<p>She should have said simply, "H-E-double-hockey-stick."</p>
<p>Oklahoma</a> high school valedictorian denied diploma for using 'hell' in speech - U.S. News</p>
<p>Wow! Hell! Really? This is such a ridiculous story! The school board should be sued.</p>
<p>That’s extreme. They’re all pretty much adults and I’m pretty sure the use of the word wasn’t in a negative way. (Or I would hope it wasn’t.)</p>
<p>That’s absurd. I wouldve rallied a protest or sued the school district.</p>
<p>“Mr. Principal, did you hear what she just said?!?”
“Yes! Why the hell did she say that!”</p>
<p>Some people…</p>
<p>That’s stupid…who the hell got offended over her speech? Other than the school district itself.</p>
<p>1) Where’s the context to the valedictorian’s speech? None is given. All we know is that she used one particular word and the audience - composed of mostly students - liked it. </p>
<p>2) Was she previously instructed not to use swear words? We don’t know. </p>
<p>3) Was she valedictorian for her grades, or was she elected valedictorian? We don’t know.</p>
<p>4) How did she or her family confront the principal about her diploma? In an angry and self-righteous manner? We don’t know. </p>
<p>There are too many unanswered questions for there to be a rational discussion of whether she deserves her diploma.</p>
<p>It is, however, obvious that she or her family went to the news with this story, and not the school board, as the school board stated that this was a “confidential” matter and nothing would be shared with the media. </p>
<p>So all we know is that we’re getting her side of the story. </p>
<p>Great. </p>
<p>Big deal.</p>
<p>5) If you’re questioning the school district’s decision on intellectual grounds, then you would do well to remember that schools have the ability to regulate student speech - to an extent. </p>
<p>But you’re not questioning the decision on intellectual grounds; you’re merely posting this to incur the wrath of anonymous internet users on a message board against the school. </p>
<p>In any case, the relevant Supreme Court Case is cited below. The case hinges on what the Court’s definitions of “lewd” and “indecent” and “obscene” are. </p>
<p>Bethel School District v. Fraser:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>kind of stupid but like the poster before me has said, there is a lot we dont know</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Something to do with others asking what she wanted to do in her future and said, “How the hell do I know?” It’s in there.</p></li>
<li><p>The article clearly states she had “straight A’s and had a 4.0 the whole way through.”</p></li>
<li><p>and 4. we don’t know, mostly because the news articles don’t include info on it.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>And yes, Bethel SD vs. Fraser could apply here. It’s all going to depend on whether using the word “hell” is lewd or indecent, even though the word wasn’t intentionally meant to offend anyone.</p>
<p>On a side note: <a href=“Anthony Cornist, Popular High School Senior, Denied Diploma Because Of Excessive Cheering | HuffPost Teen”>Anthony Cornist, Popular High School Senior, Denied Diploma Because Of Excessive Cheering | HuffPost Teen;
<p>Is anyone else asking the bigger question of why a valedictorian would be trying to imitate Twilight in her speech?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not enough context. I need the whole speech. She or her family obviously contacted the media; now, why exactly are they holding back the transcript of her speech? </p>
<p>A speech has an overall, cumulative effect. A few sentences often do not define the speech; rather, all the sentences do. I wonder whether the entirety of her speech was offensive. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does this rule out the possibility she was elected valedictorian?</p>
<p>I agree, was she elected valedictorian? If so, that makes me less sympathetic of her case and how her father portrayed her. </p>
<p>Plus, does she need the diploma to go to college? Can she just go?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It’s the news, I don’t think they would release the entire speech. If the girl or her family or anyone else wishes to post the entire speech online, so be it.</p></li>
<li><p>True, a 4.0 doesn’t always guarantee valedictorian. I had a 4.0 UW (although I had the highest weighted GPA and delivered a valedictorian speech). </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Did you see the link I posted earlier? About the graduate who was denied his diploma because the crowd apparently cheered too loud and disrupted the course of the ceremony. Now THAT’s outrageous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know my school explicitly tells the audience to hold all applause and cheers until the end of the ceremony, but some do it anyway. </p>
<p>My school doesn’t act on these parents who break the ground rules. </p>
<p>Had the school above set the ground rules, and had the parents broke them willingly, then punishment is by all means justified. </p>
<p>Whether suspending a diploma is justified is another issue.</p>
<p>My school didn’t have many rules on graduation, people just cheered.</p>
<p>True, if the parents or the student’s guests disrupted the ceremony, I can see that. But it’s quite possible most of the cheering came from other students, in which the school has no right to withhold that diploma. According to the letter the student got, he is responsible for the conduct of his guests, and his guests only.</p>
<p>Why IceQube is defending the ridiculous and, frankly, childish actions of the school board is beyond me. Who cares if she was elected valedictorian or not? Even if she was, she still fulfilled all of the graduation requirements and is thus worthy of her diploma. “How the hell do I know?” is a perfectly fine thing to say, as evidenced by the audience’s response (laughter and applause). The school board is being silly, plain and simple. </p>
<p>And no, I won’t concede to the argument of “we don’t know everything.” We never know everything. You can postulate for hours about meaningless, imagined details. Unless you have a legitimate reason for believing that the media coverage is somehow shrouding the “true” story, stop proposing juvenile hypotheticals. She deserves her diploma, and that’s all there is to it.</p>
<p>That’s completely ridiculous. If nobody in the audience was bothered by it (why should they be?), the school board is just being stupid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Proper behavior may be a graduation requirement of her school district. We don’t know. </p>
<p>I know in my district that poor behavior (signified by a number of referrals) will make it harder to graduate. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can your ‘justification’ be universalized? If the audience laughs and applauds an action, is that action categorically “fine”? </p>
<p>The implications of your … justification … are also concerning; you are advocating that the judiciary powers of the school board be vested in a mere audience. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The media isn’t shrouding the story; it just that she and her family appear to be unwilling to give the full story. Where’s the full transcript? Or even better, a video of her valediction?</p>
<p>The family did not go to the media to edify the world. Instead, it went to the media to get sympathy and to therefore, hopefully, effect change. What I do know is that the family, in an attempt to effect change, may be hiding something. I won’t speculate, but the possibility remains.</p>
<p>my instinct is to defend the school too. </p>
<p>I mean, if it was a deliberate act of defiance on the students part, which i imagine it would have be - not an innocent mistake - then yeah, i’m mostly approving of that consequence…</p>
<p>high school diplomas are overrated anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There you go with that argument again. I’m not sure why you’re unwilling to take the story at face value. We know the context of her statement. She was telling a lighthearted anecdote about her response when people ask her about her plans for the future. Looks pretty cut-and-dry to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In this case, yes (to the second question). It was an innocuous comment. I’m sure it can’t be universalized–almost nothing can. People will disagree with or get offended by things you and I find totally fine. So instead we must look at the much more reasonable criterion that something be generally accepted as inoffensive. Her comment had no ill intentions whatsoever and used a word that is hardly considered profane. And the audience’s reaction only served to reaffirm its innocuousness. </p>
<p>I can tell you right now why the full transcript hasn’t yet been released: it’s not necessary. The “scandal” is a small-town story (that caught the eye of a national newspaper) that doesn’t require in-depth analysis (even though people like you are happy to oblige). The article included in the original post spelled out the conflict and gave proper context, which was all the story needed.</p>