• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Valedictorian denied high school diploma for saying hell in speech

cmakaioz said:
...um...perhaps because the policy is arbitrary and draconian, and -- were it not for the political vulnerability of students, especially minors -- wouldn't have seen the light of day if attempted with legal adults?

(Where else would you be able to convince a bunch of folks to work for four years under conditions and on a curriculum they have little to no input in, and then have the certificate of having completed that work revoked based upon simply saying a word?!?)



...except that it is not established that she did anything wrong. You DO comprehend the difference between (allegedly) against the rules vs. ethically wrong, don't you?



Yeah...the NERVE of that student...speaking freely and using a Forbidden Syllable. Which scarlet letter should we use for the capital crime of Using A Forbidden Syllable?

The sad part is that I can't tell if you're joking, because there are folks here who would write what you've written and be completely serious. Classic case of POE.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call the word a "Forbidden Syllable considering their school mascot is the devil.
 
Mason66 said:
I wouldn't call the word a "Forbidden Syllable considering their school mascot is the devil.
Click to expand...

Remember: as with most school rules; they apply to students but not to the teachers or administrators...so long as that double standard remains convenient.
 
Mason66 said:
That is not even the point.
Click to expand...

How is it not relevant to what is being discussed here? She did technically act against the rules, but I still think that she should be given her diploma based on the notion that breaking a rule is sometimes a beneficial thing to do. Also, I was specifically replying to Guy Incognito's assertion that "rules are rules".

She earned her diploma with extremely hard work, got the best grades in school, and they deny her the diploma based on an arbitrary rule about what word can be used or not used.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I believe that she was right to act against the rule.

I doubt she did it to make a point by breaking a rule,
Click to expand...

True, I think she may have said the word unintentionally. I'll need to reread the article.

but as an adult she has the right to say anything she pleases with no consequences from anybody.
Click to expand...

Uh, no.

If she screams 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre, then she's in trouble. With the law.

If she calls my mother a dirty rotten white trash slut, then she's in trouble. With me.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I think it is truly sad that anyone cannot see what this child did wrong. It's like a moral blindness, or perhaps a failure to recognize basic human morality at all. This thread is a tragic commentary on society.
Click to expand...

This thread is a tragic commentary on many things, but not society. The one tragedy I notice that is relevant to you is a bizarre stubbornness to stick to a position without any logic, facts or common sense, and yet accuse others persistently and repeatedly of being wrong, shameful and emotional. It has been amusing, mostly, but frustrating at times, simply to witness it.
 
notquiteright said:
Chris-
she said she made a mistake and shouldn't have said hell. THAT should be the end of it as there is NO, ZERO, NADA, NIX, NON rule against her using the word hell.

You and Guy I. seem to gloss over that fact to call her petulant. She broke no rule, just could have use a bit more care in the choice of words.

Not diploma with holding worthy.

She said she made a mistake, the Principle should have been satisfied with that, something else must be going on in this to have the Superintendent blow smoke with a 'confidential' reason.

Personally I see the honor student saying she made a mistake as prodded on by a third party saying that would show good faith, placate the Principle and smooth it all over.

However saying she made a mistake doesn't justify the Principle acting less mature than the honor student, nor with holding the diploma.
Click to expand...

I disagree that she made a mistake at all. Her use of the word hell was entirely appropriate. Students shouldn't be afraid to use the word as such.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I don't see any cause for shame on my end. Defending the inappropriate actions of this child is what is shameful. Sad, really, that anyone could be so morally stunted as to think that her behavior is worthy of defending.
Click to expand...

You may want to consider trading in your libertarian badge for one that is more representative of submission to authority and group-think.
 
Dezaad said:
This thread is a tragic commentary on many things, but not society. The one tragedy I notice that is relevant to you is a bizarre stubbornness to stick to a position without any logic, facts or common sense, and yet accuse others persistently and repeatedly of being wrong, shameful and emotional. It has been amusing, mostly, but frustrating at times, simply to witness it.
Click to expand...

It is unfortunate that you are so emotional about this topic that it clouds your ability to argue clearly. We have a disobedient child refusing to apologize for an admitted wrongdoing, and people like you defending her. Th facts speak for themselves. The wrongful acts of the child are not nearly as shameful as the adults abetting her obstinacy and petulance.
 
lizzie said:
You may want to consider trading in your libertarian badge for one that is more representative of submission to authority and group-think.
Click to expand...

Hardly. I would be only too happy to talk about how public schools should be abolished and education privatized, were it not off topic for this thread. But the context of unjust and coercive public school sustem is a given. This is not a political issue, it is a moral one moral issue, and to any sensible adult with even the slightest level of maturity, the moral imperative is clear, there should be an apology for breaking the rules, not whining and complaining to try to absolve the consequences of rule breaking.

Fundamentally libertarianism is about liberty, but people always forget. That with liberty comes responsibility
 
Dezaad said:
I disagree that she made a mistake at all. Her use of the word hell was entirely appropriate. Students shouldn't be afraid to use the word as such.
Click to expand...

The "mistake" was in violating the rules, which are what they are. If someone wants to participate in a system of rules, they most obey them or accept the consequences of disobedience.
 
Funnily enough, I see a pathetic level of groupthink coming from the arguments of those supporting the disobedient student in this. It's people no thinking rationally or morally, but emotionally. Many have already admitted that their support for the disobedient student stems from their own youthful altercations with teachers. It's that whole "we don't need no education, we don't need no thought control" mantra. The other side is vicariously living out their childhood fantasies of standing up to their schoolteachers, and in the process encouraging bad behavior and setting the example that you can disobey the rules as long as you whine enough. Pathetic!
 
To the idea of just apologizing:

I, my oldr brother, and friends of mine have had issues in high school with a really crappy administration. They were doing things they had no legal right to do. IT would have been easier to not do anything, BUT we didn't because we knew they were wrong. We won.

Are you honestly going to suggest that we were in the wrong? The arguments were construed well, but were wrong, likewise in this case there was no rule, and even if there was I doubt that a swearing offense that applies during the academic year is strong enough to withhold a diploma.... or that even if that was the case it would hold up in court, but IANAL.
 
Guy Incognito said:
The "mistake" was in violating the rules, which are what they are. If someone wants to participate in a system of rules, they most obey them or accept the consequences of disobedience.
Click to expand...


I posted the school's rule book earlier in this thread, some folks bothered to read it - THERE IS NO RULE that the young lady violated! THERE IS NO RULE in the school rule book that should cause the school's principle to withhold the girl's diploma. The idiocy of the actions undertaken by the principle and the superintendent cause me to think that there was some other cause and not the use of the word hell

Children don't have a choice as to participation in the school system and the rules that may be imposed upon them - they are children and not allowed to make the rules. However, those same children should expect that those given authority over them shall abide by those same rules as published and promoted and not to impose arbitrary rules and penalties without warning.

Guy Incognito you are wrong now and have been wrong from your very first post in this thread.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Funnily enough, I see a pathetic level of groupthink coming from the arguments of those supporting the disobedient student in this. It's people no thinking rationally or morally, but emotionally. Many have already admitted that their support for the disobedient student stems from their own youthful altercations with teachers. It's that whole "we don't need no education, we don't need no thought control" mantra. The other side is vicariously living out their childhood fantasies of standing up to their schoolteachers, and in the process encouraging bad behavior and setting the example that you can disobey the rules as long as you whine enough. Pathetic!
Click to expand...

And to think I once took you seriously.
 
Somerville said:
I posted the school's rule book earlier in this thread, some folks bothered to read it - THERE IS NO RULE that the young lady violated! THERE IS NO RULE in the school rule book that should cause the school's principle to withhold the girl's diploma. The idiocy of the actions undertaken by the principle and the superintendent cause me to think that there was some other cause and not the use of the word hell

Children don't have a choice as to participation in the school system and the rules that may be imposed upon them - they are children and not allowed to make the rules. However, those same children should expect that those given authority over them shall abide by those same rules as published and promoted and not to impose arbitrary rules and penalties without warning.

Guy Incognito you are wrong now and have been wrong from your very first post in this thread.
Click to expand...
I am not wrong and never was. What is wrong is to defend and abet this stubborn child in her disobedience. An apology is in order, there can be no doubt. The fact that there is no explicit rule against profanity in the student handbook is no defense, as nothing in the handbook that states tha the rules in the handbook are the only rules a student must follow.

Why anyone would go through the intellectual backflips you are doing to defend this disobedient child is beyond me. The only explanation is that those who support this disobedient child are doing so to vicariously avenge what they perceive to be their own mistreatment at the hands of school administrators.

Opposing public schools because they are coercive and illegitimate, that's great. I agree with you. but if you are the type of person who supports public schooling, and you defend this disobedient child, your argument is nothing but vile hypocrisy. To defend this disobedient child for a clear breach of conduct and refusal to apologize, is nothing more than petulance; rebelliousness for rebelliousness's sake. It is sad, ugly, pathetic, and bespeaks a failure to attain mature adulthood.
 
You say it time and again but it don't make it right. Repetition does not make 'truth'

Guy Incognito wrote (yet one more time)
I am not wrong and never was.
Click to expand...

You use the adjective "disobedient" in describing the young lady. I do not think you understand the word

disobedient: refusing to follow the rule(s)

There was NO RULE for Ms Nootbaar to follow at the time she used the word hell in her speech, therefore she could not be "disobedient"

I am the product of private schools but that does not mean I am against public schools in this country.
 
Somerville said:
You say it time and again but it don't make it right. Repetition does not make 'truth'

Guy Incognito wrote (yet one more time)

You use the adjective "disobedient" in describing the young lady. I do not think you understand the word

disobedient: refusing to follow the rule(s)

There was NO RULE for Ms Nootbaar to follow at the time she used the word hell in her speech, therefore she could not be "disobedient"

I am the product of private schools but that does not mean I am against public schools in this country.
Click to expand...

Your illogic is positively cringe inducing. Seriously, reading your posts is hard for me because you are embarrassing yourself so badly.

Just because there is no specific rule in that one manual does not mean there was no rule. Please do try to apply a little logic to your emotional histrionics.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Well it was in Oklahoma. Even Arizona isn't that hosed up yet. But, yeah, that's the America we live in.
Click to expand...

Which is why I say to all of those Texas secessionists that I don't care if they secede as long as they take Oklahoma with them.
 
EnigmaIncognito said:
How is it not relevant to what is being discussed here? She did technically act against the rules, but I still think that she should be given her diploma based on the notion that breaking a rule is sometimes a beneficial thing to do. Also, I was specifically replying to Guy Incognito's assertion that "rules are rules".



Which is exactly why I believe that she was right to act against the rule.



True, I think she may have said the word unintentionally. I'll need to reread the article.



Uh, no.

If she screams 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre, then she's in trouble. With the law.

If she calls my mother a dirty rotten white trash slut, then she's in trouble. With me.
Click to expand...

Can you provide proof of a rule she broke? As it has been pointed out earlier inthis thread there is no rule against using profanity in the school.

How can you equate the girl saying Hell with yelling fire in a crowded theater?
 
Guy Incognito said:
It is unfortunate that you are so emotional about this topic that it clouds your ability to argue clearly. We have a disobedient child refusing to apologize for an admitted wrongdoing, and people like you defending her. Th facts speak for themselves. The wrongful acts of the child are not nearly as shameful as the adults abetting her obstinacy and petulance.
Click to expand...

Is he emotional about this topic too?
 
Mason66 said:
Can you provide proof of a rule she broke? As it has been pointed out earlier inthis thread there is no rule against using profanity in the school.

How can you equate the girl saying Hell with yelling fire in a crowded theater?
Click to expand...

Why would you not give the school administrators the benefit of the doubt and assume that, just like every other school in America, the use of profanity by students is not allowed.
 
Somerville said:
You say it time and again but it don't make it right. Repetition does not make 'truth'

Guy Incognito wrote (yet one more time)

You use the adjective "disobedient" in describing the young lady. I do not think you understand the word

disobedient: refusing to follow the rule(s)

There was NO RULE for Ms Nootbaar to follow at the time she used the word hell in her speech, therefore she could not be "disobedient"

I am the product of private schools but that does not mean I am against public schools in this country.
Click to expand...

Somerville, at this point I think he is just screwing with us just to see how long he can keep this thread going. Nobody can be this dense with all the evidence staring them in the face but continuing to stick to an undefendable position.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Why would you not give the school administrators the benefit of the doubt and assume that, just like every other school in America, the use of profanity by students is not allowed.
Click to expand...

Because it is not a written rule and as such does not exist.

Try to prosecute somebody in California by saying that even though we don't have the written law, everybody else does, so this person must be convicted.

Also can you provdie proof that profanity is prohibited by, what did you say, every other school in America?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom