What did principal teach by censoring her speech?
First Amendment Outrage
Printer-friendly page
06.11.01
Joanna Li was a high school salutatorian determined to make a difference. The standard graduation speech about dedication and perseverance was not for her. What she wanted to tell the other seniors at West Brook High School in Beaumont, Texas, was that life, and school, should be made up of work — and play.
But she never got to speak at the school's commencement on June 1. That's because school Principal Terry Ingram deemed her prepared words to be unacceptable and inappropriate for the event.
Ingram held to that position even though Li — at Ingram's behest — had rewritten her original draft with the help of two teachers. Yet he has refused to say what parts of the speech he found offensive, or even why he found the speech unacceptable.
Students have extensive First Amendment rights. Under Supreme Court decisions, those rights can be limited only if very specific tests are met. In Tinker v. des Moines, Iowa, School District in 1969, the high court said student speech was basically protected, though it could be limited for educational and safety reasons. In 1986, in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, the court found that school officials could punish indecency in a student's speech at a school assembly. Then, in 1988's Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the court went further, saying schools could censor student expression for legitimate educational reasons.
The compelling justification for regulating student speech, then, is to prevent disruption and obscenity in a school environment. Where, pray tell, was any such threat in Joanna Li's innocuous address? Her remarks simply were not of that ilk. Instead, they showed that this 18-year-old understands and is ready to confront what life will be like in the changing world outside the classroom.
"When we were born, there was no Internet. There wasn't an e-mail. There were no cloned sheep; there was no Viagra. We have witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the scandal in the White House ... . The point is, we've seen a lot, experienced a lot. With that comes wisdom. Responsibility."
Perhaps Ingram should have read that section a little closer.
Li's speech also criticized the heavy pressure in school to make the grade or else, and (would have) advised classmates to be sure to take time to enjoy life. Were such mild reflections on her education the reason for Ingram's CENSORED stamp? We don't know; he won't say. Because of his refusal to explain, we have no way of knowing if the high court's tests were even applied.
It's too bad some educators view the Supreme Court's decisions as a license to stop any student speech at any time for any or no reason. Isn't one of education's main goals to allow inquisitive and curious minds to flourish?
Censorship of public comments should be explained publicly. Otherwise, the only commencement message students get is that power ultimately trumps ideas. Ingram's action seems purely arbitrary. It translates into censorship.
And that's a graduation exercise no high school class should ever be taught.
Original story
Speechless in Texas
High school salutatorian's graduation speech on avoiding burnout, taking time for fun is banned by principal as inappropriate.
06.04.01
And still outraged by...
More outrage
