People have to learn to stop applauding unethical conduct.
Hijacking in progress.
Roy Costner IV, honored with the opportunity to give the valedictory speech to fellow graduates of Liberty High School in Pickens County, South Carolina, decided to defy the School District’s decision to exclude prayers at graduation ceremonies. He began his prepared and approved graduation speech, then tore it up dramatically and segued into the Lord’s Prayer, to the apparent delight of many in attendance.
Wrong.
Roy accepted the invitation to give the speech under known conditions. He submitted text, supposedly in good faith. The school trusted him to meet his commitments. Instead, he hijacked the graduation ceremony for his own religious agenda.
One spectator told reporters that “it took a lot of courage” to do what Costner did. Baloney. There was nothing brave about his stunt. What was the school supposed to do? He had graduated. He couldn’t be arrested. Tackling him or turning off his microphone would have disrupted the ceremony further. He took no real risks: it was grandstanding. It was also a betrayal of trust, a broken promise, unfair to those who didn’t come to the a graduation ceremony to hear a sermon, and disrespectful of the school and attendees who were not religious. It was a purely unethical act in multiple ways. It was neither admirable nor noble.
If Costner wanted to protest the decision not to allow prayers at graduation, he could have declined the honor of speaking. He could have boycotted the ceremony. He could have carried a sign outside the festivities. Lying about what he was going to say, however, and double-crossing his school to give a forbidden prayer is no better, ethically speaking, than throwing away his speech and doing a Chris Rock routine, singing “Me So Horny,” or mooning the audience.
Those who applauded him for this inconsiderate and selfish act were as ethically out of line as he was.
________________________________
Facts: Washington Times
Ethics Alarms 
I dont know why so many people think courage and stupidity are mutually exclusive characteristics.
Speeches are usually about what they have learned or outlook for their future after graduation. Evidently he didn’t learn much about ethics or lying from his religion or his schooling.
Typical teenage irreverence. Defying authority is what kids, esp teen boys, live for.
I just think it’s ironic that reciting a religious prayer is now the symbol of defiance.
The problem choosing a specific religion as means of defiance is that it can inspire a backlash of hate speech, or someone else responding with their own religious prayer, and more backlash.
I think it’s scary. What’s he trying to tell his fellow students?
They can live for it all they want—doing it to louse up someone else’s graduation is not remotely the proper place for it.
I think that’s the problem. It’s “MY graduation. Not “OUR graduation.”
In a graduation, my personal preference would be for a speech by and from the valedictorian. Not a speech from the school administration delivered by the valedictorian.
The collective experience makes it “OUR graduation”. However, the meticulous planning and point by point individual customization by the school for each individual makes it “MY graduation” whereas we only get exactly what we want.
“People have to learn to stop applauding unethical conduct.” WRONG!
The young man should be applauded. What was unethical was the school district’s decision to succumb to the will of the protesting atheists and their religion of godlessness. It was the officials that did the betraying not Costner. Costner stayed true. Like Islam, atheists demand submission, Costner didn’t. I put it to you that the situation was initiated by atheists bullying, not religious bullying. Please show me where this prayer recite demanded full militant obedience and submission like that of the protesters. If it offends you, don’t listen to it! Join the protesters.
Here’s my faux hypersensitive reaction – Deferring from his prepared and approved speech was admirable, noble and just. Your desire to legislate censorship in that he he’d either bow to already PC bent officials, boycott the event or decline the honor of speaking all equates to the same thing… his silence. Costner’s obedience would have meant denial and betrayal to his religious convictions to his God. Shame on you who deny him. You’re hypersensitivity to anything remotely referencing God offends me and everything that makes us human.
Question: Why don’t we see atheists protesting at Muslim events?
BTW – Before you mount your attack, be it known that I’m not a member of any church.
1.‘“People have to learn to stop applauding unethical conduct.” WRONG!”
So you think people SHOUlD applaud unethical conduct? Talk about falling off the bicycle at the start of the race…
2. “What was unethical was the school district’s decision to succumb to the will of the protesting atheists and their religion of godlessness.”
Oh, horse hockey. The school didn’t “succumb” to any such thing. It made a choice regarding how it wants to run its own ceremony, which it undeniably has the right to do. And if I decide I don’t want a prayer at my office picnic, I haven’t “succumbed” to anything either. There is nothing unethical, nor could there be, of an organization choosing NOT to do any damn thing it chooses not to do. But even if you were right about the school, which you aren’t, that doesn’t validate the kid lying about what he was going to do, or making the ceremony about his religious preferences. “Two wrongs don’t make a right” is kindergarten ethics, but still largely true, as in this case.
3. Atheists have every right to take their position supporting what they believe is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the establishment clause. Other schools have adopted the same position. Entities violate laws until someone complains and threatens to sue. It is bullying when the object is invalid, as when one threatens to abridge First Amendment rights. This is not invalid. The atheists have a good argument. You don’t.
4. “Your desire to legislate censorship in that he he’d either bow to already PC bent officials, boycott the event or decline the honor of speaking all equates to the same thing… his silence. Costner’s obedience would have meant denial and betrayal to his religious convictions to his God.”
Ridiculous. He has no RIGHT to speak as valedictorian, and the school had every right to say, if they pleased, “Make your speech about Brussels Sprouts,or we get someone else.” He didn’t have to be silent at all, he just couldn’t speak into THAT microphone.
5. “Shame on you who deny him. You’re hypersensitivity to anything remotely referencing God offends me and everything that makes us human.” You know, before you can puff yourself up and make a statement like this and get anything from me but a Bronx cheer, you have to first make something approaching and informed and intelligent argument. This isn’t one. It isn’t close to one. Nor do I have hypersensitivity to anything mentioning God, you blow-hard—why don’t you read some other posts, including the one in which I criticized a single atheist for making a stink about the mention of God in a ceremony?
6. Question: Why don’t we see atheists protesting at Muslim events?
An why did the chicken cross the road? I couldn’t care less.
7. “…be it known that I’m not a member of any church.”
And be it known that you are a person of silliness, and verily a waste of time to countenance, in that your “argument” lacks logic, ethical bearing, or anything but free-floating indignation, yea, skidoo.
Given the events that you mentioned in your subsequent post , why do students have an ethical obligation to respect the authority of public schools?
It is like expecting Jews to have an ethical obligation to respect the authority of Adolf Hitler in 1938.
Although current power-holders have little reason to be trusted as authorities, and therefore are likely to increase rebellious activities, does not make all action against them justifiable.
It has always been brave individuals like Roy Costner who stand up for what they believe while so many people are intimidated into silence. As valedictorian he has every right to share the values, experiences, and core beliefs that got him there. As long as his speech was not profane or rude the spineless administrators had no right to limit or censor it to begin with.
What you cannot stand James was the thunderous applaus from the majority of the audience, who by the way, were the taxpayers who own the school. The administrators are their employees, not their masters.
Think about it.
He made an agreement.
He broke the agreement.
I’ve thought a lot about it. You just don’t know what you’re talking about:
1. He had no right to say what had been forbidden by the ceremony organizers, any more than he had the right to moon everybody. They had full authority to make the rules, and he agreed to abide by them in order to speak. There’s no way around this. read that sentence 50 times, and maybe it will sink in.
2. The school absolutely have the right to restrict and approve his speech. This is beyond question, law or debate.
3. It is inherently rude to intentionally breach your host’s rules. Look the word up.
4. Who is “James”?
5. I’m in theater—I always like to hear applause. The problem with this applause is that it encourages people like you, who don’t have a clue what is or isn’t appropriate behavior.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Scotus established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment’s separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
So how again does this speech violate the three rules. First, he is not a government employee and this was not a government action. Second… goes back to the first, He was not a government employee and the school was in fact trying to inhibit religious expression of an individual which is ethically wrong. Third… no excessive entanglement between government and religion happened here. An independent citizen at a public function expressed his religious views… had he been Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, etc… he earned the position of valedictorian by his scholastic achievements. Anybody who desires to express the same sentiments just need achieve the same success and they to to can do so.
What you are preaching is blanket intolerance. Tolerance is the answer. People will never be able to exist peacefully side by side under a blanket of censorship of ideas or ideals. Censorship is unethical and it is hypocritical to rationalize this as ethically wrong using unethical justification.
Do you read? There’s no discussion of this question in the post beacuse it’s irrelevant. The post isn’t about the law. It isn’t about the First Amendment. It’s about right and wrong. He could have been talking about baseball—if he agreed not to, he was out of line….that is, unethical—WRONG.
As to your completely off-topic argument, It’s horrible.
Your first, second, and third aren’t separate points. You point seems to be “He’s an independent citizen who just expressing his views like everyone is entitled to”
That’s all bullshit. The kid was an invited speaker of the school that spoke to a captive audience. As such, he has to follow the rules of what can be said by the school. The school can’t just bring in a speaker to say things it can’t legally say. This student had to follow the rules. The school had to make sure the student would follow the rules, so they had to check his speech for improper content.
Now, as an independent citizen, he could freely have expressed his religious views once he got off the podium…just like all the other students.
Costner knew the standards of his speech going into this. It isn’t like he was permitted to speak about anything, only to have his speech severely censored after the speech-approving authority got to see it. If that were the case, his protest may have had a little more merit.
But even then, his protest wasn’t really a protest. It was the very kind of attention-getting prayer that his religion specifically censures . He didn’t accomplish anything *FOR* Christianity. He only gained attention for himself over a non-existent persecution. He wasn’t making a brave stand.
“Costner’s obedience would have meant denial and betrayal to his religious convictions to his God. Shame on you who deny him.”
How so? At the risk of thise becoming a theological discussion: I’m not certain there is a commandment in the OT or NT that indicates one must proselytize to *captive* audiences.
On the flipside, had there been no restriction on what he could speak about, barring him going into a full Homily about anything, mentions of his faith would not have been out of line. But those weren’t the standards he *agreed* too beforehand, the breaking of which makes him dishonest.
“Question: Why don’t we see atheists protesting at Muslim events?”
This is an unrelated discussion and a diversion attempt. But in short: you know why.
We do see atheists protesting at muslim events where the religion is mixed with government. In Saudi Arabia. In Egypt. In the Philippines. We don’t see it in the U.S., because in the U.S., the government isn’t mixed up in Islam very often.
Agree absolutely. The morons posting here about so called “ethics violations” are obviously and or purposefully oblivious to the fact that what we regard as ethical behavior comes from our Judeo Christian founding beliefs and principles. Exactly what does an atheist point to as a recognized blueprint for moral and ethical behavior? The Ten Suggestions? We could do a line by line projection by faith, but bottom line is if you are so sensitive to hearing someone expressing their humble, and I mean classically humble, gratitude and belief in a higher power, then clearly you have no soul.
Maybe we should ban all Aretha Franklin and gospel songs from public ceremonies.
What a terrific example of using a parochial and subjective definition of harm when it is inappropriate to do so: “It wouldn’t bother me, so it can’t possibly bother you!” Where do you (and Costner) get off telling the school and its guests what and what not they should favor or disfavor in graduation ceremonies? Who is “hurt” if the band decides to fart the National Anthem? Who is hurt if the irreligious feel estranged from their own graduation? What the hell’s the matter with them? Bad civility and manners usually don’t involve tangible harm—it’s enough that they make things less comfortable. Ethics is not just about harm; it is also about duty, fairness, and obligation. FACT: the kid double-crossed the school. FACT: he lied. FACT: He violated trust. FACT: he altered an aspect of the graduation that was not his to alter. FACT: He showed disrespect to those who did not want religiosity of someone else’s faith to impose itself on their graduation, or those of their child’s.
This adds up to this FACT: This was (obviously) unethical conduct. That you have no respect or concern about those who were double-crossed and whose concerns were ignored doesn’t constitute an argument, just a statement of narrow partisanship: “I decide what’s harmful to you, because I know best.” Nope. Garbage.
Jack took apart that this is just rationalization. I’d like to point out the misconceptions
The morons posting here about so called “ethics violations” are obviously and or purposefully oblivious to the fact that what we regard as ethical behavior comes from our Judeo Christian founding beliefs and principles.
Bullshit to irrelevant.
(1) Ethics developed all over the world independent of Yahweh.
(2) The founding beliefs of the U.S. were not “Judeo Christian.” The majority of the founders were closer to deism than anything you’d likely recognize as christian, and they were greatly influenced from the enlightment…which was very much not “Judeo Christian”
(3) “Judeo Christian” is pretty meaningless.
Exactly what does an atheist point to as a recognized blueprint for moral and ethical behavior? The Ten Suggestions?
The 10 commandments aren’t much of a blueprint for morality. A couple of them are good…and a couple of them are stupid. And why do we even need a “blueprint”? Can you not think for yourself?
We could do a line by line projection by faith, but bottom line is if you are so sensitive to hearing someone expressing their humble, and I mean classically humble, gratitude and belief in a higher power, then clearly you have no soul.
What’s humble about praying in front of a large group of people? Isn’t that the opposite of humble?
Since there is no such thing as a soul though, your statement is actually, though vacuously, true.
I have to disagree with you here.
He met a violation of his constitutional right to practice his religion with civil disobedience. He earned the right to speak through 4 years academic excellence and was told he could not mention God by school administration who were using government power to suppress religious speech.
His execution may have been poor, but civil disobedience to defend a constitutional freedom in the face of arbitrary local regulation is foundational to having a free society.
To declare this as unethical is to declare the actions of Rosa Parks unethical when she broke the law by refusing to give up her seat to a white woman.
The speech was what he learned over the four years, and the focus the chose was on the freedom granted by the first amendment. The administration attempt to sensor the boy was the unethical act, in violation of what a governmental institution is allowed to sensor, which precipitated his grandstanding as the only method the could conceive to fight a perceived injustice.
The demand he give up the honor as his only acceptable method of protest is to demand we accept violations of government power with silence – an act that is passive but unethical.
See my recent reply to pompous Michael, and imagine the same reply nicer.
A saw a more elegant expression of civil disobedience on the same topic 25 years ago. A student whose speech acknowledged faith in God in his draft as a factor among many that was important to his success was forced to remove all reference to God and told, due to the separation of Church and state, God could not be mentioned at the graduation. He was told, if he changes his speech and mentions God, his diploma would be withheld.
He complied. He published a protest in the city paper and threatened lawsuit, but the graduation came before he could get into court. He eloquently explained the difference between the establishment clause and the rights of free practice and free speech. He argued that only religious speech was being suppressed, and that was wrong. His speech was delivered as edited and at the end he feigned a sneeze.
His classmates responded in unison “God Bless You”.
There is a hierarchy of authority relevant in a public school graduation. The administration derives authority from regulations, those from law, and those from the constitution.
If the administration exercises authority not granted by the constitution the authority does not exist. It is not unethical behavior to point that out, particularly in a ceremony honoring learning the body of knowledge that includes US Civics.
At the end of his speech the feigned a
sorry for the paste error above – I should not be writing on a cell phone
What is your opinion of this incident ?
as I wrote above – the bay poorly executed civil disobedience in the face of unethical behavior by the school administration, suppressing student religious speech without the constitutional standing to do so.
In a public graduation, it is impermissible for any speaker to mention religion except the student, because all others speak for the state. It is equally impermissible the prevent students who have earned the right to speak from mentioning their faith as it relates to their academic success because they are telling their story.
It’s not civil disobedience. it’s just disobedience and rudeness. What law was he opposing? What penalty did he face? You are extolling mere insubordination and rudeness. If someone urinates on my rug, it’s not civil disobedience just because I said it wasn’t allowed.
Wait…why isn’t this civil disobedience? Civil disobedience is the refusal to follow the laws or orders of a government. There are laws and in this case specific school board policy against school prayer. He chose to ignore them based off his moral convictions. He did so in a very public and non-violent way. Isn’t that the very definition of civil obedience?
“The most widely accepted account of civil disobedience, famously defended by John Rawls (1971), civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies. On this account, the persons who practice civil disobedience are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions, as this shows their fidelity to the rule of law. Civil disobedience, given its place at the boundary of fidelity to law, is said to fall between legal protest, on the one hand, and conscientious refusal, revolutionary action, militant protest and organised forcible resistance, on the other hand.”
What “law” was being protested? What law was being broken? What consequences was Costner facing? The point of civil disobedience is to challenge the unjust law by forcing the authority to defend it, and to be willing to accept the penalty to point up the injustice.
He was protesting school board policy. For a student that is the “law” although in this case it would be more apt to a policy of a local government. He did so to highlight a policy he disagreed with. His goal appears to be to bring about a change to the law which he disagrees with. The school boards policy is now being talked about at a national level and they most likely have been or will be asked to defend it. There appears to be no reprecussions for his actions, but did he know that would be the case? Does that matter? Do we know if he was willing to accept any punishment that he could be given?
“The most widely accepted account of civil disobedience, famously defended by John Rawls (1971), civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies.” Public, check, non-violent, check, and knowingly broke school board policy to protest a law he wishes to see changed, check. What part of this definition has not been satisfied?
You can’t stretch the definition like that, any more than you can say that it’s “civil disobedience” to defy your parent’s curlew, or to smoke on the job (even your government job). There was no law. There was no long-range objective. He just wanted to do what he wanted to do, and his agreements to the contrary be damned. You can’t gild it or make it noble. It’s not—and it isn’t civil disobedience.
“There was no long-range objective. He just wanted to do what he wanted to do, and his agreements to the contrary be damned.” While I agree with your assessment in your second sentence, I disagree that you know the circumstances well enough to know that there was no long-range objective, as you assert in your first sentence. Still, Costner went about it unethically, whatever was his objective.
The point is that with true civil disobedience, we do know the objective. A protest without a clear objective is..well, Occupy Wall Street.
@Jack (Replying to your post that is below)
How is it stretching the concept of civil disobedience? There is a policy that bans prayer (also school prayer has been banned in all schools since 1962, but focusing on the school board policy since that was what he was opposed to). He violated that policy knowlingly with the intent of fostering a larger discussion. It cannot be known if there would be any reprecussions, but there have been in the past with people who have done this exact same thing. He did it in a non-violent way. He did it in a very public way in order to get his message out. Now people are discussing the merits of that policy (I’m on the school boards side not that it matters), which was his long-term goal. Nothing you have stated disproves any of that. Disliking someones message or disagreeing with it’s merits or nobility does not mean that it isn’t a case of civil disobedience. This qualifies as civil disobedience.
It does not. Defying a policy because you can get away with it is not civil disobedience. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again, as if that’s an argument. No law, no consequences, no civil disobedience. He violated an agreement he consented to, and that’s all he did.
I guess I favor a more expansive meaning of civil disobedience than given by John Rawls. I am thinking of a meaning that goes beyond applying it to disobedience of law, that applies to disobedience of a specification of an authority, wherein that authority is exceeding his authority to specify. I am sensitive about this, because of the ambiguities that lead to conflicting interpretations of the demands of military trainers on their trainees. One trainer’s (or observer’s) “beneficial stress” is another’s “hazing.”
I am also thinking of that recent case of the professor who insisted that everyone in his class stomp on a piece of paper with “Jesus” written on it. Law didn’t apply then, did it?
However, Jack I do agree with your assessment in this case. The deception is unacceptable to me, in particular. From there, it gets worse.
…wherein that authority is exceeding his authority to specify.
That didn’t occur here. Doesn’t apply.
Tgt, I am not as sure as you about that…
That might be because you don’t think there should be a separation between church and state.
I understand why you speculate that, but that is probably because you and I disagree on what constitutes separation, or, on what are the meaning and intent of First Amendment language.
Your intent isn’t dependent on your misinterpretation.
I have to remember the carpet line — very funny.
Well, said, Matt — you are spot on (except that it’s ‘censor’).
I did not earn the right to speak in High School. Spelling had a lot to do with that, and cellphone auto correct does more harm than good. Thank you for the catch.
NP! I suspect I might be a little bit OCD when it comes to spelling, I’m afraid.
“He met a violation of his constitutional right to practice his religion with civil disobedience.”
1) His constitutional right to practice his religion was not violated.
2) He wasn’t being civilly disobedient. He commandeered an official state function and from the stage of a state sanctioned event, his actions by definition represent the state, he isn’t being disobedient. If anything he is attempting to impose his own view, from a state sanctioned platform, thus justifying anyone else to be disobedient.
“He earned the right to speak through 4 years academic excellence and was told he could not mention God by school administration who were using government power to suppress religious speech.”
3) Valedictorian speeches are not a right, they are traditional privileges granted to individuals who have behaved in good faith and excelled academically for 4 years. When said individual decides to breach an agreement made beforehand, he no longer is behaving in good faith and technically can be denied the traditional privilege of speaking to his fellow classmates and their families.
4) Although the school admin’s decision to not allow ANY mention of God WHATSOEVER is probably a bit heavy handed, it was an agreement he made. Breaching it makes him dishonest. There are other ways to protest this, and someone with a little more intelligence could have worked into his speech all the subtle but understood protests. But he didn’t. He decided to be an ass.
“His execution may have been poor, but civil disobedience to defend a constitutional freedom in the face of arbitrary local regulation is foundational to having a free society.”
Ok, logical statement, but he wasn’t being civilly disobedient, nor were his rights being infringed.
“To declare this as unethical is to declare the actions of Rosa Parks unethical when she broke the law by refusing to give up her seat to a white woman.”
How so?
“The speech was what he learned over the four years, and the focus the chose was on the freedom granted by the first amendment.”
Please, a pompous recitation of the Lord’s Prayer being equated a speech focuing on the freedom granted by the 1st Amendment is the same as a doctor deciding that a sledgehammer and hacksaw are the best way to do brain surgery.
“The administration attempt to sensor the boy was the unethical act, in violation of what a governmental institution is allowed to sensor, which precipitated his grandstanding as the only method the could conceive to fight a perceived injustice.”
The *only* method he conceive to fight the perceived injustice? And he’s the valedictorian? Heaven help the graduating generation…
“The demand he give up the honor as his only acceptable method of protest is to demand we accept violations of government power with silence – an act that is passive but unethical.”
See above comment…
Suppression IS violation, and that is what was attempted by the school officials in their attempt to be PC to whining atheist groups. Costner chose to be defiant against the oppressors. Kudos to him. Some sheeple would rather follow the school district’s bad decisions than take a stand.
Oh, you really do spout nonsense. Who is being suppressed? The school podium isn’t Speaker’s Corner, and he is an invited speaker. The right you are bleating about does not exist, nor should it.
Suppression of what? Him imposing his views on a captive audience? Ok…
Should an atheist have been Valedictorian, would you have been cool with he or she getting on stage and giving their own personal diatrabe on why God doesn’t exist and why any believer in any faith much be an irrational fool?
Perhaps maybe they could have torn up their speech and then made an invocation to whatever entity they feel is the utmost authority on earth. Perhaps an appeal to the UN or something.
Costner chose a very dishonest and devious method of defiance towards his ‘oppressors’. So, no, no Kudos to him.
Thanks, Tex,,,saved me a boatload of time on this one, and did an excellent job at it.
Thanks, I try.
What baffles me, is this kind of vainglorious use of the Lord’s Prayer is the exact kind of frivolous and lip-service babbling that Christians ought to revile (as exhorted by Matthew 6:5-6; subsequently the same passage that gives The Lord’s Prayer model).
It brings no glory to God, it only rabble rouses.
That was my gut reaction to this as well, as much as I might like to support this kid.
You and pastordennisking have it right.
“Vainglorious” would be a wonderful word to bring back into fashion.
Indeed.
I’d like to see people wholeheartedly bring back the adverb.
It’s perpetually diminishing role in our communication I think is sadly telling of the lack of language skills.
Hell, I bet if you could accurately quantify the diminishing usage of the increasingly archaic adverb and put it on a graph, you could correlated it to a quickly shrinking sense of ethics, a rapidly diminishing body of knowledge in general, a sadly decreasing belief in supremacy of learning, and an increase in people happily voting their liberties away for a nanny state.
Just saying.
Hopefully, I included enough of the unfairly ignored adverbs in this post to bring the average up just a bit.
I’m not sure, but it seems like Jack is fulfilling your wish.
I’ve seen at least 2 uses of “vainglorious” in the past handful of posts.
The bring-vainglorious-back campaign is gaining steam.
I meant to use “consequently” instead of “subsequently”
Ah the hazards of typing faster than looking.
He met a violation of his constitutional right to practice his religion with civil disobedience.
He was speaking to a captive audience of the government. The only part of this that’s a first amendment issue is the part he violated.
I really, really hate Christian privilege.
I don’t care what religion – the public school is out of line to preemptively suppress religious speech in the content of a Valedictorian speech under color of authority when the honored student is speaking on their personal experiences. Atheist, Taoist, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Wiccan, all have the right to include their religion in a similar situation.
If you hate Christian people you have issues that call into question your standing to profess expert knowledge on the topic of ethics, go deal with your hate issues elsewhere.
I don’t hate Christian people; I hate Christian privilege. Do you not see the difference?
—-
Are you attempting to claim that this is a limited public forum? That’s silly.
There’s more silly than that here. Why is it presumed that “personal experiences” are relevant or appropriate in this ceremony, whatever they are? The speech is supposed to be of some value to all, not some kind of self-absorbed navel-gazing, religious or otherwise. That’s why schools supervise the speech-writing process.
Some personal experiences make for good graduation speeches. For example: when you use your experiences (and others’ experiences) as examples of shared trials and tribulations.
“I think what I’m most proud of is that we are graduating together. Maggie thanked me earlier today for helping her study for an Algebra test Sophomore year. I hadn’t thought about it in years, but it stayed with Maggie. It got me thinking. I doubt Mike remembers helping me pick up my spilled books when I was rushing to French class. I doubt James remembers loaning me a pencil in U.S. History. I doubt Sharon remembers that she reminded me to do my vocab homework. I will be getting my diploma later, but it’s because of what we did. We are graduating today.
I didn’t suggest otherwise. I was disputing the argument that a personal reflection is inherently germane.
I interpreted the “whatever they are” clause differently than you intended. Both look like valid English to me. Can we throw out English in favor of something less ambiguous? Like random humming?
Clicks and squeaks.
Do you wait patiently every year for graduation so you can write about unethical valedictorian speeches? I seem to remember this time last year we had a discussion about another speech with ‘hell’ in the text. Either way, I guess that means I have been reading your blog for about a year now!!!
irt 1. So you think people SHOUlD applaud unethical conduct? Talk about falling off the bicycle at the start of the race…
No Jack, absolutely not! It was my intent do disagree with the very pretense of the article. Perhaps it was my failure to properly communicate that in terms that you could understand so I’ll take that hit. I’ll give you that one.
irt 2. “Officials said the decision was made after the district was barraged with complaints by atheist groups”.
irt 3. Neither I or anyone else here that I know of are denying an atheist his/her rights, but no individual rights should overrule the same of another. If Costner was wiccan and offered up reverence to Lilith, I’d have no problem with that. Although I admittedly would have a problem with live sacrifices.
irt 4. Don’t know what you’re trying to say here or the point you’re trying to make.
irt 5. You’re making my point here. I preface the paragraph with “Here’s my faux hypersensitive reaction”. I demonstrate an hypersensitive absurdity by being equally absurd, and boy did you ever react. If only you would have done so with the article instead of my uninformed and unintelligent reply. Furthermore, I don’t know you, don’t care to know you nor do I feel compelled to follow you or your posts with leg tingling anticipation.
irt 6, 7, et al ad nauseum. Personal insults always gives your opinion more credence. Please enlighten us with more of your erudite pillars of wisdom.
1.You should.
2. The atheist groups had the law on their side. It is not unethical to follow the law.
3. Nobody has a right to say whatever they want at a graduation ceremony. The school has a complete right to proscribe words and topic. None of Costner’s rights were abridged. This is non-responsive.
4. Don’t know what you’re trying to say here or the point you’re trying to make.
????? “He has no RIGHT to speak as valedictorian, and the school had every right to say, if they pleased, “Make your speech about Brussels Sprouts,or we get someone else.” He didn’t have to be silent at all, he just couldn’t speak into THAT microphone.” Seems pretty obvious and clear to me.
5. “You’re making my point here. I preface the paragraph with “Here’s my faux hypersensitive reaction”. I demonstrate an hypersensitive absurdity by being equally absurd, and boy did you ever react. If only you would have done so with the article instead of my uninformed and unintelligent reply. Furthermore, I don’t know you, don’t care to know you nor do I feel compelled to follow you or your posts with leg tingling anticipation.” Swell. If you can’t take the time and courtesy to actually read what I write rather than put words in my mouth and argue with those, then get lost. You’re not welcome here. No wonder you think Costner behaved appropriately.
It is fascinating that so often those whose reasoning abilities are most defective are also the most arrogant about it. This is my site, and my opinions are the catalyst of discussion: you don’t have to agree with them, and you are welcome to correct and improve on them, but don’t tell me you don’t care what they are. Anyone who has this snotty attitude is going to be banned. This isn’t message board.
He stated a prayer, and a very short one that is- not a sermon. I dont think you can qualify what he did as lying either- he probably intended to go with his preapproved speech and wasnt planning from the very beginning that he would not go with it but because of his convictions, he spoke of what was most important to him in the moment. From my perspective, this kid is courageous and unashamed , and I will go so far as to say that I wish Christians more boldly claimed their identities and invited God openly wherever they went. I have a lot of respect for him, and I know he was not intending to be unethical or disrespectful. He proclaimed his identity in God, and as a high school graduate, he clearly knows Whose he is and where he stands in this life- he was just making that clear to others by sharing what was important to him.
You agree to deliver the speech you submit, and if, as seems likely, he fully intended to deliver more, then he was lying. In any event, he broke his promise. Can’t be defended.
I have a lot of respect for him, and I know he was not intending to be unethical or disrespectful.
Did you just say that being unethical and disrespectful is built into Christianity? I wouldn’t even go that far.
He proclaimed his identity in God, and as a high school graduate, he clearly knows Whose he is and where he stands in this life- he was just making that clear to others by sharing what was important to him.
That he proclaimed isn’t a problem. The venue for the proclamation was the problem. Why is this hard to understand?
I think if you are going to have a Valedictorian and that person is identified as having the highest marks of his classmates, then that person is permitted to write any speech they desire.
The purpose of having the “greatest” person give a speech is to show what kind of person held this achievement, what that person has to say to honor his classmates, and provide parting words and direction for the future. It is the valedictorian’s platform and he/she should not be a shill for the school administration. That’s the honor of being Valedictorian.
One might argue that these are 18-yr olds. They aren’t mature enough to handle the responsibility of giving a public speech. To which I respond, yes they are or should be. If they aren’t, it’s because the school has failed to prepare them. If the school has not yet prepared them, then why are they graduating?
A properly prepared student would be able to craft an insightful and motivating speech with personal elements and other influences that he deems appropriate by “knowing the audience”. The school has no duty to regulate the student’s speech because when they do that, it’s no longer the valedictorian’s speech. It’s their speech.
What we are really witnessing these days is not the words of smart thought provoking valedictorians, but the words those people thought the school wanted them to say (or were told to say). It’s disingenuous and a detriment to our society when these intelligent future leaders are held back. The result is then a focus on striking back at the perceived source of oppression.
I’m not saying the school shouldn’t ask for a draft and provide guidance. They should, but it should be left at that. The school should give the guidance to the valedictorian so that they can put their best foot forward. When the school limits their expression, they cheapen the speech and deprive everyone of the possibility of something profound,
P.S.
In my opinion, when we allow all of these “safe events” to be created, where they don’t challenge thought and preconceptions, we create a standard by which people are less accepting of uncomfortable speech. They then think that they have a right not to hear something that displeases them. They become increasingly more offended based on less and “less offensive” speech.
The next time you are out in public and hear something you disagree with, think not about what you disagreed with, but how this person was able to express themselves without restriction. Think about how you could express yourself without restriction in the same manner, should you so choose. Then look around at the other people who are displeased and wonder how many of them would create laws, rules, and ordinances to control speech so that no one said anything displeasing again.
Well worded and all valid points.
I certainly agree that the school adminitration’s strict prohibition o any mention of God whatsoever is improper and heavy handed.
But the administration’s policy is not the question here, how te valedictorian handled it is.
He proved that he isn’t insightful, he proved that he couldn’t handle disagreeing with their policy in a mature manner.
Thanks and I agree. The people deserved an honest speech from the valedictorian and his proper recourse should have been to submit his true speech, unfiltered, without limitation or restriction. In the face of unacceptable edits to his speech, he should have withheld it entirely. Maybe deliver it in another venue, the parking lot perhaps. It could become a tradition.
This valedictorian, instead of doing the responsible thing, only thought of how he could “hit back”, not make it right.
I agree with this, Tim, but that’s not what the school decided to do. I suspect that around the time of the 60’s, when Valedictorians started making speeches promoting drugs, sex, rock n roll and get out of ‘Nam, that trust evaporated. I know in my graduation, one of my classmates delivered a slovenly, lazy, snotty and dumb speech that had everyone writhing in their chairs. I bet that was the last time the school didn’t ask for a review. Once, no valedictorian would have dared mar the ceremony with an irreverent or vulgar speech. No longer.
A lot of agreement happening. This specific situation aside, the trust has to be restored. Schools understand that they have a responsibility to review speeches, but it’s authoritarian to control the content of the speeches. The review should include feedback, critiques and guidance. Ultimately, the content should be up to the Valedictorian.
Yet, there are certain limitations. The valedictorians topic clearly must be applicable to the situation ( transition, accomplishment, growth, new opportunities, use of their gained knowledge and experience, what experiences have gotten them there, etc). It clearly can’t be opened to EVERY topic, lest you open the field for any lecture on any topic.
Maybe the son of the local KKK grand dragon is the valedictorian and he wants to talk about how much he hates black folk.
There obviously are speech topics unrelated to the themes of graduation, transition, life that ought be prohibited, not because its wrong, but because it is irrelevant.
And irrelevant isn’t the best word to use, but I’m about to order food, so its the quickest I came up with.
I can’t argue against that point. It’s valid and possible. Maybe not that specific situation (as that might incite a riot, thus, already is illegal), but certainly there might be situations of discriminatory remarks of a lower degree.
My response is only: That is the risk we take and the price of true independent thought. I don’t believe it should be the school’s role to protect us from such abuses, but I do understand that the school takes the blame and feels empowered to control and prevent such situations. I suppose it’s a conundrum that people will always disagree about, though I can see both sides and could easily become a hypocrite.
We always hope for great moments and it’s understandable that schools want to do everything they can to make those great moments; but there’s something to be said for great moments that are genuine. Nothing, in my mind, compares to that.
I don’t believe it should be the school’s role to protect us from such abuses, but I do understand that the school takes the blame and feels empowered to control and prevent such situations.
If the school sets up the event and creates a captive audience of students, they absolutely are responsible for preventing this kind of abuse.
How much responsibility do they have to prevent this kind of abuse?
I don’t even know how to answer that question.
Enough responsibility to only allow approved pre-recorded speeches? Or is it beyond the pale of their responsibility if someone gives a live speech and goes off script to create this kind of abuse?
Reasonableness of standards. If the school can’t control their student speeches from violations, then they have to get rid of them. The pre-review and rules seem like reasonable ways to control against this where there isn’t a history of it occurring or specific information creating a likelihood this year.
Given that the consequences for a strict review and subjugation to arbitrary rules are a chilling effect on the ideas and speech of a good valedictorian, then what are the consequences the school incurs for failing to prevent this kind of abuse by a bad valedictorian?
Strict review without punishment (just excising) doesn’t chill speech. Your premise is invalid.
That said, the consequences to the school are public shaming and lawsuits…which lead to more review over the process, or the stopping of the process.
My apologies for my invalid premise. Reviews must then encourage people to explore the limits of speech knowing they’ll be reigned in if they go too far.
What is the premise of the lawsuits for being exposed to inappropriate speech?
Given that a bad valedictorian can go off-script at any moment for any reason that crosses their mind, even in a fleeting way, and you’ve enumerated some very serious consequences for the school, isn’t it irresponsible for the school to not prevent that possibility by pre-recording the speech so that it conforms to their standards?
What is the premise of the lawsuits for being exposed to inappropriate speech?
Red herring. The lawsuits would be for not having processes in place to limit the abuse. And those would likely only occur if the school didn’t come out against the speech and change their policies to help limit it. The serious consequences for the school are only if they refuse to do their jobs reasonably. Again, for your prerecording idea: the issue is reasonableness. If students repeatedly violate the rules, then getting rid of the speeches (or pre-recording them) might be necessary. Without an expectation of such, pre-recording or removal of speeches doesn’t seem necessary.
So, if I’m understanding you now, your position is not that the school has a responsibility to prevent….but rather, a responsibility to mitigate and, if necessary, reform or eliminate.
They have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent abuses. Those reasonable steps can change based on bad behavior.
I wholeheartedly agree with Tim. I was told my valedictory address needed to be approved by the Principal and if I deviated by a single word, my graduation would be withheld (no high school diploma). I declined the speech. The salutatorian was then pressured to give a speech under the same conditions (which would have made her the valedictorian). She tried to decline, but had a relative who worked for the school district, so the pressure was more effective than on me. All of this was done because the previous valedictorian gave a rather witty speech including quips such as “High School, the only place you need safety glasses to boil water” before she left for West Point.
Mr. Costner should have declined to give the speech (and therefore his valedictorian honor). If he really wanted a protest, and wanted to turn his graduation ceremony into a controversy instead of a celebration. , he could have given a speech such as this:
“I have spent the last 4 years learning as much as I could. I would like to thank my family, my teachers, and my friends to getting me to this point. This honor of giving the valedictory address means a lot to me, but I find that I can’t give one. I find the restrictions on the content of this speech are too great and I find that I cannot truly express my thoughts and feelings about this event without violating those restrictions. I am sorry.”
However, this speech would be better presented as a letter to the editor of the local paper about a month before the graduation. However , in today’s environment, he probably would have been suspended from school by his principal.
Yes, you and Tim have it right. The muddy, mushy, rationalization-loaded justifications of the student showing up here are more disturbing by far than the incident itself. He’s just a kid, after all. He has time to learn. One hopes he eventually understands such concepts as rights, privileges, promises, commitments, consideration for others, humility, timing, proportion, fairness and respect.
Free speech, like all freedom, is a messy business subject to abuse. In this instance, the best test is to ask “who exactly was hurt”? Was there any profanity (hardly), direction to convert non-Christians – like, what phrase does that? Is there any threatening behavior or incitement to riot (“fire” in a theatre)? So what you, and it’s you I’m addressing Jack, are contending is that a personal public exhortation of one aspect of a person’s religious faith is…unethical? Speech does not “impose” anything on any one – so stop with the separation of Church and state hooey, it’s a ridiculous (and appears no where in the Constitution) argument. Note the polite and enthusiastic applause as opposed to the intolerant screeching of atheists, anti-war or other “acceptable causes of the moment” as they, like you, attempt to shut down any semblance of value-laden speech.
The key to this that makes it unethical is agreed to terms and conditions beforehand. Then he broke the terms and conditions.
That makes him dishonest.
Free speech, like all freedom, is a messy business subject to abuse. In this instance, the best test is to ask “who exactly was hurt”?
A single individual giving a speech to his captive graduating class does not have the same rights as someone walking down a public speech. Your attempt to inappropriately frame this situation is obvious.
The “who exactly was hurt” language is even worse. Have you not been exposed to the myriad problems with such an argument?
—
The “personal, public exhortation” was directly violating what the speaker agreed to do. That’s unethical. It was given to a group of people that he knew were a captive audience. That’s unethical. What’s hard to understand about that?
Speech does not “impose” anything on any one – so stop with the separation of Church and state hooey, it’s a ridiculous (and appears no where in the Constitution) argument.
Government speech (which includes school approved speeches) absolutely can violate church and state. That that specific term does not appear in the constitution is also irrelevant.
Note the polite and enthusiastic applause as opposed to the intolerant screeching of atheists, anti-war or other “acceptable causes of the moment” as they, like you, attempt to shut down any semblance of value-laden speech.
I’m not sure I can count the errors in this comment. Does anyone want to try?
Sure:
1. Talk about unsupported generalizations and stereotypes….
2. Irrelevant to the topic at hand.
2. The speech was cheered because it happened to coincide with the beliefs of the vast majority there. Assumptions that the crowd would have reacted similarly had the hijacked speech seemed offensive to them are completely unwarranted.
3. The reaction to an act is irrelevant to its ethical or unethical content. The gang rape of the victim in the New Bedford pool table rape was cheered on. Does this mean it was a good thing?
4. I didn’t see you try to shut down value-laden speech, both because you don’t do that, and..
5. …Greg’s comment has no value.
Go Roy B!!!! I live in this kids town and know him and his family. I find it offensive that people sit here and call him a liar but all of you who have had something negative to say have that right because of the 1st ammendment. Why is it that freedom of speech only applies to those who aren’t Christians! We as Christians have as much rights as everyone else. Those of you that speak negatively of this kid don’t know him. I have the privilege to say that I do. Shame on you! Freedom of religion not freedom from religion!!!
!. Why is it offensive to say that he lied (which is not the same as calling him a liar—Jay Carney is a liar) when he did, in fact, lie—or at least reneged on a promise?
2. You do not understand the First Amendment,or ethics, or the connection between the two. One can be unethical in Constitutionally protected speech. And one has no right to hijack a ceremony to promote one’s religion.
3. ” Why is it that freedom of speech only applies to those who aren’t Christians!” Complete non sequitur.
4. “We as Christians have as much rights as everyone else.” Exactly. NOBODY has a right to hijack a graduation.
5. What does knowing him have to do with it? We are talking about conduct. The conduct would be the same if he were Donald Duck.
6. “Go Phillies!”
Another good example of Christian privilege.
I think this is simple. If you want to practice or talk about religion (any religion) in school, then you should go to a religious school. If you go to a public school, then you get to practice your religion at home and in your religious institution – but not at school. Ironically, although my husband and I are atheists, we are strongly considering a private Episcopal school for our children. This is because our public schools are not great and the religious school is close by and superb. We care so strongly about NOT having religion in school that we looked into moving to a better school district, but the numbers don’t add up. So, religious school here we come! And, it would be extremely wrong to knowingly attend this fine religious institution with a secret plan to have public demonstrations of atheism. Our children will have religious education every single day and hopefully they can make up their own minds about faith and practice. If they decide to be atheists, that’s great, but if they are disrespectful to their classmates, teachers, or administration about the school’s religious teachings, they will be punished.
When an actress wins an academy award, the floor is hers. She can thank whomever she wants, however she wants. She can fall down on the stage, she can swear like a sailor, she can offend whomever she pleases, and sometimes she does. She earned the award, she earned the speech. She can talk about whatever is valuable to her. The same with this student. He earned that microphone by being the brightest student in the school and he chose to honor his parents and His God. Like Antigone, it would have been unethical for him to ignore his faith in his moment of glory. The pagan Greeks understood this; broaden your minds, folks. If he had prayed to a rap star, would it be okay? Or read a Robert Frost poem? Even if you don’t believe in God, the Bible/Lords’ prayer is considered a classic work of literature; an atheist should be able to appreciate that without getting all bent out of shape. And yes, if the valedictorian was an atheist, he could thank Darwin, or his DNA or his toes or say a prayer to himself. This student was not trying to convert anyone, he was being truthful about the source of his gratitude in a precious moment in his life. He couldn’t lie.
Correction: an Oscar winner CAN do any of those things, because there is no way to stop them. But they are TOLD not speak too long not to give political speaches, not to be obscene, etc. IF they do those things, like Costner, they are rude, unethical, selfish grandstanding jerks.
He made an agreement.
He broke the agreement.
That = dishonest.
Well, in the spirit of Hollywood, perhaps he experienced a change of heart/moment of conviction when he was standing up there. The agreement was an unjust law–therefore, his only immoral move was to agree with the “agreement” to begin with. He then redeemed himself by abandoning the immoral agreement. If he had deliberately deceived the administrators, then I might agree that he was immoral. Until that’s proven I will give him the benefit of the doubt. To force someone to keep silent about their convictions/source of gratitude in their deserved moment is immoral. See: Antigone. See: MLK “Letter from the Birmingham Jail.” See: Thoreau: “Civil Disobedience.”
p.s. I think the Oscars would be boring if excited actors did not commit faux pas or bring about some eye rolling. Maybe they are being jerks, but I wouldn’t call their adrenaline offensive. And the beauty of our American diversity is that some people will be excited about what Sean Penn wants to spout off and some people will be excited about Steve Martin’s jokes, and some will be offended by both or neither but we have the freedom to speak, ignore, shrug off, or (in the case of Costner) carry a 20 year grudge if we so choose.
What do you mean, “the agreement was an unjust law”? That’s jibberish. Agreements aren’t laws. If you think an agreement is unfair, then YOU DON’T AGREE! To agree, then break the agreement, is obviously unethical, unless you don’t know what “ethical” means. You can’t do that in business, in international diplomacy, in life, without rightly getting the reputation of being an untrustworthy liar. The ethical act, as Michael just explained, is not to agree, and to give up the honor. He wants the honor but not the responsibilities that come with the honor. You think that’s honorable? It’s childish.And obviously unethical.
I agree that while I’m babysitting your child, I won’t have any of my friends over to your house, and certainly not my girlfriend.
Fast forward 4 hours
Why are you upset that I had people over and had sex with my girlfriend in your guestroom? I didn’t lie, I just had a change of heart.
—-
It looks like you’re simply trying to rationalize the conduct. You’re blinded by your religion.
The Academy Awards is not a government institution with a captive audience. His speech was tinged by government involvement, so he had to play by the rules of what government can and can’t do. This isn’t difficult.
This student was not trying to convert anyone, he was being truthful about the source of his gratitude in a precious moment in his life. He couldn’t lie.
Since when is it a lie to not mention God in a speech?
An American Indian student is being fined $1,000 for wearing a feather on her mortarboard when she graduated from high school in south Alabama in late May to celebrate her heritage. Who is unethical? The overbearing administration or the individualist student?
Does someone want to declare hatred for her race as well now?
And yes, this parallel situation has no bearing on the obnoxious civil disobedience of the boy who prayed in violation of the agreed saith topic, but it’s a similar situation where cultural (and possibly religious) expression was suppressed. Does it change anything that she was in the audience? Does it matter if the case is cultural expression but not religious?
I’m posting on this, Matt. The punishment is way,way over the top, but she intentionally defied the rule, which she knew about. This is a closer call re civil disobedience, though.
I am a pastor from New York state who happened to be present at this graduation (the daughter of a former youth pastor at our church was in the graduating class). I must say that I firmly believe in prayer and am concerned about the growing rejection of religious expression from the public arena. However, as Mr. Costner ripped up his original speech and then proceeded to recite the Lord’s Prayer, I didn’t applaud. I sensed that he was arrogantly taking advantage of the situation and showing utter disrespect for the authorities and the stated policy. By the way, it should be noted that Mr. Costner’s speech went on for about ten minutes and, while kindly mentioning the achievements of many of his classmates, seemed to be a rambling ad lib instead of sticking to the script he had previously submitted. He gave the impression of being above the requirements that he had agreed to follow. The salutatorian got up next and gave a much more dignified and brief speech that concluded with a song he beautifully sang. My conclusion from the whole experience is that, while Mr. Costner may have “courageously” expressed his religious views, he did so with complete disrespect for the administration and in the long run probably did more harm than good to the cause of Christ. Peter admonishes us to always be ready to give the reason for the hope we have when we are asked, but to do so with “gentleness and respect” (I Peter 3:15). Mr. Costner did neither.
I should clarify that the “us” I mention in reference to the scripture verse cited above refers specifically to Christians. It seems to me that we who follow Jesus have an obligation to act as he would in our setting. Also, I don’t totally blame the young man who gave this speech. He is young and has a lot of wisdom yet to acquire. I read on another news site that he consulted with his parents and pastors in the community before rewriting his speech. I wish he had been given some wiser counsel.
You seem like you have a pretty good head on your shoulders, but one thing leapt out at me:
I must say that I firmly believe in prayer and am concerned about the growing rejection of religious expression from the public arena.
When people reference religion being removed from the public arena, they often are conflating the “public” of government with the “public” of citizens speaking openly.
The “public” of government has no authority to reference God. The public of citizens can talk about God all they want, but I don’t see any lessening of this religious expression.
tgt — Would you believe I just saw your response to my long-ago comment? Just in case you happen to read this, I wanted to let you know that I mostly agree with your distinction between the “public” of government and the “public square.” In our pluralistic culture, government should not become an advocate for religion (except for the freedom of religion). But my concern is that religion expression in the public square is being squelched in the public square. Universities are one of the greatest examples of this. Rather than allowing the voice of religion to be heard in a respectful fashion about such issues as origins, evolution, or abortion, that voice is ridiculed and kept out of reasonable dialogue. That is my concern.
AHELENA — The Montana Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a former Butte High School valedictorian who was banned from speaking at her graduation because her speech contained religious references.
The Supreme Court on Friday reversed a lower court’s ruling that Renee Griffith’s civil rights were not violated when school officials refused to let her speak with nine other valedictorians at the 2008 graduation.
Officials reviewed the speech and said she had to remove references to God and Christ. Griffiths refused and she was not permitted to speak.
Supreme Court justices ruled that the officials violated her rights to free speech and to freedom of religion under the U.S. and Montana constitutions.”
Billings Gazette 2010
That flies in the face of, well, pretty much all the other jurisprudence on the matter.
Sorry. Didn’t see you added things below. It’s really nice to keep discussions in thread.
On the other hand, a pair of cases noted on an education attorney’s website where the law supports actions to censor religious speech.
“December 7, 2009
By Jackie Wernz
Last month, the United States Supreme Court declined to review two federal circuit court of appeals’ decisions that addressed the rights of students to give religiously themed valedictorian speeches. The Court’s decisions not to hear the cases means that the lower courts’ holdings—which endorsed two school districts’ decisions to censor or punish students for unapproved, Christian themed content in valedictorian speeches—remain good law.”
In the face of conflicting constitutional rulings, how can you assert that this students actions cannot be found to be civil disobedience?
Please note, I am not asserting that in this case one must accept the civil disobedience defense, but that making the claim is not outside the bounds of reasonable discourse. The more I read of the specifics of this case, the less I am inclined to give this speaker the benefit of the doubt.
I know, Matt, and despite my characteristic assertiveness, I accept the premise: the argument could be made, and it wouldn’t be without support. I’d view it as a technical argument rather than a persuasive one: to me, what Costner was doing was distinct from genuine civil disobedience.
agreed
Maybe we can call it the high school graduation version. He is young, he didn’t want to take the route of quiet refusal and thereby allow the unjust laws to be honored. He risked being disciplined although the school did not choose to do so. The nature of his decision seems fitting for a high school event. Sometimes I think the Christian community is judging him so harshly bc most of us don’t have that kind of courage.
The courage to do something that will have no consequences for him and that is supported by a very loud majority of the community? That’s some kind of courage.
It could be found to be such…I just think it is very, very unlikely that that is what it was.
Paraphrasing brookingstyler, the first to comment in this thread: I don’t know why so many Christians think zeal and ostentatious ambush are mutually inclusive.
It’s high time to push back against this intolerant, God-denying bullying the secularists not only push for, but demand. This young man displayed conventional integrity-based and justice-based civil disobedience. Kudos to him! And shame on Ethics Alarm not to acknowledge that. Obviously, your bias is showing.
1. The time to push back is before the ceremony.
2. There is nothing consistent with integrity about making an agreement with the intention of violating it.
3. It was not civil disobedience. He risked no punishment at all.
4. Read the comments policies.
5. No bias at all, and shame on YOU for lazily assuming that not agreeing with your (emotional, flawed) analysis is based on a bias of mine. What bias would that be, exactly? Ask the atheists and secular humanists who post here if I reflexively slant to their side.
6. The unresisted instinct to anoint anyone who holds one’s own belief-set as a hero regardless of misconduct is a flawed ethics tell. And I’m sure you would similarly praise a committed young atheist at a religious school who tore up his speech and delivered to the horrified crowd a chant to Satan.
Enforcing government secularism isn’t bullying. This is more Christian privilege showing.