Our view

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Aug 9, 2008

Court tosses 'jesus' suit

Graduate speeches can be censored t's easy to see where a court would side with Lewis-Palmer School District 38, which says it did not violate the First Amendment rights of Erica Corder -- the valedictorian who dared mention " Jesus" (gasp!) in her 2006 graduation speech.

School oficials demanded an apology from Corder for straying from her pre-approved speech. Corder sued, saying she should have the right to express her faith in a speech. U.S. District Court Judge Walker D. Miller dismissed the lawsuit, saying it was not protected "private" speech, but rather "school-sponsored" speech.

This, by the way, is one more setback for student journalists who think they have First Amendment rights to use naughty words and such in school newspapers. Clearly they don't. But where were all these activists when a student fought for the right to say "Jesus" from a lectern?

If one stretches the imagination, from a technical/legal standpoint the school had grounds for its unseemly behavior toward Corder. And it's the role of a judge, after all, to resolve confiicts by interpreting the law and the law protects bad behavior and poor judgment. That's how we can have porn in what some would call an otherwise moral society.

From a less legalistic public policy position, however, the school was far off base. When a school sponsors a forum for expression by its highest academic achievers, the forum should be about truth. Had Corder attributed her success to something other than Jesus, in her mind she would have delivered a deceptive speech. The audience doesn't want lies from a valedictorian; it wants to be inspired by the sharing of a genuine experience, even if some find it offensive. Corder believes that her relationship with Jesus matters more in her life than anything else, so that's what we need to hear. Her speech didn't say that Christianity is the offcial position of the Lewis-Palmer School District. It said Jesus helps her succeed.

In pushing the boundaries of his legal rights, then-principal Mark Brewer used poor judgment. He decided the school could not be seen sponsoring a speech that contained the heartfelt message of a girl who was asked to share her experience. Instead, the school could only sponsor something safe -- something cleansed of the truth.

Allowing speeches that convey truth means sponsoring students who are inspired by the earth and sky to speak about the earth and sky. Those inspired by comforts of limitless material gain should speak about limitless material gain. Those inspired by Allah should speak about Allah. Those motivated by scientiofc theories that God is a myth should speak about their true motivation. Those inspired by Einstein should speak about Einstein. And those inspired by Jesus should speak about Jesus.

The school should sponsor speeches in which students are free to speak the truth, not politically correct, inofiensive pabulum designed to protect school officials from angry phone calls. Let audience members know what a graduate truly thinks, not what school oflcials say she should think. They may have the right. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't promote values of truth, free speech and academic freedom.

energy plan 'totally hot' John McCain's famous ad flashes a picture of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, then Barack Obama. "He's the biggest celebrity in the world." The crowd chants "Obama, Obama, Obama ..."

It brilliantly gets the viewer wondering whether Obama is merely attractive, and completely lacking substance to serve as president of the United States. It talks about Obama not wanting to drill for offshore oil, and his desire to raise taxes on electricity.

It all seems to have amused Hilton, who lacks any kind of substantive resume for celebrity. The McCain ad, however, may have brought out Hilton's true talent: public policy.

Hilton stars in a spoof of McCain's ad. She's lounging in a skimpy, leopard-print bikini. She talks about some old white-haired guy using her for a commercial. Unlike the old white-haired man, Hilton assures us, she's "totally hot."

Then she tells us that she, like McCain and Obama, has an energy plan. Neither McCain nor Obama match her rhetorical skills. She explains her plan as this:

"Barack wants to focus on new technologies to cut foreign oil dependency, and McCain wants offshore drilling. Well, why don't we do a hybrid of both candidates' ideas? We can do limited offshore drilling, with strict environmental oversight, while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way the oil drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in, which will then create new jobs and energy independence. Energy crisis solved."

She ends with: "I'm Paris Hilton, and I approved this message."

Not bad, Paris, and the energy plan sounds strikingly similar to McCain's. He wants ofishore drilling. And he's a government man and a self-proclaimed "environmentalist" who would certainly favor environmental oversight.

Though Hilton's energy plan is more coherent than anything proposed by most leading politicians, consider this version of it as modified by The Gazette. If she likes it, she can throw her name in the hat to serve as an advisor on our editorial board. Here goes: