Was valedictorian talking about God? Or preaching?

Again, not a crime story, but an interesting court case from the Las Vegas area. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from Brittany McComb, whose valedictorian speech in 2006 was cut off because she deviated from a school-approved text and started talking about God and the crucifixion. McComb argued that her free-speech rights were infringed upon.

The public school, however, argued that, because they were giving her a state-sponsored forum, her speech couldn't be used to promote religion. And they said her speech was a form of proselytizing. (Here's an older story about the case, with more detail.)

Comments

[G]

Never give a bible thumper an open mic.....they can't help themselves.

[c8h10n4o2]

And if you're living in Vegas, one way or another your education was paid for by coked-out hookers giving some married guy anal while a sheep cowers in the corner. God ain't listening to y'all.

[fsdjka]

I'm glad the supreme court has some sense. It's horrible that instead of being remembered as someone who worked hard, she'll be remembered as someone who proselytized, and then blew it out of proportion for personal gain.
And trust me, I know the family...It is for personal gain.

[KC Cicero]

This was clearly not just thanking God for helping her study hard.

If she wanted to pay for an ad in the paper urging everyone to become Baptists, that's OK. As would be such a passing reference as above. But she knew full well that she was preaching her own gospel -- and the students and parents who do not agree should not have to sit through her little church lady routine at a PUBLIC school.

Her talk might be perfectly appropriate at a private religious school. But the tax dollars of others shold not be used to provide her with a tent for her revival routine and a captive audience.

[Man in a Mission]

I'm going to disagree with this case. The school should not be able to censor voluntary speech, any more than they can stop a student from leading a prayer at a school event. There is a difference between the school sanctioning and sponsoring religious speech or acts, and the school not censoring a religious student who is non-disruptively expressing religious beliefs.

[Keith G. in P.V.]

OK, MiaM. I'll agree with you as long as I and every other nutcase with some whacked out religious beliefs gets to present our religious views. Graduation ceremonies may take 84 hours, however.

[Man in a Mission]

Keith G. in P.V. -

So long as they have the discretion because of some other valid reason to be giving a speech, I'm fine with that. In this case, the valedictorian is permitted to make a speech. The school can set out guidelines on what is or is not permissible in that speech so long as those guidelines don't stifle a student's previously established right to engage in non-disruptive religious speech. The article notes that McComb deviated from the approved text of her speech, but doesn't detail what guidance she was given for the speech or what restrictions were in place.

This is not a case of allowing anyone and everyone to make a speech, but rather, as the student with the highest grade-point average in her class, she earned the opportunity to make a speech to her fellow graduates and the attendees of the graduation ceremony. I just don't see any reasonable basis for restricting this girl's speech, even if one doesn't like the message. I think the school would have been on more solid ground if the reason was she went over her time-limit, or if there was some stronger basis for restricting the speech besides content. I would argue the same if it were an atheist using the platform to state how humanism and self-reliance were responsible for that student's success and worldview (including exhortation to others to follow his model to success/personal living), or an adherent of another religion were to describe the tenets of his or her faith and how the role religion played in one's life led to that person's success.

At my university graduation we had to sit through a 2 1/2 keynote hour speech by the chair of the Language department on the evolution of 'bon mots' and aphorisms as a speech form, after all. (*shudders at the memory*)

And if I have to listen to one more speech on how commencement is not an end but a beginning . . .

[parkay]

Sorry, leftist activists, but the platform belonged to valendictorian, not the school, since she earned it through her diligent academic efforts, and with it the right to exercise her free speech and free exercise of religion.
A valedictory speech is not the enactment of a law establishing a religion, nor is a student's voice the promotion of religion by a government.
These leftist, activist judges are absolutely wrong.

[ME]

I agree with the school 100%. PUBLIC schools DO indeed have the right and duty to allow or not allow certain types of speech. For all of you that say the school is wrong, has no right to "censor" her, etc., I ask you this, "What if she gave her speech and then started to say something like all ni**ers and fa**ots that are here today should be executed?" Would you still claim "free speech" then? No? Then you are a typical, fundy HYPOCRITE. This student is typical of your christo-fascist. They want to force everyone to believe as they do, they want to scream and cry "persecution". Yet, I guarantee that if this were a Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist student giving a detailed, proselytizing message, then they would sing a different tune and want that student silenced. To these christo-fascists, they do not want free speech; they want it to be only their speech. Now, if this student wanted to simply thank god and jesus and leave it at that, then perfect. I would support that. However, she purposefully and deceitfully agreed (yes, she agreed) to one speech and she gave another. This makes her a typical, lying fundy. Also, since the SCHOOL sanctioned the platform, it sanctioned one version of the speech, and it sanctioned her giving it, then YES it would have been a STATE sanctioned promotion of one religion over another had it approved the original speech. It has nothing to do with "activist" or "leftist" judges. I would feel the same if this person wanted to proselytize Islam, Hinduism, Atheism, Witchcraft, Odinism, Taoism, or any other "-ism". Wake up you hypochristians, not all of us are christian and this is NOT a christian country. Comments: xthetruth1@aol.com

[Invisible sky dude]

Where's my royalty check?

[kybo61]

She did NOT have the right to say what she wished. Her speech had to be vetted by the school BEFORE she gave it. Her first draft was rejected, and she was advised that if she tried to depart from the approved version, the mic operator would shut her off -- and he did. You may read the Appeals Court proceedings in their entirety, along with the edited portion of her speech here.