School unlawfully censors student free speech.

[LionsDen]

Freedom of speech is a basic human right.

Liberal and secularist school officials have been unlawfully attempting to censor patriotic, conservative, and religious speech for years while allowing leftwing liberal speech.

Fortunately we in the United States enjoy a constitution with a free speech amendment.

If this school district does not comply with the constitution, it can be sure of paying harsh legal settlements.

June 7, 2006

Graduate's Diploma Held After She Speaks About Her Faith
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor


Legal experts say the action was a violation of her constitutional rights.

A top high school graduate in Colorado who shared her faith in her valedictory was escorted from the ceremony by school staff and told she couldn't take her diploma home until she explained her actions to the principal and the parents of other graduates.

Erica Corder was among 14 Colorado Springs students who addressed their graduating class last month. Rather than choose one or a few speakers, they decided to each share for 30 seconds.

Corder worked with her peers to write her segment, but did not include any reference to her faith in the draft she submitted to the principal — because she was unsure how it would be received.

"But I knew without a doubt that God was calling me to share my faith with those at graduation," she said. "I had been praying about it for months, and God prepared me. He gave me the strength, confidence and peace that I needed to stand up in front of thousands and share my beliefs."

Here is the entire speech that caused all the trouble:

"Throughout these lessons our teachers, parents, and let's not forget our peers have supported and encouraged us along the way. Thank you all for the past four amazing years. Because of your love and devotion to our success, we have all learned how to endure change and remain strong individuals. We are all capable of standing firm and expressing our own beliefs, which is why I need to tell you about someone who loves you more than you could ever imagine. He died for you on a cross over 2,000 years ago, yet was resurrected and is living today in Heaven. His name is Jesus Christ. If you don't already know Him personally, I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice He made for you, so that you now have the opportunity to live in eternity with Him. And we also encourage you, now that we are all ready to encounter the biggest change in our lives thus far, the transition from childhood to adulthood, to leave (our school) with confidence and integrity. Congratulations class of 2006."

As caps flew and the graduates exited, a teacher next to Erica escorted her to the assistant principal.

"The assistant principal told me that I would not be given my diploma until I scheduled a meeting with the principal," Corder said, "who would then decide what to do about the situation."

Her father, Steve Corder, said he was pleased that his daughter's peers had chosen her to conclude the valedictory and was thrilled with her decision to share her faith.

"She had felt convicted from early in the school year that if she was named a valedictorian, God was asking her to say what she said," Corder said. "God had honored her in a number of ways this year and she simply wanted to redirect that honor to Him — for as John 12:26 says, 'If any man serve Me, him will My Father honor.' "

A few days later, Erica was asked by the principal to draft an e-mail to parents explaining that he had not approved or condoned her words. Her father said that wasn't all she was asked to write.

"He also asked her to include an apology for what she said," he said, "but she was not willing to do that, because this was something God had asked her to do."

She did draft a note that made it clear neither the principal nor the other valedictorians knew what she intended to say.

But the principal also asked Erica to add one more sentence: "I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did."

Mat Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, called such a requirement "outrageous."

"It's probably one of the most egregious things I've heard in terms of a graduation situation," he said. "I think it sends a horrible message not only to her, but also the other students, that what she did is illegal and shameful."

In fact, he said, she was completely within her constitutional rights to say whatever she wanted.

"She has a greater right to be able to speak because she's a valedictorian than even being elected by fellow students," he said. "Because she's there by virtue of her academic standing."

Steve Corder said he has spoken to the school-board president, who said she was open to hearing more about what students can legally share in a graduation ceremony.

Staver said the school had no authority to withhold Corder's diploma if she had successfully concluded her coursework and should not have asked her to write the e-mail to parents.

"I would say to her and her family that I apologize to her for her having experienced that kind of unconstitutional behavior from public school officials who are tasked with upholding the Constitution," he said. "What she did was absolutely protected by the Constitution."

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040791.cfm

Perhaps this is not controversial enough to generate much debate on this forum. After all, we all know the relevant case law and current state of constitutional law, don't we?

[Kevlar]

Hey LionsDen, welcome to the forum.

I'm not quite sure to make of your posts here at FF. Obviously, there aren't too many people here that are going to share your point-of-view, but that's not to say we can't have friendly disagreement.

As to the topic of this thread, there are very good reasons for having a seperation of church and state. Most importantly, it keeps the peace.

It seems pretty arrogant to get up in front a bunch of people and blatantly disregard other people's religions and beliefs, and on top of that, a graduation ceremony is an extrememly inappropriate place for proselytizing. I think she was just trying to cause trouble in that self-righteous, passive-aggressive way that fundies have.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by NC Kev

As to the topic of this thread, there are very good reasons for having a seperation of church and state. Most importantly, it keeps the peace.

But it's not clear that a student speaker at a school graduation is a representative of the state.

Originally Posted by NC Kev

It seems pretty arrogant to get up in front a bunch of people and blatantly disregard other people's religions and beliefs, and on top of that, a graduation ceremony is an extrememly inappropriate place for proselytizing. I think she was just trying to cause trouble in that self-righteous, passive-aggressive way that fundies have.

That I agree with. Even if the girl's speech was legal, it was certainly quite rude.

[Kevlar]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

But it's not clear that a student speaker at a school graduation is a representative of the state.

Does that really matter? She was on state property at a state funded event. Anyway, my point isn't whether it was technically legal or not, but just that it's a good priciple.

[Beth]

I thought that the speeches needed to be approved by an administrator beforehand.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by NC Kev

Does that really matter? She was on state property at a state funded event. Anyway, my point isn't whether it was technically legal or not, but just that it's a good priciple.

Well, if it was not technically legal, then the girl should not have been dealt with as she was. But It might have ventured into illegal grounds when she said, "If you don't already know Him personally, I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice He made for you, so that you now have the opportunity to live in eternity with Him." But I am not possitive. It seems that the SC banned student-led prayer at football games in Texas. Imploring others to follow a certain religion seems as bad as forcing your prayers on them.

[Dingfod]

In this case, I believe the school is wrong. If they interpret court rulings to mean no tolerance for religious speech on school property, they are wrong.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

In this case, I believe the school is wrong. If they interpret court rulings to mean no tolerance for religious speech on school property, they are wrong.

I think they are wrong, too, but aren't graduations often strict? The girl was supposed to present the speech beforehand to get approval. My husband had his diploma held and he was forced to do 200 hours work in the summer at his school before he could get his diploma. His crime was that he said, "whoo-hoo!" and waved his hands and took a bow when he walked onto the podium and got his diploma.

[Dingfod]

Same for a kid in Keifer, Oklahoma this year. His crime? Doing a cartwheel onstage.

[Clutch Munny]

I'm sure the Liberty Counsel would be right at the forefront of this fight if any other religion were at stake, of course...

Anyhow, schools censor free speech every minute of every day. Students are not allowed to talk in class while the teacher is talking. They are required to be polite to teachers, even though rudeness is not unconstitutional. These are not "egregious" or "outrageous" restrictions. It's not primarily an issue of religious tolerance; it's an issue of basic courtesy. I hope the principal would have acted the same had the valedictorian encouraged her audience to learn more about the sacrifices made for the country by Democratic party. Would that have been censorship, too, or the mere extension to the graduation ceremony of broader similar standards of courtesy that operate (theoretically) in school more generally?

[But]

Originally Posted by Beth

I thought that the speeches needed to be approved by an administrator beforehand.

The one she submitted didn't contain the religious stuff if I understand correctly.

[lisarea]

So, do you have a problem with the administrators reviewing the content of the students' speeches?

Legally, I dunno. Some lawyer will probably be along to clarify that, but it looks as though administrators' rights to review and limit the content of student graduation speeches has generally been upheld so far.

I'm just wondering if you endorse the idea of free speech generally, or only for speech you approve of. Would a Muslim graduation speech be OK? Atheist? What about a political speech? How about a speech advancing the notion that, say, Gwar is the greatest rock band ever?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by NC Kev

It seems pretty arrogant to get up in front a bunch of people and blatantly disregard other people's religions and beliefs, and on top of that, a graduation ceremony is an extrememly inappropriate place for proselytizing.

That's true, Kev. It's also downright belligerent, an all too common trait in people who think they have an absolute monopoly on the truth.

Google indicates that the only source for this story so far is the article linked in the OP, which stems from the well-funded liars for Christ collectively known as Focus on the Family. The article quotes Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, who Jerry Falwell pays to shovel shit in courts all over the country. FoF is based in Colorado Springs, the city where this incident allegedly occurred. Anyone who follows FoF knows that Dobson & Co. are doing their best to turn the Springs into a theocracy in the 16th century Geneva sense.

That's not to say the incident didn't happen, of course. I'm just saying that the source itself provides good cause for skepticism. I wouldn't be at all suprised to find that FoF staged the whole affair to drum up some wallet-opening righteous indignation among the faithful. In fact, it's not inconceivable that the school's adminstration was in on it.

As for the Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court has yet to address a set of facts like the one set forth in the article. Case law in the lower federal courts goes both ways, but a consensus is developing to the effect that no Establishment Clause violation occurs when a student speaker at a public school graduation ceremony spontaneously praises the Lawd Gawd Jehovah without prior knowledge, consent or coersion of school officials. At that point, any post-speech sanctions imposed by the school become a free speech issue.

This is just one more accomodationist tactic for chipping away at the metaphorical wall of separation (which was never really all that high or thick to begin with, truth be told).

[Beth]

Originally Posted by But

The one she submitted didn't contain the religious stuff if I understand correctly.

I know. Are graduates really allowed free speech at these ceremonies?

[Kevlar]

Here is a guideline I found at the Department of Education:

" These guidelines continue to reflect two basic and equally important obligations imposed on public school officials by the First Amendment. First, schools may not forbid students acting on their own from expressing their personal religious views or beliefs solely because they are of a religious nature. Schools may not discriminate against private religious expression by students, but must instead give students the same right to engage in religious activity and discussion as they have to engage in other comparable activity. Generally, this means that students may pray in a nondisruptive manner during the school day when they are not engaged in school activities and instruction, subject to the same rules of order that apply to other student speech.

At the same time, schools may not endorse religious activity or doctrine, nor may they coerce participation in religious activity. Among other things, of course, school administrators and teachers may not organize or encourage prayer exercises in the classroom. Teachers, coaches and other school officials who act as advisors to student groups must remain mindful that they cannot engage in or lead the religious activities of students. "

So the school administrators are really in a tight spot. The can't restrict a person from speaking about religion on their own accord, but a graduation speech makes it look like an official school endorsement.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by lisarea

How about a speech advancing the notion that, say, Gwar is the greatest rock band ever?

Whoa, there'd better not be a law against saying the god's-honest truth! I think a valedictory address summarizing the bloody details of a cage match between Slymenstra Hymen and Phyllis Schlafly would be a real step up from the passive-aggressive prayerslop quoted in the OP.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Freedom of speech is a basic human right.

Are you one of those communists from the United Nations?

Originally Posted by Mat Staver

What she did was absolutely protected by the Constitution.

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee "absolute" protection, everybody knows that.

As a matter of fact, the Constitution provides greater protection to copyrighted material, which you've perhaps unlawfully reproduced here without securing the copyright holder's permission.

[LadyShea]

I believe students, as NON-government agents, should be able to speak about their faith and even lead prayers. It's only when teachers/principals do so that I have an issue.

So Lion's Den, I agree with you, and I'll bet the ACLU does as well. Now what?

[Ari]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I believe students, as NON-government agents, should be able to speak about their faith and even lead prayers. It's only when teachers/principals do so that I have an issue.

I think it depends. For example, if the students are seen as a mouth-piece of the teachers then it shouldn't be allowed. For example, if it was known that teachers must approve all speeches then her speech could be seen as being rubber stamped by the teachers/principals.

That she purposefully hid her religious additions seems interesting.

I wonder, if she had got up on stage and said "Fuck the government and all the bullshit believing christian bigots who run it" and then proceeded to burn a flag on stage before being escorted off, would groups like Focus on the Family really be concerned about her "constitutional rights"?

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Ari

I wonder, if she had got up on stage and said "Fuck the government and all the bullshit believing christian bigots who run it" and then proceeded to burn a flag on stage before being escorted off, would groups like Focus on the Family really be concerned about her "constitutional rights"?

Ooh, pick me, pick me! I know the answer to this one!

[lisarea]

Part of what's complicating the issue is that the school apparently does vet the speeches before the ceremony, so in a way, they do endorse those messages at least at some level. And the girl made the changes after her original speech was approved, so she was being intentionally deceitful. So she's being penalized for that, too, at least to some extent.

Personally, I'm not entirely clear on what level of control schools should have over student speech in gray areas like this, but whatever level is agreed upon, it should be applied fairly and evenly, regardless of the message.

[Ari]

IMHO it seems pretty simple.
You have a school sponsored event, with a podium that the school controls, speeches which are looked over and approved by the school and a girl who spent the majority of her speech advertising her religion. I think the SC has already covered this.

Lisa makes a good point. Lets take God out of this. What if she faked a speech to the teachers then spent most of her time advertising for Big Al's Auto shop and how if it wasn't for the quality service she would never had made it to school on time. I doubt many would complain that she got punished for lying to teachers and then sticking in advertising into her speech.

On a side note, the only other place I've found this story is a Colorado springs news message board, where a couple people have used this as reasoning why the end times are coming because Christians are being persecuted more.

[Sock Puppet]

I thought the Great Tribulation was supposed to be after the Rapture? Silly fundies can't even get their mythological timelines right.

[D. Scarlatti]

That's the postmillennialist view, you crazy heretic.

[Sock Puppet]

Premillennialist scum.