In June 2006, (Clark County, NV) Foothill High School Valedictorian Brittany McComb delivered a Christian-laced graduation speech.
Prior to graduation day, her speech was reviewed by school officials who required edits to avoid school-sponsored promotion of a religion. Brittany agreed to the required changes but proceeded to use her original version anyway. School officials quickly cut off McComb’s microphone, to avoid anyone getting the idea their public school was preaching Christianity.
In relation to church/state regulations in public schools, what are your thoughts about this public school dilemma? How does the Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, student free speech and expression, limited-open forum/open-forum/closed forum, and preventative school policy relate to McComb’s speech?
In addition, here is a short article related to this topic:
http://www.computernewbie.info/wheatdogg/2009/11/23/brittany-mccombs-legal-battle-ends-at-supreme-court/
All I can say is “WOW”. Amazing that they could be so rude to their valedictorian. I understand the reason for it, but it was as much her day as it was the next girl’s. Seems to me they might have considered taking their cue from the audience. When they had to stop and demand the audience give their polite attention to the next speaker it could have been a clue that the majority of people would have liked the girl to finish her speech. Unfortunately, when it comes to these situations, the minority rules.
I read the article first, and then watched the video. From just the article, I understood why the court ruled in favor of the school. Public schools are not able to endorse any religion, even if it is the majority belief amongst the students of a school. Additionally, the school has a policy in place to have the speeches for graduation be preapproved. The editing of the original speech was required, and agreed to by Brittany. When Brittany proceeded in reading her original speech, she betrayed the agreement.
Although Brittany should be able to express herself, and her personal journey, in her speech, when I watched the video I had a better understanding of how it could reflect endorsement of religion on the school’s part. At first she said that God fillled that empty place in her soul. I think if she had ended it there, the school probably would not have cut off her microphone. However, her voice became full of emotion and more emphatic when she began talking about how great God’s love is. The school held out until she reached the point of stating a prominent belief of Christianity, Jesus the only begotten son. I feel as if this was the cutting point because it became more preachy and less about her personal journey.
On a side note, the reaction of the crowd when the microphone was cut out was remarkable. I was actually impressed that the person filming held their tongue and just kept recording. It felt as though the majority wanted her to be able to continue with her speech, but there were probably people shifting around a bit in their seats feeling uncomfortable. Personally, I am of Christian faith and I felt a bit uncomfortable watching the speech. In the end, I feel that the courts upheld what was right and justified.
This post invites more questions for me than it resolves. Would it have been more appropriate for this speech to have been delivered at a baccalaureate service instead of at graduation? Were the students in the audience free to leave at any time or were they a captive audience? Would this have made a difference if they were? Was the school’s decision lawful? (The courts later found that it was.) Was she warned that if she used her original speech her microphone would be cut off? Would that have made a difference if she had been? Should the people cheering for her at the ceremony have prevailed? To what degree was she liable for breaking her agreement to use the censored version? To what degree should her original speech have been protected? Was she legally an agent of the school or the state? I feel like I’m seeing both sides here.. To me it seems like it might be more an issue of Free Exercise than Establishment because she is not a faculty member but a student speaking her own mind; at the same time, she might have been legally acting as an agent of the state, the context may not have been appropriate, and she did agree to be censored according to school policy before the speech. Do we have the power to do anything other than recognize the courts’ decisions and abide by them?
These are all valid questions, but the one that sticks out most to me is your last. I would think if the public were to organize and find a common voice, legislation could potentially be changed. However, because we are a union that allows all religions to be expressed freely, and have policies already in place to uphold those practices, I am not convinced that much would be changed. Though there is a feeling of sympathy towards Brittany because she didn’t get to finish her speech, and a similar feeling to those that don’t share her belief, we have to remember that she did break the agreement in the first place. Even if she was not warned about what the consequences were to be, one must understand that there will be consequences, whether good or bad, that come from our choices.(That being said, the faculty could have handled it better)
I am certain that people weren’t held their against their will and could freely leave. However, social rules would have found it unconventional for people, especially students, to get up and squeeze down the aisles to leave. That would have drawn even more attention to them, causing even more uncomfortableness and disruption. Perhaps if this speech was given at a baccalaureate, this whole issue would be nullified.
I agree with Joy. In the world and our societies we all have different beliefs, desires, and goals. Yet we do not want everyone imposing them upon us when we already have our own. Especially if they are different. It was and I think will always be a thin line between what one will consider appropriate and another would not. I do not think that there will ever be a day in where we can celebrate and appreciate everyone’s “differences of opinion”
This is a difficult situation. When it comes down to it, even if 99/100 student in the audience appreciated the valedictorian’s speech and wanted her to finish, you still have to consider that one lone child. It is as much that one students right to feel comfortable on that day as anyone else’s, and he or she shouldn’t have to feel like they have to choose between what their religious beliefs are and their high school graduation. The United States isn’t a strictly Christian nation and the student bodies of our public schools often reflect the many denominations we as a country represent. The only way to keep everyone neutral in this sort of public, government-funded environment is to avoid talk of religion (all religion, not just Christianity.)
Wow! This speech really moved me! I do think it would have been much more appropriate in a church or youth group setting though. I think she should have stopped with the religious talk after she proclaimed that god filled the void in her life. Although this is her day as valedictorian, it is also the day of hundreds of others who have graduated, and their families. Because this speech is a public speech and because she is graduating from a public school that does not promote any religion, she should not have written such a preachy speech. Although I would like to have heard the rest of it, and seemingly the audience would have as well, there were bound to be complaints after the fact from unhappy guests. This could have gotten the school into trouble according to the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The First Amendment stipulates that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise therof”. Because schools are part of the state function (because education is a state function) they cannot support any one religion (the Fourteenth Amendment).The government (school) cannot have a purpose or effect endorsing or disapproving religion (The Establishment Clause). Because the valedictorian was in a state public school, she was supposed to adhere to their policies. The school really wasn’t denying her of her First Amendment right to free speech. There are student rights that allow students to engage in private religious activities in public schools as long they don’t disrupt class work or regular school activities. This public speech was probably considered a regular school activiiy; therefore she was not granted permission to give a religious based speech.
The general rule of law that was formed as a result of the Lee v. Weisman decision: religious invocations and benedictions may not be given at a public primary or secondary school graduation ceremony.
I think that the school had every right to cut off this speech. There was an agreement between the school and Brittany and she did not make the corrections that were agreed upon. Schools need to be very careful when it comes to these kinds of matters. Brittany did not have the right to take it on herself to start talking about Christianity when she knew that the school was not alright with it. This issue has already been in courts before and they ruled that students can’t talk about religion during graduations.
I completely agree with what the school did. The student was given strict orders that she needed to revise her speech, and she said she would. The school did what they had to do to make themselves not liable; they didn’t want to break a law. A student who was Muslim or Atheist may not have wanted to listen to that speech. The Establishment clause states that a school does not endorse or publicly advance any sort of religion. If they allowed McComb to continue on with her speech, the school could have put themselves in hot water allowing her to endorse Christianity. I, to be honest, would not have wanted to hear that speech. I’m all for Christianity, but I don’t agree that you should shove it down peoples’ throats or in their faces. If they wanted to hear it, they would go to a church or openly ask. The free exercise clause allows you to practice whatever religion you want, yes, but don’t advertise it.
I know that it was her day, and her graduation, but what about the others that don’t practice that religion? They would be upset that the school allowed her to continue on with her speech. If she was asked to revise it prior, she should have known that something about her speech was not okay with the administration. She was in the wrong. She’s a valedictorian; you’d think she’d be smart enough to abide by the rules.
For this article I am torn. I understand that to Brittany this was her day to celebrate her beautiful journey and how she came to that place she was standing in that day, but on the other hand the school had the right to cut off her microphone. The speech Brittany was giving was, in her eyes, her celebration, but it would have been much more fitting for her to have given it at a church, youth group, or family event than at a graduation, especially because she was given strict corrections by the principal to change her speech before the ceremony.
The school was looking out for itself and wanted to make sure that the public knew they were not supporting or promoting Christianity. I agree with the school’s decision and how the case was eventually ruled in court. On the note of Freedom of Speech, Brittany was aware that her speech may cause some sort of stir because the principal had already told her to change it, and as for the students wanting to hear her speech and making such a big fuss after her microphone being shut off, I just saw it as mob mentality, the last chance the kids had to make a statement to the authority of the school.
After I read the article and I watched the video, I got a better understanding about what is a real case of what we talked in class last Wednesday. In this case all the courts declared Brittany’s speech as a violation of The Establishment Clause which clearly says that is a strict line between religion and state. Religion speeches are not allowed in school and graduation ceremonies; no one can go to a school and speak about god or their faith in front of an audience. Brittany Mccob did not respect the school policy and even when school administrators asked her to change her speech she disobeyed them, I don’t blame the school for unplug the microphone when she was giving her discourse, she knew the mentioned god in a ceremony like this is not proper. I can understand that she was mad because this was a very important day for her but as Noelle said but this kind of dialogues can be said in another stage, no school related. Logically she felt like they were violating the first amendment of Freedom of speech by cutting off her participation, but school had to protect their backs and I think it was an asserted action even when the audience was not cooperating to continuing with the graduation ceremony.
I am also torn after reading this article. I can see both sides of the argument and understand that the school had an obligation to cut the speech short because of the differences of church and state. I can see how they would not want other students, parents, or families who do not practice this religion to feel offended by the speech. However, Brittney had every right to talk about what was meaningful in her life, just as I’m sure the other Valedictorians were about to do in their speeches. For Brittney this was a moment to share with her fellow students about herself and give them more of an insight into who she was as a person. I see no wrong in this whatsoever, and would have done the same thing. However, I would have done so in a different way. I agree that perhaps this speech would have been more suited in a church or youth group setting, but Brittney does have a freedom of speech and has the ability to say the things she would like to say during her speech. Unfortunately, she must be aware that the school also has a responsibility and therefore she could not be completely alarmed when they turned off her mic. Especially when they warned her in advance. I hate so see that this is what things have come to, but there are rules and regulations and we are allowed our freedoms until those rules and regulations are broken.
For me this is very simple.
1. This is a school function, not a student get together or club.
2. Ms MaComb was told not to give the speach in its original form but to make changes, for which she had agreed.
3. Untill you get the diploma in your hand you have not graduated from the school a last act of rebellion may just cause a witholding of your diploma.
I feel the school was more then justified in stopping Ms MaComb’s speach, it is in clear violation of Church and State laws. Proselytizing is not allowed by any teacher at any school function, and students may only do so if they get a majority vote.
I think Brittney went to far with her speech. It is one thing to give credit to God but to start preaching at a high school graduation was a little much. Yes Brittney has freedom of speech however the school did ask her to make some changes in the speech and she did agree to. Because she was warned about the speech I feel the school had every right to turn off the microphone.
I feel that Ms MaComb was incorrect for giving the speach in her original form. Ms MaComb was told not to give the speach and to make changes. I have to agree with the school for cut of her microphone. Graduation is a school function and as such it must follow the rules of Church and State.
I definitely see the school boards side. Even though I am a christian as I was listening to her speech I immediately knew that it was too much for a school setting. Schools are a limited public forum and they are allowed to limit access to certain people and subjects in certain forums.
But on the other hand I also see it like this…the establishment clause was made to prohibit an establishment from the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. Although atheism is a belief in its self and could almost be considered a religion. And by them cutting off Brittany McCombs speech because she was speaking about religion, I feel like they are promoting an atheist religion.
I definitely see the school boards side. Even though I am a christian as I was listening to her speech I immediately knew that it was too much for a school setting. Schools are a limited public forum and they are allowed to limit access to certain people and subjects in certain forums.
But on the other hand I also see it like this…the establishment clause was made to prohibit an establishment from the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. Although atheism is a belief in its self and could almost be considered a religion. And by them cutting off Brittany McCombs speech because she was speaking about religion, I feel like they are promoting an atheist religion.
Religion is always a touchy subject when it comes to school, or even the public. I can say from my experiences that no one wants another religion forced upon them at a public event, or anywhere for that matter. Because there are so many different forms of religion, there will always be a debate over anything relatively relating to religion in schools. So, I can see how the school justified turning off the microphone when the student started to raise her voice as she talked about God.
On the other hand, it was those passions and those experiences in her life that led her to these accomplishments and her becoming valedictorian. So, I can see how she might have thought she would be protected under the Establishment Clause. Also, I can see that she thought it was unfair for them to change her speech. But within that, she agreed to the changes in her speech and therefore should have upheld her end of the agreement. I was a little surprised that they shut off the microphone, but i don’t disagree with their decision.
I agree with everyone else here that the school had every right to cut the microphone during the student’s speech. The speech she was giving would be fine in certain settings but for a school graduation where all the student’s and families do not believe the way she does it was innapropriate. She was promoting her religion and also did not keep up her end of the deal with the school saying she would change the speech. If I had heard my valedictorian give a speech like that I would not be pleased. A school graduation is no place for religion.
I am going to have to agree with the populous of the class and agree that Brittany McComb was in the wrong. The school didn’t violate any free speech rights because:
1. Her public performance of the speech would have violated the Establishment Clause and would have made Foothill High School look like they endorsed and promoted Christianity where I’m sure they have a mix of beliefs on campus.
2. She agreed to making revisions with her speech because of the above reasons. So she knowingly gave the original speech with the prior arrangements made with the administration.
3. By giving the speech after you were told to remove the content is rebelious and puts the school in liability of offending others that don’t share the same religious views.
4. The free exercise clause allows each student to freely believe in their own religion but it does not say you may promote your religion to the masses when you see fit.
Personally, I believe that Brittany gave the speech anyways to “show” the administration that Christianity is important to her and she didn’t care what others thought of that which is the problem. Brittany McComb was being selfish and reblious and in the end she tried to take the school to court and lost all three times. Free Speech does not entitle you to offend others or spread beliefs that are of your own that may be offensive to others.
There will be many opinions about to handle a situation like that. First, Brittany betrayed the agreement she made to recite the revised edition of her speech. As a person who has no religious affiliation, I have learned to not be insulted by speeches or conversations that relate to religion, it is their believes, and they are not better or worse for it. I think they should not have cut her off; let her finish. And possibly make a statement saying that the views of this lone student are her own and are not affiliated to the school itself. Look at the uproar of the student body. i believe silencing their student was a rash decision. I do however believe that the court’s ruling was just to side with the school, pertaining to the establishment clause. The ideas she was going to say have already been put into the air, be courteous to her and let her finish. The harm was already done.
Although it is not exactly “fair” to cut her speech short it is completely endorsing a religion which the school could then be sued for. Also, she was asked to change her speech to make it appropriate for a school setting. She left it the same, and it wasn’t appropriate. Slightly mentioning God would have been one thing but her entire speech was about how religion changed her life. Since she is speaking for the school in a graduation ceremony her speech was too religious. It is not fair for a student to have to choose to be at their graduation and listen to her speech or to not go to a major milestone in their life.
Watching this video kind of makes me mad. Freedom of speech is definately a big part in this society, and for the valedictorian of an entire senior class not to be able to say what she wants is hard to watch. It is not fair at all for her to be put in that position. At least she is strong in faith and carries on with the speech even without the microphone working.
When you attend a public school you loose some rights to your first amendment. Your speech is limited and you are restricted to what you can/cannot wear. Having a speech to 300+ students being restricted is common. The establishment clause only states that you can practice silently, without forcing others to join you, and no school staff is sponsoring it. With a speech like hers, she is forcing students to listen to it, and making it seem like the school staff is supporting her. With limited open forum one of the rules to that is that there is no sponsorship of the school and with graduation the school does sponsor that. Open forum is where speakers can talk freely, but not at a government funded event. Closed forum means only the building is being used, in this case the school. But the building was being used by the school so they have to follow policy.
As much as I would like to say that students should have the right to say what they want, I have to agree with the school officials. When told that her speech could not be spoken the way it was written and by her agreement to revise it, the student is in the wrong for not honoring her agreement to revise the speech. Church is kept separate from school and state for a reason. Religion has its place but not in our public schools.
I agree that the speech was very good and was inspiring. But I think that the school did what was right by cutting off her microphone. Religion is supposed to be kept out of public schools, hence the reason why the school officials asked her to revise her speech so that it was much more appropriate to her audience. The school was doing what they needed to do in order to protect themselves against any parent who did not agree with Christianity. A school is closed forum so they cannot use religion in their speeches. Now if this speech was given in an open forum, she would’ve had every right to continue on with her speech. But in this circumstance the school did what was right and followed the law.