Posted on 05/26/2005 6:52:38 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s
For example: "I think the two lines could be hurtful to other people and are insensitive," said Holton
That sentence says volumes about the reasoning of the principal.
As far as her claims as to what the student said, I need more than her [and the assistant's] word. Personal experience with their counterparts at my kid's high school showed me that they are little better than serial perjurers. It was appalling the things they lied about in order to avoid making decisions and dealing with parents.
Sorry, but as far as these people are concerned, they have no more credibility than the 18 year old.
That said, the kid needs to skip the lawsuit business and consider this a cheap lesson about dealing with bureaucrats. i.e. pick your battles & don't tilt at windmills. He'd better learn to roll with the punches or their types will grind him into dust eventually.
"I did rehearse it without the lines (in question), but I never said I wasn't going to read it," Stoklasa said.First rule of stealing the show: never reveal your improv at the dress rehersal
The principal further said she had no problem with some of Stoklasa's other humorous lines, such as, "Accept that some days you're the dog and some days you're the fire hydrant."
"To me that's humor," Holton said.
Great role model there: she objects to dry humour amf irony, but likes toilet jokes
Have I answered your question?
IF anything, the article reinforces my opinion. Principals DO have the legal right to edit speeches given at graduation. It is common practice, and yes, even to hold back a diploma. The student is legally entitled to receive the diploma - but they do not have to get it at graduation.
And a big part of the problem - this kid chose the wrong battle to fight.
Firstly, it's very much a case of "he said, she said."
Secondly, even the school officials admit that the agreement had only to do with whether or not the student could give the speech--no one claims that receiving the diploma was a condition of the student's conformance to the terms of the agreement. Therefore, the officials were wrong to withold the diploma, even temporarily. As I said, two wrongs don't make a right.
Thirdly, the student should comply with his agreements. If he thought the conditions were unfair or wrong, he should have fought against the situation in an honorable manner, and not by making false promises.
Fourthly, the administration was within its rights to impose the stated conditions.
Fifthly, I strongly disagree that the student's comments were offensive, insensitive or reasonably viewed as inappropriate. Nevertheless, that's not my call.
Even though that was a much more informative article it did not change my opinion. If the whole school system, and society in general, weren't so goosey about being PC none of this would have happened. The kids speech was fine as it was. If anyone objected it would have been the kid who suffered, not the school district, the school, or the principal. The inability to accept criticism of any kind validates, in my mind, my original comment that to be afraid of such criticism validates it.
Of course, the kid and his parents over reacted, too. His not getting his diploma that night, especially after he was a key speaker, would have probably gone unnoticed by everyone else. He was the one that made a big deal of that, showing the he and his parents are immature.
The reason for PC in the first place is to make us all hesitant, if not afraid, to voice any opinions expressing value or discrimination of choice. This conditions us to the power of the state and makes us afraid to oppose it.
Seems to me the ACLU is in a pickle here. You would think they would be supporting the PC crowd rather than fighting the school systems who spout the same line as they do.
Typical teenager--knows it all and wants to do it his way. Very immature, and not very good jokes.
The principal had the right to vet his speech--after all it is a school graduation, but should/could have just told him it wasn't funny and was in bad taste--in fact, immature. None of these people can be up front and adult about anything. They have to go on about insensivitivity, people's feelings, etc.
Still, the principal had the right to vet the speech, but showed her own immaturity in keeping the diploma back--she cut off the mike and really caused an incident.
The ACLU and the libs are to blame for messing up the culture. We have a bunch of awful, wimpy, PC, so-called educators who are trying to make "sensitive citizens of the world" instead of well informed adult citizens of the US, capable of analysing what is going on. The kids are mostly immature with a tender ego that has to be stroked or they pout and get a lawyer. They all want cars, clothes, and a promise of nothing ever harming them or going wrong with their lives.
vaudine
We've got another word for arrogant little sh!ts like him where I come from...
As someone that spoke at our graduation ceremonies, I'd have to say I think the principal was right. Sure it was this guy's graduation and he should be able to say what he wanted, BUT, it was also the graduation of a lot of other students. Students that had to work hard to be able to graduate and to denigrate and equate their education to being merely worthy of McDonald's employment may not have struck the other student's and their families as funny.
From your link
Stoklasa and his mother, Gale Stoklasa, made an appointment to meet at 8:30 a.m. today, and they'll be represented by American Civil Liberties Union attorney Melody Fowler-Green.Sure didn't take them long. Says it all. jmho
Probably depends on who gets to them first as to who they represent.
I wonder if this guy would have made the same crass comments had he graduated from homeschooling instead of a public school. I'm sure if that had been the case his mother would have been pleased to have her time, effort, hard work thought of as being worthy of nothing better than working at McDonald's.
You got that right!
I get so tired of government schools blowing things out of proportion. From the lines reprinted here, the kid was awfully complimentary to the school after a mild, silly joke. But really, "withholding the diploma" is a meaningless gesture. They can hold on to the piece of paper as long as they want. Any employer or college that asks for his transcripts will see that he is a graduate, and a valdictorian. They simply can't "un-graduate" him. He's legally done with high school, and there is nothing they can do about it. I don't know about you, but I have no idea where my HS diploma is, and don't recall ever showing it to anybody for any reason from the day I got it. The kid should apologize for breaking his agreement, apologize for making the silly agreement, and tell them to keep the diploma. And he should try to keep his sense of humor.
Such a strong reaction kind of.. shows Eagleville's bare asses. It really writes "we suck and we know it" all over their story.
Isn't she the coach in porkie's movies?
Both parties are a bunch of idiotic maroons here.
I don't care about the circumstances of the stupid speach. If my child earned a diploma, it better not be withheld.
I gave a speech at graduation and was told in no uncertain terms that I would be yanked if I varied one iota from the speech. Perfectly reasonable policy.
Hey I agree, both sides are at fault here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.