High school valedictorian's speech cut after going off-script on sexual assault
18 replies, posted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2018/06/09/this-valedictorian-began-to-talk-about-sexual-misconduct-at-her-graduation-then-her-mic-was-cut/?utm_term=.e685efe388ac
Lulabel Seitz had done everything right, at least on paper. As a high school senior with a GPA over 4.0, the 17-year-old had been accepted to Stanford University, one of the most
prestigious colleges on the West Coast. The first in her family to graduate from high school, she was named valedictorian at Petaluma High School in Northern California, an honor that
was joined by an opportunity for her to give a commencement speech. But about four minutes into her speech at the school’s graduation ceremony on June 2, the microphone she was
speaking into was disconnected.
Seitz had arrived at a part of her speech that touched on sexual assault allegations at the school, without naming anyone in particular, according to a video she later uploaded to
YouTube. But school administrators had cut her off at the moment she deviated from a script that she had previously submitted to them, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat reported.
David Stirrat, the principal of the public high school, told The Washington Post by email that students had submitted their speeches for approval, then practiced with a panel. They had
been warned that if they went off script, the microphone could be cut off, he said. Seitz had spent the first four minutes of her speech describing some of the challenges that both she
and the student body at large had overcome to make it to their high school graduations. She said that she was the granddaughter of immigrants from the Philippines, and the child of
two parents who left high school early and didn’t go to college.
“I didn’t think I’d be standing here as your valedictorian,” she said. “But the reason I share this story with you is not because I think it’s unique. In fact quite the opposite. We have all
achieved unlikely dreams.” She noted that the school had weathered a teacher’s strike and closures during the fires that raged last fall in Sonoma County, which she said had claimed
some students’ homes.
But it was in her next sentence that school administrators decided to silence. She began it by saying that “the class of 2018 has demonstrated time and time again that we may be a
new generation, but we are not too young to speak up, to dream and to create change. Which is why even when some people on this campus, those same people — ”
According to the version of the speech that she read later and posted to YouTube, Seitz planned to say: “And even learning on a campus in which some people defend perpetrators of
sexual assault and silence their victims, we didn’t let that drag us down. The class of 2018 has demonstrated time and time again that we may be a new generation but we are not too
young to speak up, to dream, and to create change.”
“The Petaluma High School administration infringed on my freedom of speech, and prevented a whole graduating class from having their message delivered,” she wrote on YouTube.
“For weeks, they have threatened me against ‘speaking against them’ in my speech. Sometimes we know what’s right and have to do it.”
How to achieve the Streisand effect 101.
I don't really see this story as being super terrible or anything? The school stated they would've considered such a topic acceptable in the speech granted no name-and-shame was involved, there's no mention of whether the student actually requested it be added or anything, and the defense she gives is "well they should've known from my tone i wouldn't name and shame!"
This is a terrible defense. If she's already going off script, her tone doesn't matter, the school doesn't know what she's going to say, and so they pulled the plug, as they said they would. The fact that every speech is approved by the school is reason enough to cut the mic if someone goes off script, snce anything they say could be construed as being approved by the school in some way. This is a dumb situation that seems like someone wanted to make a fuss without trying to go through proper channels at first, not some grand shutdown of free speech.
Sounds like they could've avoided this situation entirely by simply allowing discussion of nearly any topic, so long as the speaker was open to suggestions. Instead they took a hardline stance, effectively quashing their right to speak on a topic of their choosing, which resulted in the following situation
Not trying to make a statement on anything, but does anyone else find it weird how this happened at a high-school?
In the first place, I've never heard anyone refer to a high-school "campus," I've only heard campus in reference to Universities.
And considering it is a High School, you'd think that if sexual assault was occurring that teachers and especially parents would want to take action against it.
It's a graduation speech, not a forum for discussion. It's meant to be an inspirational little bit sending off the students to the next chapter. I don't see where the "hardline stance" was, they said they were open to speeches containing sensitive topics as long as they were able to screen them first since naturally they don't want any name-and-shame or direct attacks on the administration. And it's probably less trying to conceal potential dangers and more "what is she saying we didn't approve this part".
Again, there's nothing saying she asked for this part to be in her speech. They school says they would've allowed it. The only thing claimed was that they threatened to cut the mics of students who went off script and that they didn't want any attacks on the administration or name-and-shame. This sin't an example of some student heroically fighting for what's right, it's a student who decided not to say anything until the day of so everyone would call them a brave soul for stepping up on her own. If it comes out that she asked to add this part and they refused, I'll admit I'm wrong, but as it stands this is really not something about free speech at all. She was invited to speak on behalf of the school and her fellow students, told what was acceptable, and asked to submit her speech for an approval. As far as we know and as far as the article claims, that's exactly what happened, and then she decided not to follow the rules.
The administration shouldn't be such babies as to deny their students an opportunity to speak their mind regardless of script, at a ceremony about entering the adult world.
These school administrators probably felt empowered for about .5 seconds after they cut off her speech, given the attitude of "we own the venue, so we can control the message" shown in the article, but the reaction they're about to get from the public should make them feel pretty much pathetic, and they deserve it.
For weeks, they have threatened me against "speaking against them" in my speech.
I think I missed something here. So did she tell the school about her plans or not?
they most likely kept declining her speech about the sexual harassment cover up.
Or they told her the same thing they told every student, not to target the administration for an attack during the speech? I don't know where this sudden burst of defense of coming from considering how lightly described the situation is. The article hasn't said anything about what she did beforehand or anything so I don't know why everyone feels the need to make excuses. Yes, school administrations are retarded, everyone who's gone through highschool knows that. But we don't have any info suggesting she actually presented the youtube version of her speech to them- no quote saying "I sent them this and they declined it", just her saying "I think they got scared because I was going to call out them".
This is a giant he said she said where the school is claiming they would've welcomed this granted she didn't call anyone out and she's saying the only reason they cut her off was because "they were scared" and that she did the right thing. So I don't know why we're jumping to "oh she kept getting declined they just wanted the truth to come out!" because if there was some big battle it would probably have been included in the article instead of the reasons why she thinks they cut her off.
That would require the parents to know about it. Encouraging students to speak up is how that would happen.
I don't feel anything I've said was an excuse for anything.
Its not really an attack if its true? she wanted to bring the harassment to light and the faculty didn't like that it made them have egg on their face.
She would've started a fucking lynch mob if she named someone in the crowd. Even past the questionable ethics of publicly naming someone for doing that without evidence, it was probably for the best that the school prevented the possibility of damn riot.
I don't think highschool auditoriums are as volatile to lynch mobs as you portray them.
They have the legal right, but I still find it immature of them.
I've seen high school football games turn into a mini-riot. It doesn't take much, just the right kind of people under the right circumstances.
fuck them, I've done theatre where mikes failed, I'll make them hear me damnit!
Campus was pretty commonly used when I was in high school.
Also, there is a ton of sexual assault in high school, it's actually quite disgusting.
"Hey jsyk if you go off-script we're gonna cut your mic"
"k"
*goes off script*
*mic is cut*
?!
Like, if the school is legitimately covering up sexual assault, that's disgusting. There's absolutely no excuse for it. But what did she actually expect to happen? Did she actually seriously think that she'd be able to get away with calling out the people who are currently controlling her microphone?
As if she'd start exposing the school faculty for covering up cases of sexual assault and they'd just sit there like, "wait, let's see where she's going with this"?
Not to mention how now, the story is all about how they "censored her freedom of expression", not how they're apparently covering up cases of sexual assault and blaming the victims.
You know what would have made a bigger impact? Refusing to change the speech, then going public with "they don't want me talking about this". Because now the school has an excuse for silencing her; she agreed to the rules, she broke the rules, they cut her mic. But had she been forced to give up her opportunity to speak altogether, it would have raised the question as to why they took issue with that specific part of her speech.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.