There was an extraordinary scene in Texas that pitted student rights against school authority at the graduation for Joshua High School. Remington Reimer (great name by the way) has been accepted to the United States Naval Academy and was the speaker at the graduation. When he began his speech he mentioned that the school officials threatened to cut off his mike if he deviated from his speech. The mike then went dead.
Just before the mike was cut off, Reimer a student said that he was “talking about getting constitutional rights taken away from him.” The district insisted that it did only what it promised to do: “Student speakers were told that if their speeches deviated from the prior-reviewed material, the microphone would be turned off, regardless of content. When one student’s speech deviated from the prior-reviewed speech, the microphone was turned off, pursuant to District policy and procedure.”
There is some suggestion that Reimer wanted to talk about the ban on any discussion of religion or any prayer. The ban on prayer is understandable as a legal matter. However, there is no strict rule against any mention of religion in a discussion of constitutional rights. Likewise, while it is understandable that the school wants to approve speeches at such an important event, I wonder whether such a draconian approach is necessary. It was far more upsetting to see the speech censored than to hear the remarks. Certainly the school is not responsible for such an off-script departure. I would have thought it would have been better for an official to quietly whisper to Reimer that he needed to return to his speech. I do not condone the breaking of an agreement to stick with a prepared speech at the graduation. Such issues should be raised before the graduation. Yet, the scene of cutting off the speech left a terrible impression about the school environment.
What do you think?
Source: Burleson Star
I’m a little late here but this is a tough case. The school has no right to censor the young man’s sentiments just as they have no duty to provide him a platform to express them. If he wants to launch an ideological blast out to the masses he has plenty of social media resources to do that but he has no right to a captive audience that he has roped in with a fraud. I wouldn’t have pulled the plug. I would have interrupted the young man publicly to explain that while he a perfect right to his opinions, the audience has a right to see and enjoy the accomplishment of their loved ones without a political or social commercial being heaved at them. If the young man wanted to resume the approved and prepared remarks I would have allowed it. If he wanted to diatribe I would have politely asked him to wait until the ceremony was over and advised the audience they could remain if they were so inclined to hear the rest of his speech while the rest of us enjoyed the day free from political commercials. The audience has rights, too, as some have expressed above and being free from political, religious, or social preaching is a right I take very seriously.
If that wasn’t acceptable to our young speaker, it’s time for the vaudeville hook.
We are such techno-weenies. Ask Aristophanes or Shakespeare what can be done without a damn microphone.
I was the salutatorian in the class of 1964 in a boys’ school operated by Jesuits. My address was not approved by the administration in advance. Indeed, I would have been offended had I been asked to submit it for review (and also embarrassed, since I didn’t prepare it until the day before graduation). I strongly disagree with the notion that graduation speeches ought to be censored and can think of no legitimate policy reasons for prior approval.
The true beneficiary of free speech is not the speaker but the members of the audience; but not an audience held captive by the state – only a audience whose members are free to come and go as they will. The school got it right.
Damn, I hate admitting as much.
P Smith,
if the student had given the administrators what his real speech was going to say, they would not have approved it. Why do students lose their First Amendment rights when they enter the school building? This is not a new issue. It has been happening in private and public schools for a while now.
The kid wrote his own original speech, didn’t he? And it was approved by the school? If so, then he has no business bellyaching about “silencing free speech”. If he wanted to say something else, he should have included it in the speech he wrote and submitted it to adminstrators.
Where’s the problem in silencing him when he broke his agreement with the school administrators? Rather than be a valedictorian he chose to be invalid and dictatorial.
.
Another student in South Carolina ripped up his prepared (and approved) speech to instead recite the Lord’s Prayer. Imagine if an atheist student decided to speak on why “God is Not Great” or a Muslim student shouted Allahu Akbar!
Yes…they have the right to speak but no one should be forced to listen to them. Graduation ceremonies should be inclusive. It is not the time for some unenlightened student to think his individual rights supersede everyone else’s. As the saying goes…shut up and sing.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/valedictorian-rips-up-graduation-speech-recites-lords-prayer-to-protest-censorship-97454/
“We are teaching them that power must be obeyed and that dissent is bad and will be punished. Hardly a class on what we used to call America.” -Justice Holmes
Yep. It’s about obedience to authority. It’s about control.
Forrest, this is what happens when you talk about the “War in Viet-F’ing-Nam”
“He just said, he was talking about getting constitutional rights getting taken away from him,” Colin Radford, a Joshua graduate, told KDFW-TV. “And then he said, ‘Just yesterday they threatened to turn my microphone off…’ and then his microphone went off.”” continues
oh, the irony
Maybe this would have been an acceptable valedictory… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Mg6Gfh9Co
Is it really “understandable” for all student speeches to be subject to prior review? I don’t think so.
I have no idea what this young man was going to say. I might have agreed with him; I might not have. It does not matter. He should have been allowed to speak. What are we teaching our children? We are teaching them that power must be obeyed and that dissent is bad and will be punished. Hardly a class on what we used to call America.
I would hate to be a dog in that town. Probably can not bark after 6 p.m. when they roll the sidewalks up.
Where the heck is Joshua and who is the town named after?
I see a beer garten in this mans future…..
This story indicates that his speech did contain religious references and that was approved and delivered, it was his follow-on remarks regarding his alleged constitutional rights that caused the plug to be pulled.
from The Blaze:
…. “But according to news reports that included interviews with other graduates, his remarks about God and Christianity throughout his speech weren’t the issue; in fact, the ceremony opened and closed with prayer.
Rather, these eyewitnesses say, when Reimer started talking about his Constitutional right of free speech being taken away, that’s what prompted someone to hit the mute button.
“He just said, he was talking about getting constitutional rights getting taken away from him,” Colin Radford, a Joshua graduate, told KDFW-TV. “And then he said, ‘Just yesterday they threatened to turn my microphone off…’ and then his microphone went off.”” continues
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/08/why-was-this-valedictorians-mic-cut-off-during-his-graduation-ceremony-speech/
What Donald L. Anderson said….may as well get used to the coming police state….(OOPS! Its here!)
Even in good ol’ “Don’t Mess with Texas free speech is under assault. The education industrial complex is concerned more about kids passing simple test than passing into adulthood with the skills and thought processes needed to make good decisions, including those needed in the public square. 9/11 and ‘No Child Left Behind” have changed so much in so short a time and little of that change is positive.
Does he still want to join the Navy?
I think they were merely preparing him to live in the Polizeistaat that Amerika has become. Welcome to Bush-‘Bama Land.