Principal refuses to allow 1st black valedictorian to give speech

[Underseer]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/princi...to-give-speech-so-rochester-mayor-intervenes/

Oh, maybe racism was involved. I wouldn't be surprised if it were, but this is much worse than racism.


The principal doesn't want this kid giving a commencement speech because he has taken political views that the principal does not approve of, and made his views clear to the government using protest. So this principal is trying to teach all of the children at his school to reject American traditions and American values.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/princi...to-give-speech-so-rochester-mayor-intervenes/

Oh, maybe racism was involved. I wouldn't be surprised if it were, but this is much worse than racism.


The principal doesn't want this kid giving a commencement speech because he has taken political views that the principal does not approve of, and made his views clear to the government using protest. So this principal is trying to teach all of the children at his school to reject American traditions and American values.

Could be racism. Could be politics. Could be personal. Could be fabricated. Could be speeches are no longer going to be a thing there. If this same incident happened to a white student, would we presume racism?

 

[Underseer]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/princi...to-give-speech-so-rochester-mayor-intervenes/

Oh, maybe racism was involved. I wouldn't be surprised if it were, but this is much worse than racism.


The principal doesn't want this kid giving a commencement speech because he has taken political views that the principal does not approve of, and made his views clear to the government using protest. So this principal is trying to teach all of the children at his school to reject American traditions and American values.

Could be racism. Could be politics. Could be personal. Could be fabricated. Could be speeches are no longer going to be a thing there. If this same incident happened to a white student, would we presume racism?

Racism could be one of the factors, but one of the factors we do actually know about is much worse. I already said that in the post you responded to. This principal is teaching American children that American freedoms, American values, and American traditions are a bad thing. The ability to express ourselves to the government through protest is one of the most foundational rights and traditions we have.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Racism could be one of the factors, but one of the factors we do actually know about is much worse. I already said that in the post you responded to. This principal is teaching American children that American freedoms, American values, and American traditions are a bad thing. The ability to express ourselves to the government through protest is one of the most foundational rights and traditions we have.

He was told he can't protest? I thought he was just told they wouldn't be inviting him to give a speech.

 

[Emily Lake]

Soooo... it looks like his plan was to use his valedictorian speech to criticize the institution from which he was graduating, expressing his anger and hatred of the school... and people are surprised that his request to speak was declined? I don't actually have a problem with him not getting to speak, given what he expressed when presented with a platform.

It doesn't look to be racist, so the emphasis on his color in the title seems a bit of a red herring. It also, actually, doesn't look to be political at a glance, although the article was fairly vague so I could certainly be missing a key element. Either way, this kind of seems like a non-issue getting a lot of attention for artificially inflated reasons.

 

[laughing dog]

Soooo... it looks like his plan was to use his valedictorian speech to criticize the institution from which he was graduating, expressing his anger and hatred of the school... and people are surprised that his request to speak was declined? I don't actually have a problem with him not getting to speak, given what he expressed when presented with a platform.

It doesn't look to be racist, so the emphasis on his color in the title seems a bit of a red herring. It also, actually, doesn't look to be political at a glance, although the article was fairly vague so I could certainly be missing a key element. Either way, this kind of seems like a non-issue getting a lot of attention for artificially inflated reasons.

Suppression of speech at a school is not a non-issue. Furthermore, the principal could have simply said it is not appropriate to criticize the school in that speech, so if there is no criticism, you can speak. According the report, the principal did no such thing. In fact, according to the report

"He didn't want to see the speech or what it said, nothing," Lovett told the Democrat and Chronicle. "He just said no."

And there is no indication that this young man was going to express anger and hatred.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/princi...to-give-speech-so-rochester-mayor-intervenes/

Oh, maybe racism was involved. I wouldn't be surprised if it were, but this is much worse than racism.


The principal doesn't want this kid giving a commencement speech because he has taken political views that the principal does not approve of, and made his views clear to the government using protest. So this principal is trying to teach all of the children at his school to reject American traditions and American values.

Could be racism. Could be politics. Could be personal. Could be fabricated. Could be speeches are no longer going to be a thing there. If this same incident happened to a white student, would we presume racism?

Yeah--we know the principal disagreed with the guy. Why invoke racism when we have an obvious explanation at hand?

 

[Trausti]

UPrep, an all-male school serving grades 7-12, is one of Rochester's best regarded charter schools, according to the Democrat and Chronicle, with annual graduation rates well above 90 percent.

Charter schools FTW.

 

[Arctish]

UPrep, an all-male school serving grades 7-12, is one of Rochester's best regarded charter schools, according to the Democrat and Chronicle, with annual graduation rates well above 90 percent.

Charter schools FTW.

I'd be more impressed if that statistic was for college acceptance rates. Anyone can graduate from a school determined enough to be rid of them, including the functionally illiterate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

When I graduated they had us bow before them as they prayed and if we refused we looked like jerks. They are normalized. When my kids graduated, the Republican mayor was always there giving a speech on how the military fights for our freedom. Always the same thing. If you speak against him, you're a jerk. Their power and stances are normalized. Who is this smart aleck kid who thinks just because every other valedictorian gets to give a speech, that he can rock the boat by saying something that the government and institutions in charge of us don't want him to say? Freedom is for the privileged, entitled, and powerful people, not young adults speaking against the powerful.

 

[laughing dog]

Could be racism. Could be politics. Could be personal. Could be fabricated. Could be speeches are no longer going to be a thing there. If this same incident happened to a white student, would we presume racism?

Yeah--we know the principal disagreed with the guy. Why invoke racism when we have an obvious explanation at hand?

Of course, because there is always one and one explanation for human events, and racism is always that last acceptable one, after alien intervention.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Could be racism. Could be politics. Could be personal. Could be fabricated. Could be speeches are no longer going to be a thing there. If this same incident happened to a white student, would we presume racism?

Yeah--we know the principal disagreed with the guy. Why invoke racism when we have an obvious explanation at hand?

Of course, because there is always one and one explanation for human events, and racism is always that last acceptable one, after alien intervention.

The thing is we have no evidence one way or the other on the issue of whether the decision was racist. Given a lack of any evidence for it it must be a diagnosis of exclusion--and given the animosity between them we do not have that exclusion.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course, because there is always one and one explanation for human events, and racism is always that last acceptable one, after alien intervention.

The thing is we have no evidence one way or the other on the issue of whether the decision was racist. Given a lack of any evidence for it it must be a diagnosis of exclusion--and given the animosity between them we do not have that exclusion.

You realize that reinforces my observation. It is possible that racism or bigotry is part of the explanation. The principal did not even bother to ascertain what this valedictorian was planning to say. Which indicates the principal is an asshole. Now, this is not sufficient evidence to conclude this is solely or partly due to race, but it is evidence it may be partly due to race.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course, because there is always one and one explanation for human events, and racism is always that last acceptable one, after alien intervention.

The thing is we have no evidence one way or the other on the issue of whether the decision was racist. Given a lack of any evidence for it it must be a diagnosis of exclusion--and given the animosity between them we do not have that exclusion.

You realize that reinforces my observation. It is possible that racism or bigotry is part of the explanation. The principal did not even bother to ascertain what this valedictorian was planning to say. Which indicates the principal is an asshole. Now, this is not sufficient evidence to conclude this is solely or partly due to race, but it is evidence it may be partly due to race.

But why assume the animosity was due to his race when we have a very obvious personal animosity?

 

[laughing dog]

You realize that reinforces my observation. It is possible that racism or bigotry is part of the explanation. The principal did not even bother to ascertain what this valedictorian was planning to say. Which indicates the principal is an asshole. Now, this is not sufficient evidence to conclude this is solely or partly due to race, but it is evidence it may be partly due to race.

But why assume the animosity was due to his race when we have a very obvious personal animosity?

You are the only one assuming what is driving this asshole principle's decision. For some reason, you seem unable to fathom that people are usually motivated by a variety of factors. Why assume that there is only one factor? And why assume that single factor is always anything but racism until every other possibility has been undeniably proven false?

 

[Bomb#20]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/princi...to-give-speech-so-rochester-mayor-intervenes/

Oh, maybe racism was involved. I wouldn't be surprised if it were, but this is much worse than racism.


The principal doesn't want this kid giving a commencement speech because he has taken political views that the principal does not approve of, and made his views clear to the government using protest. So this principal is trying to teach all of the children at his school to reject American traditions and American values.

And you object to this? Cool. But why are you telling us you object to it? Tell this guy...

Humans are not machines, they are all faulty, some to a greater degree. My belief is that everyone has the absolute right to their beliefs. What they don't have is the right to act on their beliefs if such beliefs are in contradiction to the law.

Mr. DeNicola's claim that people don't have a right to a dangerous belief is itself a belief, and in my opinion a dangerous one.

We don't police thoughts or beliefs; we police actions. Thought-policing is a foolhardy proposition.

Sorry, but that's wrong.

You're entitled to your own opinions as long as you recognize that they are opinions.

Once you encounter contrary evidence or reason to find an existing belief wrong, you have an obligation to honesty to admit it.

All of us are wrong about a great many things, none of us will ever be right about everything. Thus the best any of us can do is to believe more true things and fewer false things than we did yesterday.

If you actively resist admitting when you are wrong, then you actively prevent yourself from moving closer to the truth. That is only rational if you are hostile to knowing the truth.

All the principle appears to have been doing was policing thoughts, identifying beliefs as dangerous and stopping people from having them, and silencing a student the principle felt had already encountered contrary evidence showing his existing beliefs were wrong but actively prevented himself from moving closer to the truth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You realize that reinforces my observation. It is possible that racism or bigotry is part of the explanation. The principal did not even bother to ascertain what this valedictorian was planning to say. Which indicates the principal is an asshole. Now, this is not sufficient evidence to conclude this is solely or partly due to race, but it is evidence it may be partly due to race.

But why assume the animosity was due to his race when we have a very obvious personal animosity?

You are the only one assuming what is driving this asshole principle's decision. For some reason, you seem unable to fathom that people are usually motivated by a variety of factors. Why assume that there is only one factor? And why assume that single factor is always anything but racism until every other possibility has been undeniably proven false?

The thing is you have zero evidence of racism given that his behavior makes sense without any racism component. You just want it to be racism.

 

[laughing dog]

You are the only one assuming what is driving this asshole principle's decision. For some reason, you seem unable to fathom that people are usually motivated by a variety of factors. Why assume that there is only one factor? And why assume that single factor is always anything but racism until every other possibility has been undeniably proven false?

The thing is you have zero evidence of racism given that his behavior makes sense without any racism component. You just want it to be racism.

Wrong. I realize you are incapable of comprehending that people generally have multiple motivations for their actions, but that does not mean your kneejerk monocasual explanations are correct. Unlike you, I am not assuming any particular motivation or group of motivations.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You are the only one assuming what is driving this asshole principle's decision. For some reason, you seem unable to fathom that people are usually motivated by a variety of factors. Why assume that there is only one factor? And why assume that single factor is always anything but racism until every other possibility has been undeniably proven false?

The thing is you have zero evidence of racism given that his behavior makes sense without any racism component. You just want it to be racism.

Wrong. I realize you are incapable of comprehending that people generally have multiple motivations for their actions, but that does not mean your kneejerk monocasual explanations are correct. Unlike you, I am not assuming any particular motivation or group of motivations.

This is a lot like talking to a theist.

Atheist: No evidence of God, so no reason to believe or suggest God did it. You want it to be God so you push for that as the explanation.

Theist: You can't prove it isn't God. Sure, we can't prove it is God but that doesn't mean your kneejerk monocasual explanations are correct. Unlike you, I am not assuming any particular motivation or group of motivations.

Obvious observation: Nobody said it can't be. Somebody simply said there is no reason to conclude that it is, so we should not presume it. And in the case of racism this is an aggressive and offensive accusation with no basis.

Presumption of innocence applies and it borders on slander given zero evidence. It could be he is racist, sure. It is possible. <snip>

 

[whollygoats]

Soooo... it looks like his plan was to use his valedictorian speech to criticize the institution from which he was graduating, expressing his anger and hatred of the school... and people are surprised that his request to speak was declined? I don't actually have a problem with him not getting to speak, given what he expressed when presented with a platform.

It doesn't look to be racist, so the emphasis on his color in the title seems a bit of a red herring. It also, actually, doesn't look to be political at a glance, although the article was fairly vague so I could certainly be missing a key element. Either way, this kind of seems like a non-issue getting a lot of attention for artificially inflated reasons.

Suppression of speech at a school is not a non-issue. Furthermore, the principal could have simply said it is not appropriate to criticize the school in that speech, so if there is no criticism, you can speak. According the report, the principal did no such thing. In fact, according to the report

"He didn't want to see the speech or what it said, nothing," Lovett told the Democrat and Chronicle. "He just said no."

And there is no indication that this young man was going to express anger and hatred.

It sounds like a great set of conditions upon which to launch a public protest event.....That would be much better than some idiot valedictorian speech before parents and fellow graduates. That way, everybody in the community gets in on the message and it may even go beyond the bounds of the community itself.

Good job, principal! Taking it to the community!