T1B

A graduate in OK has been denied her diploma due to the use of the word "hell" in her graduation speech. Seriously? Fire the idiot in charge who made this decision. The word drew laffs and applause as she delivered it. I guess had the audience gasped and covered their mouths in shock an apology letter would be appropriate. The fact that the audience laffed means they should all have to write appology letters too.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08 ... -in-speech

What do you expect from a state that passed anti-Sharia legislation?

At least they're not planning to stone her.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/gir ... d=17044855

It could come later, though.

Is there no end to humanity's banal stupidity?

Left Seater wrote: Fire the idiot in charge who made this decision.

So you condone lying to the school about what is going to be in your graduation speech?

The comments are mildly amusing.

OklahomaMom wrote:As for this young lady, there are rules to a commencement speech. As a former 4.0 valendictorian myself I am well aware of the general rules set out long before the speech is made. And I am sure that curse words are stictly prohited.

'Hell' isn't even a curse word. Fuck.

Van wrote:'Hell' isn't even a curse word. Fuck.

She lied about her speech and only has to say she is sorry for lying to get her HSD. I don't she the problem here.

No shit. I'm so sick of TVO and his crazy right-wing nonsense.

Huh?
Brain aneurysm much Sam?

Moving Sale wrote:

Left Seater wrote: Fire the idiot in charge who made this decision.

So you condone lying to the school about what is going to be in your graduation speech?

This is one of those stories where everyone is going to end up looking bad, but it shouldn't have been a story in the first place. The school administration is being a bunch of dicks for withholding the diploma pending a written apology. Shoulda just overlooked such heinous language and given the bitch her sheepskin. But they didn't, putting the ball in the student's court. At this point, the chick shoulda just nutted up ('sup, Screwy?) & written the apology. If she had, no story. But she didn't, and chose to turn this into a matter of principle, which she'll lose. Assuming she knew that hell was verboten in her speech (which can be safely done since she didn't include it in the written draft she submitted), by slipping it into the speech she delivered, she knowingly broke a rule, and should know that rulebreaking carries with it consequences. The argument can be made that the punishment doesn't fit the "crime" in this case, but since the chick completed her classes and is no longer a student there, what other recourse does the school have to enforce the rule? They're giving her an easy out - write a short apology, get your diploma. That she's choosing to fight this on morals or principles only serves to cast everyone involved in a bad light, including her. Is hell such a terrible word? Fuck no, but that's not the point. The point is that she felt she could do what she did with impunity, which was wrong, and the school is taking the only course of action it has at its disposal to dissuade future valedictorians from taking such liberties.

One of life's more important lessons is knowing when & how to choose your battles. Some aren't worth fighting. She'll learn the hard way that this is one of 'em.

Moving Sale wrote:

Left Seater wrote: Fire the idiot in charge who made this decision.

So you condone lying to the school about what is going to be in your graduation speech?

You a self professed lawyer..you lie all the time.

How does this cast the school in a bad light?

Derron wrote:..you lie all the time.

Name one.

Moving Sale wrote:How does this cast the school in a bad light?

By making it seem petty. Yes, it has "right" on its side. But what harm would've been done by overlooking and ignoring the chick's indiscretion? Does it fear running the risk of next year's valedictorian dropping another dreaded "H-bomb"? The horrah!!!

The school's public image of making a mountain out of a molehill can be considered being cast in a bad light.

The administration of the school is mind numbingly stupid. I think she should tell them to fukk the fukk off and demand her diploma and take them to court if necessary.

And to answer your question Van, not only no, but HELL no!!!!!

That's an interesting point. Since she completed the courses required to earn her diploma, can they really withhold it from her when she wasn't even expelled from school? If she did take them to court, could the school possibly prevail?

I can't see them choosing to let it go that far. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain by fighting it.

So, yep, smackie, I think I agree with you. If she feels strongly enough about it, she ought to just tell them to fuck off and she'll see them in court.

Van wrote:If she feels strongly enough about it, she ought to just tell them to fuck off and she'll see them in court.

What is it, exactly, about which she should be feeling strongly? On what principle is she trying to stand? That hell isn't a swear word? That freedom of speech should extend to the choice of words she chooses for a commencement address? Seems the easier and more appropriate solution would be to write, "Dear School, Sorry I said 'hell.'" Would she be compromising some sacred principle by doing so? The only "winners" by going to court will be lawyers.

Moving Sale wrote:So you condone lying to the school about what is going to be in your graduation speech?

What is the definition of lying in the context of your question? Is the word intent implied at all? Or is just a falsehood good enough for you?

Smackie Chan wrote: "Dear School, Sorry I said 'hell.'"

BBBWWWAAAHHHAAA!!!

Smackie Chan wrote:

Van wrote:If she feels strongly enough about it, she ought to just tell them to fuck off and she'll see them in court.

What is it, exactly, about which she should be feeling strongly?

That she is rightfully owed her diploma.

On what principle is she trying to stand?

The principle that says the speaking of the word 'hell' once does not obviate the four years of work she put in to earn her diploma. Additionally, there's the principle that a bunch of backwards ass, self-righteous douchebags indeed don't "have a problem" just because she used a standard word rather than a lame colloquialism during her commencement address. There is no reason for them to have turned this into a problem, and in fact it's only a problem in their eyes, not hers or anyone else's.

That hell isn't a swear word? That freedom of speech should extend to the choice of words she chooses for a commencement address? Seems the easier and more appropriate solution would be to write, "Dear School, Sorry I said 'hell.'" Would she be compromising some sacred principle by doing so? The only "winners" by going to court will be lawyers.

"Easier" would be for the school to pull their collective heads out of their asses and understand that there was no cause for them to make an issue over her diploma. And yes, she will most certainly win if by taking the school to court she is granted her diploma.

If a letter of apology is to be written, it ought to be by the school for ruining what should have been a magical night for its valedictorian. She is not the one who behaved poorly and therefore owes someone an apology.

Are people here thinking she is now a high school dropout because she doesn't have a sheet of paper? If that was the case, her scholarship would've been revoked.

The knee-jerk to this non story is fucking stupid.

People are getting tired of PC clowns running amok and dicking things up whenever and wherever they can.

Rules are rules. We choose to obey them or we to deal with fallout of choosing not to obey them. Fairly simple.

It's easy to call it pc bullshit when you want to selectively enforce someone else's rules.

It's Newton's third law. Deal with it.

Guess you are assuming she broke a rule, however that has not been established, much less proven.

Further good public speakers don't read word for word. They know what they want to get across, but the exact words change each time.

Van wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:What is it, exactly, about which she should be feeling strongly?

That she is rightfully owed her diploma.

Fair enough. Maybe. But without knowing more, the school may have the "right" to withhold it.

If the school made it clear in writing prior to the valedictorian's speech that certain words (including hell, lame though it may be) are not acceptable, and stipulated that violating the policy would result in the withholding of the diploma, would you feel the same way? It's doubtful that this hypothetical scenario was indeed how it played out, but regardless, would the school still be in the wrong if it simply enforced the policy it made clear to the student before the policy was disobeyed?

the speaking of the word 'hell' once does not obviate the four years of work she put in to earn her diploma.

True. And she can still easily get her diploma without suing for it.

Additionally, there's the principle that a bunch of backwards ass, self-righteous douchebags indeed don't "have a problem" just because she used a standard word rather than a lame colloquialism during her commencement address.

Do you agree with all the policies by which you are bound? If a jurisdictional authority imposes policy by which you are bound, you don't have to like it, you can disagree with it, but if you violate it, you are subject to the consequences of the authority imposing it. I think the policy of not allowing hell to be used is weak. But if I know what the policy is and I still violate it, then I must accept the consequences, even if I disagree with the policy. I don't know that this was the case here, and I doubt that it was. All I'm saying is if...

There is no reason for them to have turned this into a problem, and in fact it's only a problem in their eyes, not hers or anyone else's.

I already alluded to this. The best course of action would've been to do nothing - no harm, no foul. But they didn't, and now they're left to unscramble the egg. Once they took a stand regarding enforcement of the policy, they pretty much have to follow it through to the end. They should've never tried to enforce it.

If a letter of apology is to be written, it ought to be by the school for ruining what should have been a magical night for its valedictorian. She is not the one who behaved poorly and therefore owes someone an apology.

You're preaching to the choir as it relates to the seriousness of her infraction. But if she violated a known policy, she behaved poorly, irrespective of how trivial the policy may seem.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote: Is the word intent implied at all?

I don't think it matters in this case because it is clear, at least to me, that she intended to use the word 'hell' in her speech.

Fact one: The speech she took the line from uses the word 'hell' in it.
Fact two: She is a Val of her class, so she is not stupid.
Fact three: She used the word 'hell' in her verbal speech.
Fact four: She says she is not going to apologize because she thinks there is nothing wrong with what she did.
Fact five: The text of the speech she had approved uses the word 'heck' in it.
Fact six: She knew the speech had to be approved because she had her speech, with the word 'heck' in it, approved.

From those facts it can be reasonably inferred that she meant to use the word 'hell' all along or she would have just said she meant to use 'heck' but screwed the pooch under pressure.

How was my spelling, syntax and grammar?

Left Seater wrote:Guess you are assuming she broke a rule, however that has not been established, much less proven.

Define proven.

Further good public speakers don't read word for word. They know what they want to get across, but the exact words change each time.

You mean like, "They didn't build that?"

Moving Sale wrote: I don't think it matters in this case because it is clear, at least to me, that she intended to use the word 'hell' in her speech.

Fact one: The speech she took the line from uses the word 'hell' in it.
Fact two: She is a Val of her class, so she is not stupid.
Fact three: She used the word 'hell' in her verbal speech.
Fact four: She says she is not going to apologize because she thinks there is nothing wrong with what she did.
Fact five: The text of the speech she had approved uses the word 'heck' in it.
Fact six: She knew the speech had to be approved because she had her speech, with the word 'heck' in it, approved.

From those facts it can be reasonably inferred that she meant to use the word 'hell' all along or she would have just said she meant to use 'heck' but screwed the pooch under pressure.

How was my spelling, syntax and grammar?

Would there be some sort of burden of proof with respect to what her intent was if this ever saw a courtroom? Does reasonably inferred = beyond a reasonable doubt? Or does that not even matter here?

Oh, bravo and your swell spelling, syntax, and grammar. I actually enjoyed the heck *outta your post. Thank you for that.

* Not a real word.

I don't practice in OK but my guess would be that the burden would be the same as in most civil cases which is preponderance of the evidence which is less of a burden than beyond a reasonable doubt. My use of reasonably inferred is = to preponderance of the evidence.

I hope that helps.

If I were the school I would've given her the diploma and spoke to her in private afterwards. And to make sure it never happened again, I would make an announcement to the incumbent seniors saying diplomas will be withheld if there is any deviation from their approved speeches.

Pretty simple if you ask me.

I thought it would be preponderance... and that it equated to your inference.

I definitely recall that word that from the OJ civil suit... thanks, man.

Go Coogs' wrote:If I were the school I would've given her the diploma and spoke to her in private afterwards. And to make sure it never happened again, I would make an announcement to the incumbent seniors saying diplomas will be withheld if there is any deviation from their approved.

if they know they will get their HSD, and they will find out this cunt kept her's, then why would they want to play by the rules?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I thought it would be preponderance... and that it equated to your inference.

I definitely recall that word that from the OJ civil suit... thanks, man.

Glad I could be helpful, now GFY you stupid juiced fuckhole.

Hell, she should have worn a Michigan shirt too
http://www.foxsportssouthwest.com/08/20 ... eedID=3601

Moving Sale wrote: if they know they will get their HSD, and they will find out this cunt kept her's, then why would they want to play by the rules?

They'll play by the rules because she now has created a no tolerence policy set by the school. Her deviation doesn't merit the administration witholding her diploma because she changed one word from her speech.

Common sense is lost on people when innocuous shit like this happens.

Moving Sale wrote: You mean like, "They didn't build that?"

I said good public speakers.

Moving Sale wrote:Glad I could be helpful, now GFY you stupid juiced fuckhole.

I will get right on that, btw, WTF is her's? Fuck you and the bidet you shower in.

I'd like to thank the principal for educating these young adults as to what happens when you let thumpers hold positions of power.

Left Seater wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: You mean like, "They didn't build that?"

I said good public speakers.

Gawd, you've gone of the rails.