No more so than the authorization of that second-grader's choice of song in the talent show meant that the school was endorsing it.

The difference is the lack of "prior restraint", the fact that the talent show was after school, and that attendance was entirely voluntary.

What is "prior restraint"? Well, it means that the children were not required to submit their acts for pre-approval by the administration. Although the school did give an age-appropriate limitation, the kids were not required to submit their acts beforehand for review of content. This, combined with the other factors, effectively removes a possible Establishment violation on the part of the school.

This is different from a graduation speaker who is required to submit their speech for pre-approval by the administration.

Perhaps i need to make myself even more clear. There is a minute difference [/sarcasm] between a student chosen through objective criteria (highest GPA) and a person of religion. If a rabbi or priest is invited to speak at a public high school and they use that time to talk about religion...then yes it would be a violation of the establishment clause. But a student who only observes their religion and brings it up in a speech is an exercise in free speech.

From Hentoff's column:


So if the principal had decided to approve it, would that have indicated that the school was actually endorsing it? The time of the talent show and the voluntary nature of the attendance have no bearing on that question. Either the authorization would have conferred endorsement, or it wouldn't.

Again, the issue is of who has primary control. In the case of the second grader, the school permitted student expression based on genuinely neutral criteria and the students retained primary control over the content. The school can't then single out one act of expression for review based on religious content.



No, you were clear. You are claiming that there is an Establishment Clause violation when the choice of speaker is based on objective criteria but the person happens to be a person of religion – even though that fact was not a part of the criteria used to make the choice. The school didn't choose this individual because of his religious belief – just as McComb wasn't chosen because of hers... he was chosen simply because he was a former student. If prior review of content is not a basis for determining whether the religious expression is attributable to the school, how, by your logic, is the cleric's speech attributable to the school? Simply because they chose a person of religion? But that wasn't the criteria for the choice. He wasn't there speaking in his capacity as a person of religion... he was there speaking as a former student.

I too believe that it is an Establishment Clause violation but because the school required prior review of the former student's speech, approved the religious content, the ceremony is funded by the state and attendance is, for all intents and purposes, obligatory – not simply because the former student happens to be a person of religion.

entspeak - My question to you was, "if the principal had decided to approve it [the child's choice of song for the talent show], would that have indicated that the school was actually endorsing it?" The answer to that question has nothing to do with what the No Child Left Behind Act does and does not allow. Authorization of a particular piece of speech either constitutes endorsement of it, or does not. Which is it?

Maybe another way of putting the question would be, is there some subtle difference that I'm missing between "authorizing" something and merely declining to prohibit it?

My answer was that, because of the nature of the show and the criteria for choosing acts, the school had no business picking one act out of the many to review simply because the act was religious in nature. The principal should have informed the person in charge of the event that there was no need to review the child's song choice because there was no Establishment Clause violation due to the nature of the forum. He should've informed the person in charge that if there was a concern that someone might get the wrong idea, a disclaimer could be issued prior to the event.

In McComb's case, all valedictorian speeches are subject to prior review for content as a condition of being able to speak at the graduation ceremony. If the student does not submit the speech, specifically for review, to the school administration, they aren't allowed to speak... regardless of the content. That is how these cases differ.

It wasn't that a teacher heard McComb rehearsing her speech and realized that it had religious content and then went to the school administration and asked them to review her speech for religious content. Official approval of the speech by the school administration was part of the process whereby McComb was allowed to be a part of the state funded graduation ceremony.

Basically, public schools have a fine line to walk between endorsing religion and restricting religious expression. The aim is to remain neutral to religion... neither endorsing or restricting the expression of it. Which is nigh on impossible to do, but it must be done to the best of the school's ability. The Legislature has established – in accordance with Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution – guidelines for remaining neutral while allowing for freedom of religious expression.

This means, unfortunately, that a school may fail to censor some religious speech and be required to censor other religious speech. But that second grader could've gone up on that stage and full out prayed and quoted the Bible and it wouldn't be a violation of the Establishment Clause. The same can't be said of McComb.

What difference does it make whether it was part of the process or not? Let's look at the logic that's being employed here. The school decides it needs to vet these speeches for religious content, so as to avoid a possible Establishment Clause violation. But the only reason that there ever would be an Establishment Clause violation, according to the reasoning presented, is that the school has vetted the speech. Does this make any sense to you? Because it certainly doesn't to me.

That's because you, once again, are claiming that I am stating something that I am not.

The school decides to officially vet all valedictorian speeches for content – religious or otherwise. This is known to the student's prior to writing their speeches.

If it is policy that the school officially vets all valedictorian speeches for content – religious or otherwise, then they have primary control of the content and the speech, if given, is attributable to the school.

In the case of the second grader, this individual student's choice of song was the only act in the entire talent show submitted to the school administration for review.

You cited Cole, didn't you? From that opinion:


Completely circular.

I'm sorry, Blackstone, I don't get what you're driving at? Are you somehow claiming that it wasn't school policy in Oroville to review these speeches for content – religious or otherwise? Or are you simply claiming that because the students were refused based on the religious content that the shool must've only reviewed the speeches in order to deal with the religious content?

Once again, you are creating a circular argument where none existed.

The McComb case is interesting indeed. Since I love playing "Judge for a day", I'll chime in.

There seem to be a a couple of relevant questions here:
1) Does the school have a general right to censor speech at school events?
2) If such a general right does not exist, was this speech in violation of the Establishment Clause either because of it's content or because of the context in which it was given?

One could make the case that the school has control over all content given at official school events. The case law is somewhat contradictory with Tinker v Des Moines affirming generally the free speech of students and teachers but with Hazelwood v. Kulmeier and Bethel v. Faser allowing restraints on that freedom in the interest of preserving the school's educational mission. Per Fraser, speech could be censored by the school "even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school." This case law suggests to me that the school could indeed censor this speech. Indeed, you could make the case that this case law makes it incumbent upon schools to censor controversial speech as the case law opens the school up to legal action on the part of attendees at school events. To put it another way, if McComb had given the speech unedited would a devout atheist have had a cause of action against the school? If so, you could argue that the school has final responsibility for all content presented and thus has the right to censor as they see fit.

However (as The Founder's Intent and others have pointed out), Clark County law seems to explicitly allow freedom to express religious views at school events so long as the speaker wasn't chosen based on religious criteria with the school able to express it's disagreement via a formal disclaimer.

To be honest, given the (apparent) inconsistencies between Fraser and Kulmeier on the one hand and Tinker and the Clark County regs on the other, I think that the school was getting sued regardless.

As to the speech itself, I'm not sure proselytizing is the correct term. I'm not very religious but wouldn't this be considered "testifying", giving a personal account of your faith and it's relevance to your life? It seems to me that such a speech is a bit out of place at a ceremony of this kind but hardy falls into the category of censorable material. It is, in the end, a speech about one person's faith, nothing more.

However (and this is a big however), there are a few factors that could change this. If the Graduation was a compulsory event (i.e. walking out in protest would have resulted in denial of your diploma or some sort of formal record of the behaviour) or if the crowd was required to cheer, show approval, etc then the speech (or, indeed, a speech noting the speaker's belief in the absence of God or faith in The Flying Spaghetti Monster) would probably result in the violation of the Establishment clause. This, however, is predicated on the school's action, not the speakers. Likewise, language such as "I'm sure you all agree with me" or "As I know the administration agrees" would likely be out of line. As none of this seems to be the case, I don't think the content or context of the speech puts it in violation of the Establishment Clause and is certainly protected under the 1st Amendment.

So, to sum up (and, doubtless, engender disagreement from almost everyone on the thread), I think that the school did have the right to censor the speech but not owing to it's content; it simply has a general right to censor speech that it believes would interfere with it's core educational mission (a vague and open-ended right to be sure). It would seem to me that any court case will likely come down to a decision about this right on the part of the school (and if that "right" trumps the Clark County regulations).

One important part of the regs that you left out. In order for the speech to be unattributable to the school, the student must retain primary control of the content of their speech. Valedictorians do not retain primary control over the content of their speech because the speech is subject to prior review and approval by the school.

None of the cases you mentioned had anything to do with religious speech or the Establishment Clause at all.

Fair point. I left it out as I'm not sure if the review and approval is voluntary or compulsory. In other words, what would have happened if McComb had refused to show the Administration her speech or if, upon showing it to them, she had refused to agree to change it?

Assuming the review and changes are compulsory, this power would seems to come (in part) out of the case law (Kulmeier and Fraser). One could ask the question that if those decisions didn't exist (and Tinker was the only law) would the school even be allowed thie power?

Kuhlmeier dealt with imposing restrictions on student speech in "activities that are 'an integral part of the school's educational function'. In that case a journalism class. Not a graduation ceremony which serves no educational function. It is, in fact, a ceremony commemorating the end of the students' participation in that educational function. Kuhlmeier is somewhat related but only in that the principal had prior approval for the content of the school newspaper.

Tinker dealt with armbands and had nothing to do with a speaker or prior approval.

Fraser dealt with punishment for engaging in obscene conduct while speaking at an assembly, but had nothing to do with prior approval.

I'm sure you're right, I had understood, however, that Tinker and Fraser had both been interpreted as having wider signifigance; particularly as they both spoke to generally speech restrictions (or lack thereof). Again, the wording in both Kulmeier and Fraser give schools quite a bit of latitude in restricting speech.

I guess what I was trying to express was that the very latitude given by those decisions allowed Clark County to set up those regulations and believe they would be immune from legal challenge (I don't know this but it seems logical), otherwise you could argue that prior review of speech was unconstitutional (per Tinker). Again, we don't know this as the prior review is not what is under challenge but the right for that review has to come from somewhere.

Sorry if I was unclear.

Semantics aside as to what the school approved or disapproved, the valedictorian was not halted in her speech. She could have continued on without the microphone, which the school owns.

Had she had some foresight, which a smart person like her should have done, she'd have brought her own amplification system. They're cheap and available from Radio Shack and other outlets.

Bullhorn would have worked.

Megaphone is a low-tech alternative. Use an orange cone or make your own from wire and papier machete.

Using hand signs would have been cool.

Just seems to me that she was forcing an issue after she had been warned. They cut the mic, a common practice in broadcasting. Yet there she was on stage -- nobody physically took her off. I think it would have been very imaginative if she had taken a bullhorn with her under the grad robe.

Or even more dramatic, put on the old-fashioned stage voice (project!) and continued with her intent.

That's the impression I get. The opinion further states:


There is no other reason given for imposing the review of the graduation speeches. And ultimately, it's all academic anyway. By no principle of logic is non-prohibition the same as endorsement. The vetting of the speeches is there to set boundaries, not to make students the mouthpieces for the administration. I can't imagine anyone going to a graduation ceremony and thinking that the student at the podium is acting as a spokesman for the administration.

It appears to be a matter of policy.



The extent of your imagination aside, the courts and the legislature have set down very specific guidelines for what can be attributed to the school in such a situation. Do you not agree with those guidelines?

But, that aside, there are distinct differences between the two cases which make it clear why the ACLU is on the side of the student in one case and on the side of the school in the other.

If they make the assumption that students are acting as spokesmen for the school administration, then I disagree. No one in the audience would assume that.

Well, given the guidelines posted in this thread, do they make that assumption?

The 9th Circuit apparently does, whatever that counts for. I don't see where the U.S. Supreme Court did.

And the No Child Left Behind guidelines?

I don't see where they make that assumption either. Firstly, "if p then q" does not mean "if not p then not q". Secondly, no legal definition of "primary control" has yet to be offered.

So we'll just have to go with common sense. Nobody in the audience would assume that the student is acting as a spokesman for the school administration.

Blackstone,

“Common sense” is the old standby someone goes to when they really don’t have much of an argument. After all, what does common sense mean? Is there any sense shared by the world’s six billion plus people?

A little more than a year ago I started a thread on the meaning of common sense. I’d love to get your definition.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...c=10308&hl=

Rather than get into such an esoteric discussion, maybe you can tell me, just for starters, if you would assume when going to a graduation ceremony that the valedictorian was acting as a spokesman for the administration.

No, I think I'll pass on that.

I don't think asking a person to define a phrase, "commons sense" that he uses regularly is unreasonable.

Again, I'm giving you a forum to express yourself - define your phrase -in a place that won't be off topic.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...c=10308&hl=

Thanks for acknowledging that you are in fact going off-topic with this silly nitpicking tangent. Anyone who feels like actually addressing the topic can say whether or not he or she would assume that a valedictorian is speaking for the administration in her address. When no one does, then there will be your definition of common sense for the purposes of this discussion.

quote name='Blackstone' post='196119' date='Sep 12 2006, 09:39 AM']So we'll just have to go with common sense. Nobody in the audience would assume that the student is acting as a spokesman for the school administration.[/quote]

You should be capable and willing to define phrases you use.




Now let's not have one of those temper tantrums you are so fond of accusing others of having – for example Dingo and NT.

Asking you to define "common sense," a term you use routinely, is germane to this discussion - not a "silly nitpicking tangent."

I want to know what you mean by "common sense," not what we are supposed to arrive at by what someone else doesn’t say.

Please quit the filibuster and tell us what you mean by "common sense."

I don’t think you are prepared to give a definition!

BoF, I did give a definition, as pertains to the subject of this thread. To put it more plainly, it's what a "reasonable person" (a term used aplenty in legislation and court rulings alike) would think when attending such an event. And yes, the fact that no one here, yourself included, would contradict me on my statement (that no one attending the event, especially no student attending the event, would think that the valedictorian was acting as a spokesman for the school administration) is evidence of what a reasonable person would think on that question.

By the way, raising an objection to the use of a term like "common sense" might make sense when the person using the term it is doing it in order to back up a postulate that's been explicitly contradicted by someone else in the discussion. But when no one has yet contradicted that postulate, then the objection is specious.

I don't think the idea "reasonable person" fits here. In the four years I went to high school and the twelve years I taught at one, I didn't realize administrators put "prior restraints" on valedictorian speeches. If the public, students and some faculty, don't know about this practice, then they can be reasonable, but unaware of the terms and conditions of making the speech.

In a way I admire the girl's bucking authority, despite the fact that I have little patience with evangelical speels for Jesus. Yet she didn't have much of a legitimate gripe when the administrators cut her microphone for not complying with the agreed to version of the speech.

As I said earlier, the vetting of speeches is not designed to make students the mouthpieces for the administration. It's just there to set boundaries. The fact that the school puts limits on what the student may say is not inconsistent with the idea that the she is still just speaking for herself, not for the school administration. Non-prohibition is not the same as positive endorsement.

Apparently the school and the student had agreed upon content of the speech. The student chose to disregard the agreement. The school's administration cut her mike. She should have expected that.

Blackstone,

If, at my graduation, the valedictorian began proselytizing and the school approved the proselytizing content of that speech, I would assume that the school agreed with that religious proselytizing content. I certainly would believe the school was violating the Establishment by endorsing that content.

So it would never occur to you that non-prohibition is not the same as endorsement?

By approving the speech for content, if the speech is proselytizing (as McComb's clearly was), it is not merely non-prohibition... it is endorsement... it is support for that proselytization. If McComb spoke only about her religious beliefs without proselytizing and merely expressed her own personal experience of God as it related to her academic life, then I could see it as her own personal beliefs and not feel at all like the school was endorsing religion, but, rather that they were supporting this one student in her expression of how her religious belief helped her in school.

It's not that I believe she shouldn't have been allowed to mention God or religion at all. Religion and God obviously played an important role in her academic life – I can appreciate and respect that. I do believe the school was right to prevent her from, basically, preaching at a school function.

So, Blackstone, it depends on the content of the speech.

That does not follow. Non-prohibition is non-prohibition, regardless of whatever it is that isn't being prohibited. You may disagree with the decision not to prohibit it, but that itself doesn't change the nature of the action.

Any endorsement is also non-prohibition, Blackstone. Prohibition, however, is definitely not endorsement. Whether non-prohibition is endorsement in this case depends on the content.

Well, that's a rather unique perspective. No dictionary I've checked defines prohibition or endorsement on the basis of that which is prohibited or endorsed. An action is either an endorsement or not an endorsement, and it's always the nature of the action, not the nature of the object of that action, that determines whether or not it is.

I see. So we go from your "common sense" – with no definition of that phrase – to the very exacting definitions of endorsement and prohibition.

I believe the issue is of perceived intention on the part of the school by a "reasonable dissenter" in the audience... what a "reasonable dissenter" could perceive. If the student references only herself and does not include the audience in her religion, then it is obvious that she is speaking for herself and she is not attempting to influence anyone – at least not overtly. A reasonable person might then, in my opinion, perceive that she is only speaking for herself. There is very little reason for them to think otherwise. If, however, she preaches and proselytizes, one begins to wonder why the school approved the content of that speech... a speech that a reasonable person could believe was intended to influence him or her. A reasonable person could believe that the school was endorsing the content of that speech.

It seems to me that the perception of endorsement in this case is based on the content.

Is that even the question? Or is the question whether the school put those words in her mouth? Would anyone in the audience, "reasonable dissenter" or otherwise, actually think that it was the school that was preaching to them, and that the valedictorian was just the mouthpiece?

In other words, when she says something like "God has a plan for each of you", would there be any doubt in your mind that she's saying that only because she believes that to be true? If not, then she is indeed representing only her own views.

If the school reviewed that speech and approved that content, then yes... there would certainly be doubt in my mind as to whether she is indeed representing only her views. Absolutely. Could a reasonable person have that doubt? Certainly.

If she said, "God has a plan for me." That would be different. It would be expressing her own beliefs and relating them only to herself. There would be no doubt in my mind that the school in that case was simply allowing her to express her religious belief as it related to her academic life.

It should be kept in mind that the prior review of the speech does not give the school any more authority over what's in the speech than it would otherwise have. It only has to do with the way the school exercises that authority. Presumably, the school has some way of sanctioning the student after the fact if she said something the school disapproved of, so it's not like she really has any more "primary control" in the one instance than in the other. In both instances, the school's interest is merely to set boundaries of propriety, not to have the student act as its spokesman. So the fact that a school might have reviewed a speech beforehand should in no way affect how you perceive it. And as BoF pointed out (#82), most people in the audience would likely be unaware that the speech was pre-reviewed by the school in the first place.

Excuse me? It has the authority to censor the speech before it's given. That is more authority than it would have if it didn't have prior review of the speech.

Again, it comes down to content, Blackstone. If the school approves the speech for content, approval of that content is a tacit endorsement of it. How that endorsement is perceived by a reasonable audience member depends on the content.

If everything went fine and nobody had an issue, sure no one would give another thought to whether the school pre-reviewed the speech. It is only when there is a reasonable dissenter in the audience that feels like he is being unreasonably preached to... this person would wonder if the school pre-reviewed the speech. This is what the school has to take into consideration when taking the Establishment Clause into consideration when exerting prior review of a valedictorian speech.

And BoF never stated that most people would be unaware.

Clark County School District was very public about the fact that they would still review student speeches after the 9th Circuit decision and the subsequent adotion of the school guideline. After the school district adopted the guidelines, the superintendent announced to the press that the guidelines did not mean that the school district was giving up the right to review student speeches – that they would still do that. So, while most people in America might not know that the Clark County School District pre-reviewed student speeches, any parent, faculty or any other person attending the graduation ceremony that read a local paper most likely would.

It's the same amount of authority over the speech itself in either instance. Prior review just provides it with a more effective tool for exercising that authority than after-the-fact review would. In both cases, whatever a student says is equally attributable (or non-attributable, actually) to the school. If the school hadn't vetted the speech beforehand, and allowed McComb's remarks to proceed uninhibited, someone still might have raised the objection that the school approved of her remarks, because it did nothing to stop her from saying them. And the objection would still be just as unfounded.

What matters is the nature of the authority the school has, not the manner of exercising it. If the authority is there to set boundaries of propriety, then the speech is entirely attributable to the student. If the authority is there to make sure the student's views coincide with those of the school - regardless of whether the school exercises that authority beforehand or after-the-fact - the remarks are attributable to the school. So which is it in this case?

Your either/or argument is a gross oversimplification and flawed. Just because the authority is to set boundaries of propriety does not necessarily mean that the speech is entirely attributable to the student. The school just might be setting those boundaries of propriety because the speech is attributable to the school. If a student swears or uses racial slurs in a speech at a public school event and the school pre-reviewed the speech, is the speech attributable to the school? They allowed it. Could the school be held responsible for the content of the speech? Yes, they could.

BoF:

Ever read Garrity v. New Jersey [385 U.S. 493]. The relevant factual summary is:

"Appellants were police officers in certain New Jersey boroughs. The Supreme Court of New Jersey ordered that alleged irregularities in handling cases in the municipal courts of those boroughs be investigated by the Attorney General, invested him with broad powers of inquiry and investigation, and directed him to make a report to the court. The matters investigated concerned alleged fixing of traffic tickets.

Before being questioned, each appellant was warned (1) that anything he said might be used against him in any state criminal proceeding; (2) that he had the privilege to refuse to answer if the disclosure would tend to incriminate him; but (3) that if he refused to answer he would be subject to removal from office."

So, the choice given to Mr. Garrity was to comply or lose his job. Here, the choice was to comply or not give the speech. And the holding in Garrity and its rationale:

"The choice given petitioners was either to forfeit their jobs or to incriminate themselves. The option to lose their means of livelihood or to pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent. That practice, like interrogation practices we reviewed in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 464 -465, is 'likely to exert such pressure upon an individual as to disable him from making a free and rational choice.' We think the statements were infected by the coercion inherent in this scheme of questioning and cannot be sustained as voluntary under our prior decisions.

It is said that there was a 'waiver.' That, however, is a federal question for us to decide. Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Pub. Service Comm., 248 U.S. 67, 69 -70; Stevens v. Marks, 383 U.S. 234, 243 -244. The Court in Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Pub. Service Comm., supra, in speaking of a certificate exacted under protest and in violation of the Commerce Clause, said:

'Were it otherwise, as conduct under duress involves a choice, it always would be possible for a State to impose an unconstitutional burden by the threat of penalties worse than it in case of a failure to accept it, and then to declare the acceptance voluntary . . . .' Id., at 70."

So her prior agreement does not go nearly as far as you claim, since she's always free to claim that there was no real choice at all, since she either complied or suffered the penalty. And so maybe nothing she did could "cure" the before and after conduct of the school. I do not otherwise see the right of conscience as being any less than any right guaranteed by the commerce clause, or even the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination.

To now include some others, I also question prior review of the speech for anything other than matters obscene. I even question that, since just how worthy is the process and the choice if the valedictorian need be subject to prior restraint? I mean, wasn't she chosen for a reason or two, in the exercise of sound judgment? So why not let her be who we think she is? And who she is. I otherwise don't think that her fellow students would be surprised by her reference to God, since presumably that's already part of who she is, and she is their classmate and not a stranger. And so we find our gal in Nevada reporting after:

"All of my classmates came up to me and were so happy. They told me they loved me and I said God's awesome because I couldn't have done it without him."

Ahh, the rebellion of youth. Even her atheist classmates were probably happy that she didn't take s from the school [and even though they find her belief in Diety irrational, they love her nonetheless, and some probably even realize that so long as the irrational inspires her to greatness, then Diety existing or not becomes irrelevant, since this is one of those instances wherein the worthy end justifies the irrational means].

And to end by adding more to the mix for you and the rest, another ACLU matter, of not so long ago:

"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DETROIT - The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today announced an out-of-court settlement between the Utica Community School District and a local student over the censorship of her 2001 yearbook entry. The student's entry had been deleted from the yearbook because it contained a passage from the Bible.

'While it is true that the Constitution forbids public schools to promote religion, schools must be careful not to suppress the private religious expression of students, said ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg, who represented the student. 'In this case, a high school purported to create an open forum for student expression, yet censored a student's speech because it was religious in nature.'

The student, Abbey Moler, was valedictorian of Stevenson High School's class of 2001 in Sterling Heights, a town of 17,000 located 25 miles north of Detroit. She and a handful of other noteworthy graduates were profiled in a section of the yearbook listing the students' activities and the colleges they planned to attend. In addition, each student was invited to share some words of wisdom or advice to pass on to the rest of the school.

In previous years, students' entries in the section ranged from serious advice to humorous tidbits. Moler, a devout Christian, submitted a bible verse that she found meaningful: 'I would like to share a favorite verse that shapes my life and guides me from day to day: 'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.' Jeremiah 29:11 (New International Bible).""

See: http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/express...rs20040511.html

And the solution is what the ACLU negotiated, and for the reason stated by the human in question:

"'My personal relationship with Jesus Christ is the foundation of who I am, and the publication of my verse is critical to preserving student expression and First Amendment rights,' said Moler, who is now 20 years old and studying to become a teacher. 'I received a wonderful education from the Utica Community School District, and now that I am entering the teaching profession, I wanted to do my part in maintaining excellence in public education.'

The ACLU and the school district were able to negotiate a settlement in the matter, thus avoiding the need to file a lawsuit. The terms of the settlement include the following:

The district will place a sticker with Moler's original entry in the copies of the yearbook on file with the school;

The district has instructed the Stevenson High School yearbook staff not to censor students' yearbook entries solely because they contain religious or political speech that others might find offensive;

The district recently provided and will continue to provide in-service training and advice to school staff on free speech and religious freedom issues that arise in school;

The district will write a letter of regret to Moler apologizing for the failure to include her entry in the yearbook."

Sorry, one more, by way of further reply to an idea previously voiced here, with our gal in Nevada speaking for herself:

"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.'"

And her lawyer has the thing right:

"Q: How were your client Brittany McComb's rights violated?

A:They had three valedictorians. They picked them by grade point and they said to them to speak on what is important to you. She did. She is a Christian. I've read the speech. Somewhere in the middle of it she says 'the Lord' and she mentions Christ. That is what is important to her, the God connection. The school sat down and crossed all that out and said this is the official version that she has to give. She was intimidated and nodded her head. But the day of the speech she decided to give the speech she wanted to and when she got 12 words outside the boundary of the regular speech they cut the microphone. We have the visual on our website, and there is just silence and you can see her keep talking. The crowd boos and says 'Let her speak.' It is kind of moving. But cutting the microphone is the most egregious thing. This wasn't the school endorsing religion. She was one of three people up there. Let her have her free speech. You either believe in free speech or you don't. Let her speak."

See: http://vegasblog.latimes.com/vegas/2006/07...egas_at_ce.html

I don't otherwise know how the ACLU guy in Nevada can claim this was okay because it was a school-sponsored forum, but yet the ACLU in Michigan says otherwise. And note the reported similarity regarding what the students were asked to speak on. In both cases, and we'll see if such proves true later, but in both cases the students were reportedly asked to speak on what was important to them. The schools are otherwise asking the student to present a false picture of self if the purpose of the speech is, at least in part, to reveal who they are and what makes them tick. Such circumstance is wrong on more levels than I care to contemplate. And this is where basic human right and elemental freedom of conscience enter the equation, and tip the scales, at least for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Sorry, one more, here's the quote from the Nevada ACLU guy re the purportedly critical matter of the school-sponsored forum, from the Las Vegas Review Journal:

"'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.'"

But, again, so that yearbook is also a school sponsored forum, and apparently the Michigan ACLU thought that there was a controversy. And they won.

Sorry, one more. I wonder whether the Nevada ACLU guy has even considered, well, let me put it this way. True, school-sponsored forum, but how much control do we give the school? Can the school mandate that all students attend, select some to give speeches, and then dictate the content of those speeches? That's not all that far away from what happened in Nevada, since one can partly dictate content of speech by omitting some words of the other. And once that's done often enough, then maybe some learn to parrot what their masters wish to hear and never mind the pretense.

If its the school that holds the function in which a captive audience exists, and its the school that controls the content of such an event, should the school then allow for religious activity to take place. Personally I would say no of course, and of course many would object. The idea to me in the most reduced forms is above, simply because its a think line really, and to take it beyond that would be a horrible mistake. People are bias, so lets take this idea nation wide in all the various school systems, what would allowing for subjectivity reign supreme in definition of what is acceptable religious activity in school held functions, such as class for example.

It does not really matter to me what school based function that it is, but that fact it is a school based function, with the school being responsible for such. We obviously might not have this disagreement if the student gave praise about how much unprotected sex took the stress out of her life and for some reason the school cut the speech, should a teacher be able to discipline for such in any school based function. I mean when I was in high school a student came to class one day and had a manila envelope in which contained nearly I imagine a thousand condoms in which she spread around class. What right would a teacher have to stop that, its just her expressing her beliefs right...

But back to more my tangible question in which people in this debate care about. So we say in this particular case its okay. Then pretty soon a student in another school is claiming lack of freedom to exercise exists when every time called to give a speech in class she ends it with the phrase "following god is the correct way to live" to the class. Of course we can take this further with only the human imagination ending what it could really end up as. Pretty soon we could have Muslim students giving speeches that imply being Muslim is the correct or ideal behavior a person should take in life, hmmm, I wonder how that would fly if that was the current example the debate was taking place on.

So if we say that this speech in question is okay, regardless of the fact it was a school based function, what other forms then should be okay, and who then calls those shots, and would that ever be some static constant of a standard, I hardly think so.

Its little pricks like this that would basically bust the levee that is currently holding back untold religious problems that in my mind would come about if we allow for religions to run rampant in our public schools. Pretty soon we would have catholic/protestant gangs fighting in the hallways over the correct way in which to praise god instead of bloods/crips. Its not only that, but if students can conduct themselves this way as part of a student body performing a role in a school based social function, then why cant a teacher do the same, oh boy, i cant wait until some teacher tries to tell my kids about the joys of being religious, then again some other teacher might not see that as the correct way and the student should instead be a pagan.

Adults at large can barely contain the issues this brings up, and in many parts of the world religion can get you killed rather fast, so then again, to me saying that religion is okay as part of a school based social function by a member of the student body really is a slippery slope, simply because it moves the bar in what is acceptable behavior based on a standard, and as soon as we allow for such to be mutable, then no standard comes to exist anymore, and religion then is acceptable in public schools in my opinion.

To me the funny this is its not illegal in any form of what the student said. The problem of it becomes that America has a very strong background in diversity, and if we say religion should be in public schools, it will lead to having to make laws around it, or making laws respecting the establishment of religion. when a student says she or he was bothered for beliefs in school, or was forced to take classes in which he or she had troubles with simply because it was some super pagan teacher instructing a bunch of Catholics on why they are wrong, its a Pandora’s box. What if a student did not like that speech, what is he or she to do, become some black sheep by saying something? Stand up and leave class and get an "f" for failure?

Kivrot,

In the Michigan case, the ACLU explained that, despite the school's understandable concern regarding the Establishment Clause, they were actually under Constitutional burden not to censor that section of the yearbook.

ACLU letter to the Utica school district

There is a fine line that schools must walk in terms of the Establishment Clause and Freedom of Expression. On the one hand, they must adhere to the interpretation of the Establishment Clause, on the other they are supposed to allow freedom of religious expression. It is clear, at least in terms of Supreme Court precedent, that freedom of expression stops at the point at which it violates the Establishment Clause.