Principal refuses to allow 1st black valedictorian to give speech

[Toni]

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.

I had to turn in a copy of the speech I intended to give, for official approval. Which seems relatively benign: one prefers that speakers at a graduation not lace their remarks with profanities or calls to violence or to advocate for illegal drug/alcohol use, etc.

Of course, at my high school, students were forbidden to offer up a petition or poll assessing student's feelings about allowing pregnant students to continue classes. Pregnant girls were forced to drop out of school although they did have an option of attending special classes for pregnant girls at a vocational school. The fathers of the babies were allowed to continue their classes, attend prom, hold class office, participate in any and all extracurricular activities, including athletics. One such father did not marry the mother of his child until after basketball season was finished. She delivered a couple of days later.

When my son delivered his address at graduation, he was also required to provide an advance copy to administration. He did not provide a copy to his parents so it was a fresh experience for us as well as the rest of the audience.

He had the additional advantage (and I do think it was actually an advantage) of the opportunity to practice with teachers who taught speech classes so that he could be more comfortable speaking and also to fine tune his remarks. This was available and perhaps mandatory for all speech givers. It's been some years so I may be a bit fuzzy on that detail.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

A lot like? Try exactly like--the religion of discrimination is rampant.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Untrue. This is the first black valedictorian. And the principal refused to look at the speech nor give a reason for denying the speech. What caused the principal to act like an shithead, we will never know. You may not feel this is sufficient evidence, but does make it very possible that racism/bigotry was partly involved in the decision.

Presumption of innocence applies and it borders on slander given zero evidence.

This is not a court of law, and there is evidence. So, you are wrong.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Wouldn't your logic here hold in any disagreement where the parties are different races? I mean, in any given oppositional situation where there are different races involved, you could just as easily say that there's no sufficient evidence to conclude that it's due to race... but it's evidence that it may be partly due to race.

 

[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.

Wouldn't your logic here hold in any disagreement where the parties are different races? I mean, in any given oppositional situation where there are different races involved, you could just as easily say that there's no sufficient evidence to conclude that it's due to race... but it's evidence that it may be partly due to race.

No. You are ignoring that previous valedictorians (all white) got to speak, and this principal refused to review the speech, both suggest a racial element.

 

[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.

Wouldn't your logic here hold in any disagreement where the parties are different races? I mean, in any given oppositional situation where there are different races involved, you could just as easily say that there's no sufficient evidence to conclude that it's due to race... but it's evidence that it may be partly due to race.

No. You are ignoring that previous valedictorians (all white) got to speak, and this principal refused to review the speech, both suggest a racial element.

You're ignoring their prior history. Why assume racial motivation when a personal motivation clearly exists?

 

[laughing dog]

You're ignoring their prior history. Why assume racial motivation when a personal motivation clearly exists?

No, I'm not. Why do you assume that there is only one cause for a decision or that "personal motivations" are not possibly affected by race?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're ignoring their prior history. Why assume racial motivation when a personal motivation clearly exists?

No, I'm not. Why do you assume that there is only one cause for a decision or that "personal motivations" are not possibly affected by race?

This amounts to assuming racism because you can't prove it wasn't racism.

Obviously, you killed Amelia Earhart. After all, you can't prove your innocence.

 

[laughing dog]

You're ignoring their prior history. Why assume racial motivation when a personal motivation clearly exists?

No, I'm not. Why do you assume that there is only one cause for a decision or that "personal motivations" are not possibly affected by race?

This amounts to assuming racism because you can't prove it wasn't racism.

You continue to employ the fallacy of the excluded middle. I am saying it is reasonable to conclude that racism played a part given the principal's behavior.

[
Obviously, you killed Amelia Earhart. After all, you can't prove your innocence.

You cannot prove she was killed. Moreover, I can prove my innocence- I was not alive when she disappeared nor when she was declared dead. As usual, your response fails in logic and in fact.

 

[steve_bank]

Workers have been penalized for online political speech posted off work

Evergreen State College in Washington has had a series of politically correct suppression of speech, views, and criticism. In one case a teacher was forced out. He was critical of a blacks only day on campus. Whites could not participate.

Similar suppression of speech in California schools.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This amounts to assuming racism because you can't prove it wasn't racism.

You continue to employ the fallacy of the excluded middle. I am saying it is reasonable to conclude that racism played a part given the principal's behavior.

[
Obviously, you killed Amelia Earhart. After all, you can't prove your innocence.

You cannot prove she was killed. Moreover, I can prove my innocence- I was not alive when she disappeared nor when she was declared dead. As usual, your response fails in logic and in fact.

Ok, you're the one who shot JFK.

 

[laughing dog]

You continue to employ the fallacy of the excluded middle. I am saying it is reasonable to conclude that racism played a part given the principal's behavior.
You cannot prove she was killed. Moreover, I can prove my innocence- I was not alive when she disappeared nor when she was declared dead. As usual, your response fails in logic and in fact.

Ok, you're the one who shot JFK.

You are really pathetic. Not only was I not tall enough, but I have witnesses that I was nowhere near Texas, let alone Dallas. Why do you feel the need to knowingly make false accusation of violent crimes? The only point you have made with your last two post is that you are so desperate to deny the possibility of racism influencing behavior that you will make incredibly moronic arguments.

 

[arkirk]

You continue to employ the fallacy of the excluded middle. I am saying it is reasonable to conclude that racism played a part given the principal's behavior.
You cannot prove she was killed. Moreover, I can prove my innocence- I was not alive when she disappeared nor when she was declared dead. As usual, your response fails in logic and in fact.

Ok, you're the one who shot JFK.

There Loren goes again...Tsk tsk! Try limiting your baloney, Loren. This kid deserved to have his say...class valedictorian.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You continue to employ the fallacy of the excluded middle. I am saying it is reasonable to conclude that racism played a part given the principal's behavior.
You cannot prove she was killed. Moreover, I can prove my innocence- I was not alive when she disappeared nor when she was declared dead. As usual, your response fails in logic and in fact.

Ok, you're the one who shot JFK.

There Loren goes again...Tsk tsk! Try limiting your baloney, Loren. This kid deserved to have his say...class valedictorian.

Of course he did. The question is why he wasn't allowed to.