard the rest…
BTW, Jefferson was deeply offended that his political opponents were smearing him by accusing him of athiesm. And as far as being a “deist,” well to quote Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Robert
June 10th, 2008 at 7:02 am
The issue of Jefferson and Deism is an old one. Something we need to keep in mind is that Deists of the time were quick to look for “celebrity name” status. IIRC, Deists of that age claimed that Patrick Henry was one as well. This, Henry wrote, angered him – and shamed him that no one could look at his life and know that he was a Christian.
FWIW, Jefferson described himself as a Christian, not a Deist, and I think we should go by the man’s own word on the matter. Whether he was a non-denominational believer (denominationalism was rather strong in that era and a good many Christians found that odious) or one who saw Christianity as a philosophy gets into a thick historical discussion.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:29 am
After reading the article, I think that the school disctrict is over-reacting. They referred to a 2 minute talk using biblical references and not necessarily a sermon.
In general, I prefer that these types of things be not overly religious and non-political. (But usually they tend to be political and I see no one jumping to their feet defending the captive audience then). But, if someone earned their two minutes of the spot light, let them have it. I would agree that their must be some oversight to make sure that things are not too inappropriate (profanity, sexual content stuff not for G rated audiences in general). I think in this case, the school is overreacting (but I haven’t read the speech myself to know for sure).
Ten years later, I’d like to see how many even remember the speech.
And booing or preventing an invited speaker from speaking at such an event is shameful, I think. If you don’t like it, don’t listen. Turn your back if you like. In my opinion, deafening silence after the person speaks is a much more effective (and classy) tactic. Shouting them down is just one step away from mob violence.
The only thing I disagree with BA on in this post, is the role of the ACLU. I would be shocked (Shocked!) to see them take the side of the valedictorian in this case.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Some points:
1. Whether or not Jefferson, or anyone else, was or was not a Deist is of no relevance.
2. While it is important to consider what the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they created the document, our interpretation of the document’s meanings is just as valid as their interpretation. Our courts do not need to be in thrall to the supposed thoughts of long-dead politicians. They certainly would not be.
3. The question is not whether speech should be restricted because some find it offensive, or simply don’t want to hear it. The question in this case is whether or not a religious speech is permissible at a public school function. (And religious speech deserves no special protection.)
A separate, practical, consideration, as I’ve argued above, is the school’s vulnerability to legal action if it permits the speech. If the school has an established policy of prior speech approval, I believe it could defend banning the speech, or any speech it considers inappropriate. Likewise, students and their parents have the right to sue the school after such a banning. Perhaps, then, the question should be: Do schools have the right to enforce prior approval of graduation remarks?
4. Does the student have the right to speak those words? Yes. Does the school have the right to demand prior approval? I don’t know.
5. I’d add that if a student believes it is appropriate to deliver an evangelical sermon at a graduation society, then perhaps that student has failed to understand the nature of civil society.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:27 am
I appreciate that folks have opinions on legal questions, even that they have strong opinions. But I recommend that they at least do some homework before going public with them.
In the above replies, the number of errors pertaining to legal questions is staggering. These are ERRORS; they are mistakes or misstatments or distortions of fact or history or jurisprudence. They are not merely opinions with which one might disagree. These errors are not confined to any political stripe.
There is only one error I want to explicitly correct, and that is the name of the Tinker case. The case name is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, a case that was decided while I was attending grade school. In the Des Moines Independent Community School District. In IOWA, not in Ohio.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Others have made the point, but I will throw my two cents in:
The first amendment doesn’t guarantee you an audience for your speech and it doesn’t obligate anyone to provide it for you, including an agent of the government. Simply being invited to speak at a school function (or anywhere else) does not give one carte blanche over the content of that speech.
If his speech was a recitation of a shopping list, few would be arguing that the school didn’t have the right to tell him he couldn’t deliver it at a graduation ceremony. Likewise if it was racist, sexist, homophobic or vulgar.
They aren’t telling him he’s not allowed to say such things. They are telling him it is inappropriate for this particular venue. It is not an infringement of his rights.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:44 am
I agree that he has every right to say what he wishes, but I agree that it would be tacky. You never talk about religion and politics in mixed company, amirite?
June 10th, 2008 at 9:19 am
KC wrote:
Oh, that’s a fantastic idea! Heck, the way school boards have been trying to inflict creationism and other antiscience views on students lately, it would make an absolutely smashing topic for a valedictorian speech whether he had been censored or not.
And another good thing: It would be a great application of his/her education, showing that he/she not only had read the assignments on Shakespeare, Swift, and others, but had actually comprehended them and could use the same techniques. That’s the sort of thing that makes teachers proud.
So, if anyone knows a student getting to give a speech in the near future, now you’ve got a topic to suggest!
~David D.G.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Imagine the knots the religious right would be tying themselves in if the student in question happened to be of the Muslim faith, and wanted to talk about Allah….
June 10th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I think a lot of people confuse “Freedom of Speech” with the “Right to Say Whatever I Want, Whenever I Want”. Just because you have an opinion does not obligate anyone else to provide you with a soap box to express it from. High school graduation is clearly a school activity, and is a ceremony with an intended purpose. (Feel free to argue about what that purpose is…) It is entirely appropriate that the school regulate ALL content of their ceremony. If the student chose to stand outside of the graduation and express his opinions, it is reasonable to expect that he should be allowed to do so. However, if he accepts the invitation to step up to the microphone at the graduation ceremony, he must expect that what he says may be regulated. I think the student has a REPONSIBILITY to make a speech that the audience would find acceptable. He is being to speak for the benefit of the audience, not for his own. The ceremony “belongs” to the other students as much as it does for the speaker. The intent of the First Amendment was to insure that the Government could not stop individuals from expressing opinions that might be contrary to the Government’s position. It says the Government can’t stop them, it doesn’t say the Government has to give them a platform.
Note: I remember a few things from a long time ago when I was working on my graduation speech. There were four of us speaking, and we had pretty much free reign to talk about whatever we wanted to. The speeches were reviewed, but I don’t remember anyone having to make a whole lot of changes. And we even practiced a few times. Interestingly, the main concern of the rest of the student body was that the speeches not be boring or long! They weren’t. I didn’t talk about God, but I did manage to get in a reference to “Through the Looking Glass…” by Lewis Carroll. Yeah, it was a bit obscure.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I have to say that, although I am an atheist and hardened skeptic, I must support the right of the student to say what he wants in this case. The simple fact is, the speech is not being given while attending school. Graduation is a ceremony related to school, but it is not a teaching environment. A student giving a speech in this scenario is analogous to one running for class president and trying to woo the right by talking about how he’ll somehow get more faith in school. I’m opposed to getting the faith in school, but I have no right to tell the student he can’t talk about it. As long as the school doesn’t endorse what he says, I see no problem here. Although, since the ceremony is publicly funded, the question of endorsement is a little blurry. It’s a difficult question, but ultimately, you know what? People attending graduation ceremonies expect speakers to get up and say inane things. I recall vividly my own mind slipping into a daydream…
June 10th, 2008 at 11:05 am
“You may be surprised by this, but my feeling is that he should be allowed to say what he wants to say.”
Not surprised at all, like most rationalists I’ve ever met, you’re fair-minded enough to apply the first amendment equally to people you completely disagree with.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
We need to keep in mind that free speech, even in America, is not unrestricted. Though we’ve all heard the old saw “you don’t have the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater,” at it’s heart is the official, legal premise of free speech being restricted to an appropriate TIME, PLACE and MANNER. A student in a public school, at a school function has very limited rights of free speech. The Supreme Court has upheld rulings restricting free speech in and within the jurisdiction of a public school. Example: while in the real world you can print whatever you want in a newspaper (yeah, yeah, I know you can’t REALLY do that, but you get my point), in a high school newspaper, it is entirely legal for the administration to place limits on what could be printed.
When any free-speech issue is brought up, I always feel the need to bring up the standard of time, place and manner because, well, most people don’t know that standard exists and that there are, in fact, limits to the free-speech we enjoy.
I agree with Phil here that there is no harm in letting the kid say his piece, but the law gives the school the right to edit what he says or keep him from saying it if they so chose.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I’m not surprised by this at all. You’d be the world’s biggest hypocrite if you thought otherwise.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Wow. First of all, Phil is right in this matter of course. All of this talk about Constitutional law is pointless because none of us know what the student was planning to say. And how could any reasonable person assume that a student’s graduation speech is, in any way, the endorsed view of the school board and school district? The whole point of these speeches is to allow one or more of the members of the graduating class an opportunity to express some form of personal reflection.
The practice of invoking God at events like this certainly isn’t a new or radical departure from American tradition. In fact, the very opposite of that is true and it’s odd that this even needs to be stated. There is absolutely nothing (as far as any of us actually knows at this point) about this that reflects “extremely poor taste”. The simple act of invoking God in this way has been a routine feature of American society since the country’s founding. You don’t have to participate, agree, or believe with the sentiment if that is your choice. Obviously. And as I have already stated…within American tradition, this practice is neither new nor radical. The notion that this custom needs to be abolished however, is relatively new and radical in the United States. No matter what you or I believe in (or not believe in as the case may be); it’s hard to argue that point. There are rare times in which this approach (sweeping changes to tradition and culture) is appropriate and necessary. This however is not one of them.
It really boils down to what the content of the speech is. If it’s only two minutes, I seriously doubt that the “God” portion of it could be much more than “Thank you”. In these situations, that would after all be the American custom. If the federal government can set aside an entire day to “give thanks” then at the very least, this student should have the right to take two minutes to do so without interruption.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:01 am
The BadAstronomer wrote :
June 11th, 2008 at 5:07 am
The worst thing about censorship is [comment censored - ed.]
June 11th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Phil, I commend your even-handedness, but I think it misses an essential point.
Actually, the function of valedictorian speeches is to draw those students identified as “the best and the brightest” into active promotion of the established social order, and to present these co-opted youths as examples for emulation to those who aspire to loftier social positions within that order.
That’s fundamentally why school administrations try to control the content of these addresses. It’s a political question that illuminates the heart of the social function of educational institutions.
The plain truth is that a sea change in public opinion has led most school bureaucrats to recognize that religiously-focused presentations are counterproductive to their function.
It would seem that Mr. Grooters doesn’t quite grasp what his assigned role is in this ceremony. He also seems completely out of touch with his peers, too, so is incapable of offering any meaningful opposition to the administration’s use of this ceremony. Devoid of any real social import, I think this incident will soon be forgotten. If I were part of this graduating class, I would try to help organize my peers to elect our own speaking representative, demanding a spot on the rostrum.
Bureaucrats are notoriously slow in responding to political shifts, as witnessed by the incredibly dense administration of UMass Amherst who brought in Iraq War organizer Andrew Card as honoree and inspiration to their thoroughly unconvinced faculty and graduates last year. (Thanks for the link, “The Science Pundit”.) The ongoing decline of the hold of religious institutions on public opinion is a deep one, though, and hard to miss (see, e.g., “Southern Baptists in Decline” from USAToday: http://tinyurl.com/43te3v)
The fact that there is, at times, a seething undercurrent of opposition to the political thinking of these administrations among the gathered students is an inpiration to those of us who look to new generations for the energy, initiative, and creativity to revolutionize society and rebuild it on the basis of human solidarity.
Rather than focus on legalistic analysis or “just exactly what some late-18th century southern gentleman really thought,” I choose to examine these situations as indicators of existing social realities and as developments paving the road to the future.