Our #2 in class wasn't allowed to give his speech

[Yan Wang]

David Kelly, you didn't hear Bill Clinton's convocation address at Cornell University a week ago. He was politically charged. And so what? As long as a speaker is not making baseless remarks or insulting anyone, his opinion is as valid as anyone else's, regardless of their political views. I agree with the speaker's opinions but I also do agree with you to a certain extent - the Principal holds the final say upon the issue so there's not much one can do about it. The press helps his case, of course, but that can't deter the Principal completely. As for whether the speech is positive, I'd say yes it is! Pro-peace and anti-violence definitely is happier to me than watching someone get their head cut off (it was a nasty video).

Here's the situation at my school. Next year, when my class graduates, we won't have a valedictorian or salutatorian. Our extra liberal school (in my opinion) doesn't do specific rankings (we do deciles, top 10%, 20%, etc) of people probably because of some notion that it'd be offensive to the community (ie parents) to know that their kid isn't as smart as they thought or to the students who might actually be humbled (such as me). Instead, our class president and vice president speaks. But what use is that when our officers run uncontested each year knowing that no one else cares about such a position (it doesn't do much in our school)? I don't have a problem with their performance in their respective positions but I'd prefer to follow the tradition of letting the valedictorian and salutatorian speak so that there is a reward to being smart and working hard (I'd like to see my best friend speak) - you get to address your entire graduating class and parents and leave a lasting impression. Obviously, it's something important enough so that the aforementioned student was noted in his community news regarding his Principal's decision and mentioned in these forums.

[David Kelly]

Originally Posted by Yan Wang

David Kelly, you didn't hear Bill Clinton's convocation address at Cornell University a week ago. He was politically charged. And so what? As long as a speaker is not making baseless remarks or insulting anyone, his opinion is as valid as anyone else's, regardless of their political views. I agree with the speaker's opinions but I also do agree with you to a certain extent - the Principal holds the final say upon the issue so there's not much one can do about it. The press helps his case, of course, but that can't deter the Principal completely. As for whether the speech is positive, I'd say yes it is! Pro-peace and anti-violence definitely is happier to me than watching someone get their head cut off (it was a nasty video).

Yes, I heard the former President's address, and he had every right to say what he did. We're talking about a big difference here. A high school student was supposed to speak about his past year in his high school career, and a former President was hired and paid to give a speech on whatever he wanted to.

I don't even see how these two situations can be compared to each other....

[Tristan Lall]

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.)

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?

[Elyse Holguin]

Originally Posted by David Kelly

A high school student was supposed to speak about his past year in his high school career, and a former President was hired and paid to give a speech on whatever he wanted to.

I don't even see how these two situations can be compared to each other....

The principal of our school said nothing at all about the subject matter that should be in these speeches. No one did, in fact. By now it's become custom that the #1 and #2 give speeches. Ian was not informed that he was only supposed to be speaking about his experiences in high school only, and if (as was announced today in our government class) the salutatorian ALWAYS is supposed to give a speech on past high school esperiences, I have video that proves that some of the past #2s have strayed from this and have still been avle to give their speech, oftentimes over their select group of friends that completely isolates the remainder of the class.

On his blog, Ian had this to say:

The Times ran the story this morning, and to clear this up, the Times called my house and asked me about the situation - I did not contact them - but I would like to thank the person that did contact the paper, Brittany, because it brought out the truth. Now for some clarification. On Wednesday I made it pretty clear that I would not be changing the speech for various reasons, reasons that I'm sure you all know, but I told Mr. Hall I would talk it over with my parents and tell him Thursday. So Thursday I walked into his office on my way to lunch and told him that I would not be rewriting my speech, and that if it was "unacceptable" as is, then he should find someone else to speak (Like Sarai (our #3), who I am sure would have done an excellent job.) His exact words were "All right then, we'll just cut it from the program and go with the one speech [Colie's](our valedictorian). It's done now." Keep in mind, this was on my way to lunch.

I was perfectly prepared to let the situation end there. I felt wronged, but I didn't want to cause a huge controversy or anything of the sort (great job there, eh?). But it didn't end. Why? Because certain members of the staff decided to gossip and word soon got around that my speech was "extremely negative" and that I wanted to "ruin everyone's graduation day." People who hadn't even read what I wrote were saying these things. I mean, when five or six people come up to me and ask to see my speech because they've been hearing all these terrible things about it, it's discouraging. Basically the powers that be were portraying what I wrote in a horrendous light, and everytime someone else came up and told me "Hey, you know I just left the office and they were talking about you and what you wrote. They said you wanted to ruin everyone's day, what did you write?" I got angrier and angrier.

I got a phone call when I got home from a Times reporter who asked if she could talk to me. I agreed and explained the whole situation to her. She said that she had talked to Mr. Hall and he had said that as far as he knew I was still going to rewrite my speech and there was no problem. I said, "Well what time did you talk to him?", because I didn't give him my final word until lunch time that I was refusing to rewrite my speech. She said that she just got off the phone with him...literally. She talked to him just before she called me. So Mr. Hall lied to the reporter. Also, when I got home I told my mom everything that had gone on and she went to see Mr. Hall. When she came home, she told me what Mr. Hall had to say. He lied to my mother as well, more than once I can assure you, but this post is all ready long enough without me getting into it...so he lied to to the reporter but more importantly he lied to my mother. It was shameful, and I was angry to say the least. He also tried cracking a joke about the fact that my mother is a Catholic - and you can imagine how I felt about that...

So, I wake up this morning and the Times (much to my suprise) put the story on the front page. Thousands of people now had the chance to read what I wrote and make up their own mind, which is all I wanted in the first place. Fox News Chicago also called my house, twice.

An administrator with the School City called my house and wanted to talk to me, so I talked with this person for a while and she asked me "What if, on Monday morning, they tell you you can give your speech?" I told her I wasn't sure what I would do, that I would have to think it over.

Well, after all this has happened, I would respectfully decline to speak at graduation if they offered me the chance, because personally I feel that speaking after all this would overshadow the graduation as a whole. I don't want my speech to be the focus of the graduation ceremony, and after everything the school did, that is exactly what would happen. The graduation ceremony isn't about me, it's about our class, and if they let me read my speech now I think that the controversy the school manufactured would overshadow the entire ceremony.

The reason I wrote that speech was to get everyone thinking, and I feel that my goal was achieved.

Again, without all of you, none of this would have been brought to light and I sincerely thank and applaud every one of you.

The administration at Gavit high school has been doing things like this all year: The cancelling of Underclassmen Honors Day, the cancelling of dances and activities, inappropriate remarks, racist remarks....it goes on for days. I know Mazur (our student council president) plans on doing something about all of these things and I encourage everyone to support him.

Just Remember: This isn't their school, it's your school. You have the power, not them.

/Ian's quote

[Billfred]

If that post were on CD, he'd be getting positive reputation out the yin-yang.

Either side of the fence you happen to be, it's good to know that there are kids who don't just walk in the trenches dug by the administrators. (I'm not saying that it should happen all of the time, but there are times when people just need to stand up.)

For the record, there was a copy of that story in my newspaper (we're about 2 hrs from Hammond) today....

[Ryan Dognaux]

Although I'm not sure about this whole situation, isn't there something called freedom of speech in this country? He has earned the right to speak... I'm pretty sure this was a violation of his first amendment rights -

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As Voltaire once said -

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Even if I don't agree with his speech, I think he should've had the right to give it. It may have been against war... but why is that a bad thing? Does anyone really LIKE war? The message I really saw in it was to go above hatred and fighting and move on to greater things... which is truly a great message.