Cut Off During Valedictorian Speech

[crossfire]

That is a good story, but I can't see any similarity between this story and that whining kid who was cheesed off he wasn't allowed to improvise his speech. First, that obviously wasn't your school's official policy. That was an incompetent librarian. You didn't throw a temper tantrum and pointlessly start hollering at everyone about your constitutional rights, you took reasonable and well considered steps to achieve your objective. You didn't rail against the imposition of authority in general, you raised the issue with more competent and powerful authority figures (another librarian, your teacher, your parents and the principle).

Actually that was just the beginning--it turned out to be pressure coming from high levels of administration to purposely dumb the students down that lasted for several years. (I can start a thread on it if you are interested. I have to say that the response to this authoritarian pressure by the students and the teachers was nothing short of remarkable!)

The differences go on and on. I think you're inflating this way out of proportion. The a school had a rule that speakers had to stay on script or their mic would be cut off. The speaker knew about the rule and went off script. His mic was cut off.

I've had to rise up against this sort of thing as a young child before, so I am quite passionate about this. I don't think I'm inflating this.

We don't know why he wanted to go off script, or why the rule is in place, although I expect it's a very boring and benign reason that has nothing to do with suppressing free speech.

I disagree with your assessment. I think the reasons are self-evident.

I think it's a stupid rule, as I said earlier, but if the kid wanted a stupid rule changed, he did a very poor job of tackling the problem.

Well since he had only been confronted with the stupid rule the day before, and he was graduating the next day, his time was very short where he could act.

Would you feel as passionate about this if you discovered he wanted to lead a Christian prayer, discussed it with the staff, they told him he couldn't (because they're being sued for promoting a specific religion) and THAT was the reason for his rant?

No. I'm specifically going after the stupid, unintelligent, ipse dixit rule. That is my focus.

 

[crossfire]

Or he pulled out a prayer mat and began making prostrations toward Mecca? Or began singing "Onward Christian Soldiers?" Or asked his girlfriend to marry him and began talking about how they met, what their plans were, recounting the first time they had sex? Or if he pulled out a gun, pointed it at a teacher, and threatened to shoot unless the school agrees to stop it's zero-tolerance policy?

Do people think that going off-script is really not that big of a deal?

The point is, he didn't say any of these things. He started talking about being threatened with having his mic cut, and then went on about free speech after his mic was cut.

 

[Alceste]

What a hero and defender of free speech this girl was! Fight the powers that be!!

No doubt she thought that's exactly what she was doing.

 

[Alceste]

Big difference.

No kidding. Isn't this the ceremony where they have to individually name a couple hundred students and have each of them walk across a stage one at a time, shake a hand and grab their diploma? I can't see any reason they might want to keep things ticking along on schedule and according plan. :sarcastic

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No kidding. Isn't this the ceremony where they have to individually name a couple hundred students and have each of them walk across a stage one at a time, shake a hand and grab their diploma? I can't see any reason they might want to keep things ticking along on schedule and according plan. :sarcastic

Seems like the perfect time to let a teenager start spouting off whatever comes to their mind. It's not like they get that opportunity every other day of their lives or anything.

 

[Alceste]

Actually that was just the beginning--it turned out to be pressure coming from high levels of administration to purposely dumb the students down that lasted for several years. (I can start a thread on it if you are interested. I have to say that the response to this authoritarian pressure by the students and the teachers was nothing short of remarkable!)


I've had to rise up against this sort of thing as a young child before, so I am quite passionate about this. I don't think I'm inflating this.


I disagree with your assessment. I think the reasons are self-evident.

Well since he had only been confronted with the stupid rule the day before, and he was graduating the next day, his time was very short where he could act.


No. I'm specifically going after the stupid, unintelligent, ipse dixit rule. That is my focus.

So you would be totally OK with the student leading the audience in a Christian prayer at an ostensibly secular high school? Despite the fact the school was being sued and had put a stop to school prayer on the advice of a lawyer?

If that had happened at my Grad I would have been pretty peeved, and I would not have been the only one.

 

[Alceste]

Seems like the perfect time to let a teenager start spouting off whatever comes to their mind. It's not like they get that opportunity every other day of their lives or anything.

I have had to use the cane before with people who ramble too much between songs. Officially, it's "three songs or fifteen minutes - whichever is shorter", and I watch the clock. It's my role to make sure everybody gets their turn on stage before the audience drifts away. There are other rules too, like "no recorded accompaniment". Nobody is there to watch karaoke. There's always somebody who takes it upon themselves to rage about how stupid the rules are, but I don't really care. If they can't find a competent guitar or piano player to back them at an open mic, that's their problem.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I have had to use the cane before with people who ramble too much between songs. Officially, it's "three songs or fifteen minutes - whichever is shorter", and I watch the clock. It's my role to make sure everybody gets their turn on stage before the audience drifts away. There are other rules too, like "no recorded accompaniment". Nobody is there to watch karaoke. There's always somebody who takes it upon themselves to rage about how stupid the rules are, but I don't really care. If they can't find a competent guitar or piano player to back them at an open mic, that's their problem.

What do I need to do to get you to use that cane on me?

 

[crossfire]

So you would be totally OK with the student leading the audience in a Christian prayer at an ostensibly secular high school? Despite the fact the school was being sued and had put a stop to school prayer on the advice of a lawyer?

I said no, I would not be as passionate about it if it was about leading a prayer at school.
Here the quote of your question to me:

Would you feel as passionate about this if you discovered he wanted to lead a Christian prayer, discussed it with the staff, they told him he couldn't (because they're being sued for promoting a specific religion) and THAT was the reason for his rant?

My answer was no. My focus is entirely on the stupid rule. If he would have started trying to lead a prayer, I would have supported the school cutting his mic. He's giving a speech, not leading a prayer!

If that had happened at my Grad I would have been pretty peeved, and I would not have been the only one.

In actuality, that is not what happened!
Can we get back to reality now?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Can we get back to reality now?

The reality where some bratty kid didn't think the rules should apply to him and then had a public temper tantrum under the ridiculous guise of "free speech?" Yeah, we've been here the whole time. Maybe it's time to join us in reality.

 

[crossfire]

The reality where some bratty kid didn't think the rules should apply to him and then had a public temper tantrum under the ridiculous guise of "free speech?" Yeah, we've been here the whole time. Maybe it's time to join us in reality.

I believe in children, and the amazing things they can be capable of if you let them. I've seen it all too often to dismiss it outright.

Do you believe in children?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I believe in children, and the amazing things they can be capable of if you let them. I've seen it all too often to dismiss it outright.

Do you believe in children?

I really love chocolate. I believe it's one of the most satisfying foods you can eat.

Do you believe in chocolate?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I believe in children, and the amazing things they can be capable of if you let them. I've seen it all too often to dismiss it outright.

Do you believe in children?

I teach them every day. I also raise them. I have two grown children and two teenaged children. I have taught children and young adults for close to 25 years. I too see the amazing things they can be capable of if you let them.

What does this have to do with cutting off a valedictorian's mic when he deviated from the event agenda?

 

[crossfire]

I teach them every day. I also raise them. I have two grown children and two teenaged children. I have taught children and young adults for close to 25 years. I too see the amazing things they can be capable of if you let them.

What does this have to do with cutting off a valedictorian's mic when he deviated from the event agenda?

This ispe dixit rule/argument everyone keeps tossing around certainly seems to be aimed at preventing kids from being amazing.

Definition of amazing:

Causing great surprise or wonder; astonishing.
Startlingly impressive.

​

How can you be startlingly impressive when there is no room to be startling?

 

[dust1n]

How was his censored speech about separation of church and state?

From your local story:

"He was one of the most quiet and softspoken students of the Joshua High School graduating class, and what the valedictorian wasn't allowed to say at commencement exercises is making national news.

“Most people have never ever heard me speak much less see me smile,” said Remington Reimer, as he addressed the large crowd gathered Thursday at Owl Stadium.

And then, the Burleson resident began what would have appeared to have been a traditional graduation speech – thanking his parents and naming special teachers that have helped him along the way and telling the crowd how proud he was of his class and how close they all were.

He discussed perseverance in life, and told fellow graduates its the finish that matters. He then told a story about a runner who finished a race with a broken leg. He added that, years from now, it wouldn't matter that he was valedictorian or first in his class but, rather, that he and his classmates finished the race and finished well.

Nice words. Nice kid. Another graduation day in America.

Then Reimer discussed his faith and thanked God for “sending His only son to die for me and the rest of the world.”

Reimer, who has secured an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy, talked about free speech and the U.S. Constitution and how that “yesterday, I was threatened with having the mic turned off and...”

And then the mic was turned off.

...

But according to another eyewitness source who posted on Burleson Star's Facebook the situation stemmed from Reimer being told not to mention freedom of speech or religion. But that source said the graduation ceremony closed in prayer."

I know, because I went through basically the same controversy at my own high school.

 

[dust1n]

I can continue on with more personal stories about school administration trying to use their authority to dumb down students, and what the students did to counteract this, if anyone is interested in hearing them. I apologize if this constitutes a derail, but I feel that it is relevant in that I consider it to be the duty of students to hold authorities over them to provide rational explanations and justifications for rules, so that students develop understanding of why we have rules in place, and not to allow authorities to declare you to be unintelligent without evidence, such as test results.

I'm sure you can continue, but since it is actually irrelevant, there would be no need to. What your librarian did is in no way associated with the topic.

 

[Alceste]

I said no, I would not be as passionate about it if it was about leading a prayer at school.
Here the quote of your question to me:

My answer was no. My focus is entirely on the stupid rule. If he would have started trying to lead a prayer, I would have supported the school cutting his mic. He's giving a speech, not leading a prayer!


In actuality, that is not what happened!
Can we get back to reality now?

What actually happened was that the school told all the speakers their policy was to cut off the mic if the speaker went off script, then they enforced their policy when one of the speakers went off script. That sounds really boring to me, and I'm as much of an anarchist as the next person.

If there's anything more to the story, we don't know what it is. For example, we don't know why the kid was so hell bent on deviating from his own speech - one that he wrote himself, that was already given the thumbs up by the school administrators. My best guess is that he wanted to lead the audience in a prayer, hence lumping religious freedom and freedom of speech together with some biblical crap in his rant after the mic was cut off, rather than only free speech. What's your best guess?

 

[dust1n]

1. You've no idea if that was the only instigating factor, you only have one newspaper article. An article which does not give the entire history of this school, its administration, the way students and family feel about administration policies.
2. The fact that he received such a rousing and supportive response from the audience (parents were there as well) is a sign that there is more going on with administrative policies than meets the eye.
3. Even if his only motivation was "that he was told he couldn't" do it, in my mind that's motivation enough. Over the years I've been accused of being a rabble rouser myself, a few times. Someone telling me they're going to cut off my mic if I deviate from a preapproved script would be reason enough to do exactly what he did. I've lived over 1/2 a century and still encourage rabble-rousing in my kids. I want them to always be respectful, but there are times when rules are meant to be broken. People will belittle you for standing up to authority, but sometimes that is what must be done. If this young man did nothing else, he gave the people in his community something to consider in their school system, something to question and hopefully reason to change policies.

I am truly thankful for people (of all ages) who stand up to authority. We live in a world where standing up to authority is necessary to move humanity forward. And the sooner our young people learn to take a stand on principal, the better off we will all be.

He was also putting the school district in great financial liability. Remember, it wouldn't be him that has to fight the ACLU and cover court fees; that falls on the school district, thus the taxpayers. It's the school administration's responsibility to not get sued, especially on behalf of a kid who himself won't be liable for the lawsuit.

 

[dust1n]

I agree. There must be some sort of mechanism to keep authorities rational. "Because I said so" (logical non sequitur--taking license to dismiss examination of rule without consideration) does not cut the muster when it comes to rationality and logic. Rather, I find this practice to be anti-logical, (if that is a word,) or illogical at the very least.

I just learned a new word which describe this, ispe dixit.

Like the rationale of not getting the school district sued on behalf of one kid to express his religious martyrdom at everyone's graduation?

 

[Alceste]

I believe in children, and the amazing things they can be capable of if you let them. I've seen it all too often to dismiss it outright.

Do you believe in children?

I believe that if you give a child a microphone and they're been indoctrinated with some twisted political / religious theocratic fusion ideology, they're probably going to insist on praying about something as a misguided form of political activism. Both bad religion and bad politics.