Posted on 06/19/2006 1:33:47 PM PDT by BradtotheBone
She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but Brittany McComb was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart.
But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her -- Christ -- her microphone went dead.
Advertisement
The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.
However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.
They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.
Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks. It's standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly.
School officials removed from McComb's speech some biblical references and the only reference to Christ.
But even though administrators warned McComb that her speech would get cut short if she deviated from the language approved by the school, she said it all boiled down to her fundamental right to free speech.
That's why, for what she said was the first time in her life, the valedictorian who graduated with a 4.7 GPA rebelled against authority.
"I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech," McComb said. "God's the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior."
In the 750-word unedited version of McComb's speech, she made two references to the lord, nine mentions of God and one mention of Christ.
In the version approved by school officials, six of those words were omitted along with two biblical references. Also deleted from her speech was a reference to God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciated death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven.
Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada, had read the unedited version of McComb's speech and said district officials did the right thing by cutting McComb's speech short because her commentary promoted religion.
"There should be no controversy here," Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."
Lichtenstein said that position was supported by two decisions by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2000 and 2003.
Both cases involved graduation ceremonies and religious speeches given by commencement speakers. In the 2003 case, Lichtenstein said, the plaintiff even petitioned the Supreme Court to have the decision reversed, but the request was denied.
In 2003, the Clark County School Board amended district regulations on religious free speech, prohibiting district officials from organizing a prayer at graduation or selecting speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech or a prayer.
The remainder of the amendment allows for religious expression during school ceremonies.
Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and, therefore, may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content," it states.
"To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech is not school sponsored."
District legal counsel Bill Hoffman said the regulation allows students to talk about religion, but speeches can't cross into the realm of preaching.
"We review the speeches and tell them they may not proselytize," Hoffman said. "We encourage people to talk about religion and the impact on their lives. But when that discussion crosses over to become proselytizing, then we to tell students they can't do that."
McComb, who will study journalism at Biola University, a private Christian school in La Mirada, Calif., doesn't believe she was preaching. She said although some people might not like the message of her speech, it was just that, her speech.
"People aren't stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn't advocating my ideas," McComb said. "Those are my opinions.
"It's what I believe."
So much for the 1st Amendment if you are Christian I guess. I thought it was HER speech to give. Guess not.
No one is safe, then. This is how freedom ends.
PING
They do that with TV and radio editorials all the time. Everyone understands.
you mean the ACLU wont advocate for Christians??
Only against us huh... Big surprise!
Wow, I just noticed it but I have those same three crosses in my house leading up the stair-well. (See pic at link).
I'm guessing the microphone wouldn't be cut off if the student stood there declaring herself homosexual and praising all the virtues of secular humanism.
This ACLU is a trip. She can`t talk, but these psycho Professors can, and do it everyday. Who was that Professor last week who was bashing everything about the white race, the US, and bashing Jews? I didn`t see the ACLU pulling no plug on that guy.
This has gotten truly bizzare. You have school districts believing it violates the US Constitution for an individual student speaker to make reference to their own religious beliefs. That just cannot be true, if it were we are living in China now, not the USA. And someone must stop schools from pulling the plug on individual comments about Christ or any other religion. IMHO the federal government ought to investigate this as a civil rights violation.
Luckily, the Commissars of Free Speech were there to protect everyone from this dangerous counterrevolutionary. Uncontrollable theism might have broken out! (/sarcasm off)
If the LIEberal DUmocrats are for "separation of church & state", then why are their rallies ALWAYS held at a black church?
I do disagree with Miss McComb's statement "People aren't stupid". Examples to support my argument would be Allen Lichtenstein and Bill Hoffman.
Blimy! I didn't expect the Secular Inquisition!
If this was not so sad it would be funny. Everything the Leftist CLAIM is why they hate "Religious Right" does is only actually being done BY them to any person of faith they can get their hands on. The rabid hypocrisy on the part of the Political Left here is stunning
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Wanna bet that if a Muslim had been the valedictorian,"Praise to Allah!" wouldn't have been questioned???
"In 2003, the Clark County School Board amended district regulations on religious free speech, prohibiting district officials from organizing a prayer at graduation or selecting speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech or a prayer. The remainder of the amendment allows for religious expression during school ceremonies."
This sounds like a lawsuit for breaking that regulation. The speaker was the valedictorian. Editing her speech for religious references would be exactly what the law does not allow--content-based government regulation.
The ACLU isn't about defending Christians' rights. The ACLU is all about defunding the taxpayer. This group will exploit whatever public treasury looks "ripe for picking."
A little research will show how the ACLU's roots are firmly planted in communism.
A vigorous first amendment for all, Muslims, Christians, Jews and secularists alike.
Did not know about any of those except defending Rush's right to privacy... How long ago was it that they advocated for all the Christians you mentioned?? Seems to me that every time I have heard a reference to the ACLU Since GWB has been in office, it's been on the opposite side of Christians, and many issues similar to ones you mentioned.
Here is a suggested alternate version:
"....and lastly, I would like to thank the most important person in my life. However, the school board has determined that you should not be allowed to hear me thank the most important influence in my life.....
....Also, I would like to recognize the person is most responsible for me attaining the honor of Valedictorian of my class. Again, the school board has determined that you should not be allowed to hear me thank the most important influence in my life.
So, I will tell you who is not the most important influence in my education. That is the school board. They are tasked with teaching us to reason, to think objectivley, to seek knowledge, to learn.
Yet, when we reach a reasoned conclusion, they deny us the right to tell you what that conclusion is;
When we think objectively and examine the facts, they refuse to let us tell you what those facts are;
When we gain knowledge and wisdom, they show intolerance of the insights we have gained;
What have we learned?
They are not interested in reason, objectivity, knowledge and learning. They are interested only in THEIR conclusions, THEIR dogma, THEIR version of the facts and keeping our mind closed to the greatest source of knowledge known to mankind.
Happily, I can tell you my education will not end here today but will continue. Sadly, those who seek to teach us have ceased to learn.
Thank you.
If she were a muzzie, they would be burning down the branch of the ACLU right now, the school district scumbags would be issuing apologies left and right and "Foolhills" would be erecting a Mosque on school grounds within the month.
The sheer hypocrisy of the schools continues on unabated.
"The myth that the ACLU is anti Christian was started by Televangelists"
Total horsecrap.
Revealing FACTS on the ACLU
from its own writings
by Diane Dew
Ever notice how the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) seems to take on only cases that are anti-Christian - pro-sodomy, pro-abortion, anti-family, pro-pornography, pro-prostitution, pro-euthanasia, pro-homosexual, pro-infanticide, pro-crime, pro-humanism, anti-God -- and, except for atheism, anti-religion?
It calls itself the American Civil Liberties Union, but the ACLU is not American; it is uncivil (to the unborn, which are shredded mercilessly to pieces without anesthetic); and it knows nothing of true liberty, which can only be found in Jesus Christ, when one is set free from the bondage of all the SIN this evil organization PROMOTES!
Stated Goals
The ACLU's founder, Roger Baldwin, stated: "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal." (Source: Trial and Error, by Geo. Grant)
The ACLU is destructive to the fabric of our society. Christians must recognize Satan as the source - the instigator - when the end results of an organization's efforts are only "to kill, to steal, and to destroy." All we need to is examine the (rotten) fruit.
Following are some of the stated goals of the ACLU, from its own published Policy Issues:
the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211);
the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4);
the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210);
the promotion of homosexuality (Policy 264);
the opposition of rating of music and movies (Policy 18);
opposition against parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262);
opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263);
opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262);
opposition of parental choice in children's education (Policy 80)
-- not to mention the defense and promotion of euthanasia, polygamy, government control of church institutions, gun control, tax-funded abortion, birth limitation, etc. (Policies 263, 133, 402, 47, 261, 323, 271, 91, 85).
Following is a case in point (from David Barton's "America: To Pray or Not to Pray").
In 1988, California was considering adopting legislation on sex education for public schools requiring that course material and
instruction should stress that monogamous heterosexual intercourse within marriage is a traditional American value.
The Senator promoting the bill received a letter of protest from the ACLU dated April 18, 1988 stating:
"It is our position that monogamous, heterosexual intercourse within marriage
as a traditional American value is an unconstitutional establishment of religious
doctrine in public schools.... We believe [this bill] violates the First Amendment."
Truth is, liberals are unwilling to simply let others be, but rather seek to impose their UNgodliness upon Christians. It is a mission to
them and other atheists to pervert the freedoms of others. The ACLU does not run to the defense of those who are harmed; it aggressively
seeks out opportunities to corrupt pure freedoms.
Public schools are so screwed up these days, it's a wonder anyone comes out of them having learned anything useful. If I had little ones, they'd be home schooled.
I have one little guy and I wish I could homeschool him. Unfortunately his "mother" (legal not blood), has seen that possibility to an end.
If so, then can we agree that the SCOTUS has held in Tinker v De Moines that school officials can not censor speech absent a compelling interest to maintain order?
Can we then agree that mentioning God and ones faith at a graduation ceremony on a personal level does not reflect the states views at all?
And finally can we agree that more speech is better than less speech?
If we can agree on all of that, then we have no issues to debate.
You familiar with armadillos and the center line of Texas roads?
They get run over?
Choose a side, any side. Hopefully the constitutional one though.
Already posted and discussed to death:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652034/posts (428 posts)
"If Allah and Mohammad were substituted for God and Jesus in her sermon, you would be outraged...Be careful what you wish for."
I highly doubt it. I would expect a Muslim to praise Allah. If this were the case, anyway, I'm sure the school leadership would have applauded.
It's only the mention of Jesus Christ that drives the christophobic left into hysterics.
LOL!
I'm not a secularist but can't go along with a culture war either. Guess I'll end up keeping that armadillo company.
Both sides are turning the Constitution into toilet paper.
Hit me.
You wrote it; I'm challenging you on it. Let's hear 'the dirt'.
....and don't ever pretend to talk to me that way again.
"Your point is a good one, but the hysterics are based on fear. This "culture war" was concocted by televangelists and the public fears the rise of Christian extremism. Many well remember the violence in Northern Ireland and the Baltics and fear we are headed in that direction.
Culture wars have brought down most of the great civilizations of history."
I agree with you the hysterics of the christophobic are based on fear. The christophobes are terrified that there is a power greater than the god of "self." How dare anyone offend one's self?
It's also interesting that fundamental Christianity is now called extremist. It's kind of like "Jew" is supposed to be a dirty word.
I also agree there is a culture war going on, and that televangelists could very well be a part of it--although I don't have a TV so I don't know who in particular they are. I've seen this conspiracy brought up before and would like to know more about it. What exactly do you think is happening? Unscrupulous televangelists whipping up fears to collect offerings? I'd be interested if you could "name names."
Keep an eye on the jihadis. They are the ones who pushing "convert or die." Is this considered a cultural war? I see Christians around the world reaching out to relieve suffering.
Should people protect themselves against jihadi aggression? Isn't that what happened in the Baltics?
Back to the original argument, the real outrage in this whole article is that a student's first amendment rights are violated.
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.