Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Northwest Indiana News
The valedictorian needed to prepare a speech about the future and the salutatorian needed to reflect back on the past years of school, Hall said. The speeches should invoke happiness and celebrate the positive day, he said.
|
This seems awfully trite to me. What reason in particular is there for the valedictorian to speak exclusively about the future? And why should the salutatorian speak about only the past? The notion is ridiculous, really. Let them speak about what's important to them--let them express themselves, rather than utter the usual clichés about how great it's been, or how great the rest of their lives will be. (If that's really what they want to say, then by all means say it--but mean it, if you say it!)
At each of the several Commencement addresses that I've observed (and at my old high school, only the valedictorian spoke--the salutatorian was not formally recognized), the topics addressed were education-related. This is a reasonable expectation, given the venue (just as you don't go to a political rally to hear about the series finale of "Friends"). If his prepared speech were merely a political statement, then perhaps it would not be the appropriate place for it. If, however, he sought to tie education to his other message, maybe he was
not out of line. He "wanted people to stop and think"--and isn't that the principal goal of education? To make people able to make rational and informed decisions for themselves? Not having read the entirety of the actual speech (just the excerpt in the article), I don't know his motives, but isn't it possible that he could address issues directly related to his school, while simultaneously addressing issues directly related to his country? The last paragraph seems to indicate that this may have been the case: "We have the power to change the world and the course of human history -- the question is how will we use that power. Will we learn nothing from the past?" (Possibly referring to the empowerment bestowed upon him through his education.)
In any case, since the school administration traditionally grants the top two class members the opportunity to speak at the graduation ceremony, it is supremely uncouth to revoke that right, because the contents of his speech were not sufficiently patriotic, or sufficiently related to the school's past, whichever the case may be. (Please, no invoking of the mantra "it is a privilege, rather than a right"--the distinction is totally irrelevant to this discussion: they
did grant him permission.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David Kelly
It's a high school, they can do whatever they want.
|
I do believe that you're mistaken. Rules don't exist simply to be enforced, they exist for the benefit of the people to which they pertain. Why shouldn't you speak about something that's actually relevant? (And here, I'm assuming that his speech was relevant to both education and politics; if not, then he should have made it so.)
The bottom line: there isn't any good reason why a speech that addresses issues both school- and nation-related issues should be censored. If it's got nothing to do with school, take it elsewhere. If it's got nothing to do with more significant issues than "high school was so great", he should try harder. If he can cohesively tie these issues together, what's the problem?