Brittany McComb Uncensored
As promised, here is my phone interview conducted on Friday with 17-year-old Brittany McComb. McComb is the Las Vegas valley high school valedictorian whose microphone was cut off by school officials when her graduation talk departed from the approved text and became what public school officials considered to be too evangelical.
Thanks to all of the Buffet readers who sent in questions for me to ask her. I only had a 15-minute interview with McComb and did my best to ask as many of your questions as I could. Let me add that one of her lawyers, John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute was on the line the entire time. This required a conference call situation that offered less than ideal sound quality. There are some inaudible portions of the tape and clearly McComb was having a hard time hearing my questions at times. This proved more an inconvenience than a disaster. A lot of questions and answers had to be repeated. In the end, as you can see from what follows, McComb had a lot to say and is quite candid in answering your questions and mine.
Q: Religious faith is not the most common stereotype of a young person in Las Vegas. I wonder if you have any sense what impact growing up here has had on you?
A: I've never lived anywhere else. So I can't say for sure. I think living in a big city impacted me somewhat compared to living in a small town. But I think people get a bad view of Las Vegas and think it is more corrupt than any other place. But there are bad things going on in a smaller town too.
Q: So, you haven't found it hard growing up as a religious person in Sin City?
A: No. I have faith. You can have your faith anywhere. So I think it would be the same anyplace else.
Q: How familiar were you with the Constitution before your valedictorian speech? Did you study it in high school?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you think at all about the Constitution when school authorities cut out part of the text of your speech?
A: Of course! You have authorities revising and editing your speech. There is part of me that knows they are the authorities and they must have something to back up what they are doing. But another part of me went to government class and just learned about my free speech and my rights. This didn't seem congruent with them. This seemed like they were violating them.
Q: Had you put a lot of thought into free speech issues before this incident?
A: Yes. I actually wrote an article for my high school paper on school uniforms: whether or not we should have them. I wrote about what the founding fathers' ideas of freedom of expression and speech were. People will argue that having a uniform violates my freedom of expression. But that is not what they were fighting for. It was for our ability to express ideas and not what we wear.
Q: So you thought the school should be allowed to require a uniform?
A: I thought that wouldn't be a bad idea.
Q: Let me ask you some questions from readers of the Buffet. This is a question from Crazymonk: "Were you surprised when the school cut off the microphone, or were you expecting that would happen when you went off the approved script?"
A: I would have been more surprised. But right before the ceremony started, I ended up talking to a teacher, and he told me exactly what he had to do, which was that if anyone deviated from the script he had to turn off the microphone. So because of that conversation right before my speech I was aware that was probably going to happen. But by that time I had made my decision and it wasn't like I was going to reconsider it.
Q: That leads to another of Crazymonk's questions: "Why didn't you take legal action when the school edited your written speech? Couldn't this be handled without showboating at the commencement?" Leaving out the value judgment of 'showboating,' did you think of doing something before the incident?
A: Oh yes. My mom called the school board lawyer and his secretary promised to call right back and didn't. We tried numerous times to get in touch with the [school] district lawyer. From the moment they gave us the revised speech we began calling. It was like he was avoiding us and not returning our calls. We tried so many times and graduation was nearing. School was already out. We didn't know what to do. I think people get the impression that this was set and done and all premeditated. But things just came to place the way they did. It was never like beforehand I was like, "Oh, they are going to cut off my mike and I am going to have a lawsuit." No. I never thought about media. I just thought about expressing what was in me and that was Christ. It was the knowledge I gained from His words. There was a set of guidelines they gave us for writing the speech and I followed them step by step. Everything about their editing violated my logic and my principals. I was kind of shocked by it. I was like, "Why are they doing this?" I've been a good kid. I've done everything they asked of me in every aspect of school life.
Q: A reader named Rex Riley wants to know: "Do your actions represent the student body consensus opinion at your school?"
A: Most of the response I've got from kids from school has been very positive. There are a lot of kids who profess Christ, kids who profess nothing or kids who profess Mormonism. There are different religions. But I think the majority of them think passionately that I should have been allowed to say what was on my heart since it was nothing to hurt anybody.
Q: A reader named Benjoya wants to know, in a slightly more snarky way than I am going to ask you, was President Bush and his religious views an influence on you?
A: Not at all. I had my beliefs way before George Bush became president. I have been a Christian for a long time. I think the people who influence you the most are the people around you. I see President Bush on television or hear about him giving a speech or hear about his policies but it doesn't really influence me religiously.
Q: A reader named Tripsitterjon writes: "Given all the negative attention you've received, do you wish you could hit rewind and just do the speech you agreed to do without all the religious grandstanding?" Would you do it all over again?
A: You know I've received a lot of attention. And, there has been a lot more encouragement than negative. But it seems the negative hits me the hardest. But truth be told, I would do it all over again because I stood up for what I believe in and I am still very convicted that it was the right thing to do.
Q: How do your parents feel about what you did?
A: They are behind me 100%.
Q: I think the one question readers feel most focused on is why you at first agreed to give the edited speech and then did not do so? There is a sense running through many of the comments left on my blog that you were deceptive in doing that. When you said you would give the edited speech did you mean it or were you fibbing?
A: You mean when I said I'd give the edited speech?
Q: Yes. Did you at first agree to give the edited speech?
A: Yes. The actual situation was that the my assistant principal confronted me in the hallway and demanded to know what I was going to do. My parents were out of town. We still had not contacted the lawyer. Everything was chaotic, and I was like "What am I going to do?" I had no idea. So I had to say something and I was at my wits end. I was very intimidated. So I kind-of said, "yes" and I regret it. I wish I had stood up right then for myself.
Q: So you did agree to give the edited version at first?
A: I didn't know what I was going to do. I did say I would give the revised speech. I regret it. But it wasn't malicious. I wasn't thinking, "I'm going to stick it to you to get my free speech." Christ has abundant forgiveness. I really just wanted to tell my classmates about this light and love in my life and it tore me apart that they (school officials) did not want me to be who I am. It was like they wanted me to lie over who I am. In hindsight I regret not standing up for myself right away.
Q: Looking back, how do you think this controversy has changed or impacted you?
A: It has made me more curious. I had an interview with someone recently and I wound up asking all the questions. He was like, "Why don't we switch seats?" I am going to major in print journalism in college.
Q: Are there any lessons you are taking away from this experience?
A: Oh my gosh. I've learned so much. Everything is not as peachy keen as I thought. I've learned how people are manipulative and also how people will stand behind you. I also learned no one is too small to make a difference. I am amazed by that. I am absolutely astonished by this one action and how big a difference it made. I feel like I just need to encourage people to live passionately and not sit around the house and watch television all day.
onward christian lawyers, marching as to war!
so much for honesty. "i've learned how people are manipulative." you mean, like lying to the principal? finite education dollars will be diverted to fighting this girl's grab for money. what we need now is for someone in the audience to sue her. let's all get lawyers and sue the first person we meet tomorrow!
Posted by: proud_pagan | August 07, 2006 at 01:00 PM
Having talked to her I don't think she lied. I think she was, to use her word, 'intimidated' by the authority figure and had she been forced to give the speech right after he demanded an answer she would have given the edited speech. But given time to reflect she made the choice she made that day. Obviously, the fact that her family were reaching out to the district's lawyer, if accurate, meant she had issues with the edited speech that could have been addressed before graduation had the school wanted to do so. I really don't think reading what McComb said to me you could think she was being calculating in any way when she agreed to give the edited version. It seems more accurate to say she was bullied into agreeing. Just my thought. Yrs., Richard
Posted by: Richard Abowitz | August 07, 2006 at 01:14 PM
As for the Proud Pagan... Brittany is only sueing for 1 dollar, and that because due to the nature of her lawsuit, a monetary amount is required... jonathan
Posted by: Jonathan Eisfeld | August 07, 2006 at 02:56 PM
The link I clicked on to get here, on the Times front page, was titled "VEGAS: The Golf Course Call Girl Speaks". That does not seem like a good title for this article.
Posted by: anon | August 07, 2006 at 04:37 PM
Where is the part about the Golf Course Call Girl?
Posted by: Fluff | August 07, 2006 at 05:00 PM
Thanks for asking my questions, Richard.
Seems to me like she did what she did and I respect her for her decision. But I also respect the school for their decision: they told her they would cut her off if she went off script, she acknowledged above that she was aware of this, and they did as they warned. IANAL, but it seems to me that the school and the ACLU are right about the *legal* aspect of this: the school violated no rights, and Brittany and her family have little chance of winning this lawsuit. Taken outside of a legal context, I applaud Brittany for sticking it to the school. But civil disobedience is civil disobedience. Thoreau spent a night in jail, you get to get cut off in front of all your peers.
You can still become a life-long proselytizer if you'd like -- the ACLU has even paved the way for you to do it in front of Strip casinos :)
Posted by: crazymonk | August 07, 2006 at 05:09 PM
I'm not surprised the school acted as they did. It's a conservative approach -- when in doubt, say "No."
Whether or not Ms. McComb will ultimately win her case, however, may depend on whether or not she gets a Supreme Court hearing. If it goes to the 9th Circuit, the appeals court will almost without question deny her argument under the Free Exercise clause of the Constitution; also a conservative approach (from what is considered an activist court by many).
But keep in mind that during its 2004-2005 term (according to mediamatters.org), the Supreme Court reversed 84% of the cases from appeals of the 9th Circuit. The court of course chooses which cases it will hear, and only heard 19 cases from the 9th Circuit in 04-05 (overturning 16). Still, I think a good case will be made *within* the court to hear this one. What happens after that is not so clear.
The ACLU actually has a really good treatise on this issue (Establishment Clause vs. Free Exercise Claus). Check it out at:
www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16037res20020311.html
But the question there seems to fall on the allowability of prayer at commencement, which McComb was not doing (proselytizing, yes; prayer, no). According to the ACLU site, the court would need to inquire if the district were to *allow* the speech unedited, would you be able to say "no" to the following four questions:
1) Would the district's allowal of the speech have a religious purpose?
Since a student is selected each year based on merit, the allowal of the speech would be for a secular purpose, even if the content was not. I don't think a case could have been made that the selection of McComb would have been for a religious purpose.
2) Would the primary effect of the district's allowal of the speech be to advance or endorse religion?
I think the answer to that is a definite... maybe. But if taken in the context of *all* selected commencement speakers over time, probably not. Tough call, since the selection criteria for the speaker had nothing to do with religion. In fact this is where the Free Exercise Clause might have some teeth. Could McComb be selected, and then *denied* the right to clearly state why she believed she was so successful in school?
3) Would the district's allowal of the speech foster an excessive entanglement between government and religion?
Entanglement, clearly. Excessive, no. Again, looking at the selection criteria, allowing the speech could not be considered *excessive* entanglement, unless a case could be made that McComb was selected specifically for her religious beliefs.
4) Would the district's allowal of the speech be considered an impermissable endorsement of religion?
Based on selection criteria, allowal of the speech is an endorsement of the individual, not the content of the speech.
But then you get to the argument about: what if the speech had endorsed abortion, or civil disobedience, or encouraged soldiers in Iraq to go AWOL -- don't you have to draw the line somewhere on content?
I think you draw the line on content by selecting your best students to speak, and then give them the freedom to think for themselves.
And if they're boo-ed off the stage or wildly applauded for talking about what's important to them, so-be-it. This is commencement; a beginning; an encouragement to use one's head and make tough decisions. Even decisions that your peers might scowl at. This is *exactly* the right place to introduce controversy as opposed to encouraging lemming-like reactionism. Adults are often just way too good at that aren't they?
I think IF McComb gets to the Supreme Court, and I believe there is a reasonable chance that will happen, there is a better than even chance that a decision by the 9th Circuit will be overturned, giving McComb maybe a 50% shot at winning her suit. Not terrible odds.
And of course, everyone who disagrees with McComb has an absolute right to express that, too. But should we silence a student because we think she's an idiot? Wait; she's clearly not. She simply believes that her success was due to something some take offense to. Is silencing someone because we take offense to their beliefs something we *really* want to start doing? Forget the religious content of the speech for a moment (if you can). Ask yourself if we should be silencing people based on their beliefs in anything? Isn't that far more of a slippery slope? We may all get a chance to see.
Posted by: David McKnight | August 07, 2006 at 09:20 PM
Somehow everyone else's rights at that graduation ceremony were forgotten, in all this "grandstanding" for attention.
Freedom of Speech is guaranteed, yes, but so is the separation of Church and State. And since those who do not share Ms.McComb's religious beliefs were, so to speak, a captive audience, they had the right not to have to listen to a "testimony"! Good for that school in standing up for everyone's rights, not just the moral minority!
Posted by: Julie | August 07, 2006 at 11:14 PM
Living in Las Vegas, I agree with the point of view of Valedictorian McComb. However, she doesn't quite understand that the United States is drafting and instituting a 'new' church; a basis where all other secular churches will have to follow.
That is, every citizen (with a small 'c', will have to make amends with any political rights doctrine to recognize and admire any social attire, issue, demeanor, sexual constraint or influence, political agenda, and everything else, meaning that mainstream christian values and morals are completely at odds with the doctrines of the new church. This, in the name of government equality and separation of church from state.
We ARE the new Communists, and Socialism is the agenda of the NEW Democrat; the fact that we are a republic (elect representatives that should follow our values, but many times don't) rather than a true democracy where majority rules. Socialist values discount the 'need' for manufacturing and production class jobs, or the right of any one group to set any tones that go against overall 'homogenization' of political activity, and certainly the need for prayer and 'higher' guidance to navigate, inspire, and legislate more responsible political behavior. God is the enemy of Socialism, and God's values must be converted into something less than what it was at the time the consitution was drafted and written. Anybody professing faith in God must be put down and ridiculed in the New Liberal sense; there is no room for God and a Higher Power.
Compare my synopsis to that of being a world power meddling in other sovereign country's affairs, controlling doctrinal values with the muzzle of a gun. Telling anyone elsewhere how and to what extent to explore science-based engineering, all while encumbering and destroying liberty through government money that has no value basis in gold or silver, whose demeanor is to make a paper currency and banking system based on credit, where the only progress is inflation and the final worth of any individual to be eaten up with rising interest rates. It won't be long when the USA have a political body sheltered from any storm that the regular joe and jane will have to endure- not God's plan, but rather, the Socialist Political machine's dream and ideals.
All it takes is a whiff and view of what other countries have experienced- Brazil, China, Soviet Union, England, Italy, El Salvador... Where they have been, we are going. The first clause of the New USA was to get rid of any factory, so that no new generation could make living wages with a future and stake. Converting everyone to a welfare state also means that everyone will have to accept the New Church or be left out in the wings.
Take a look. See for yourself. Where is God in the new world? God gives hope. What does the poiltician give but more burdens, tax or otherwise?
Posted by: Charlie | August 08, 2006 at 06:45 AM
The school unquestionably violated your rights to freedom of speech and free expression of religion. You will undoubtedly win your case. Please contact the Alliance Defense Fund (headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona) and/or the Beckett Fund (in Washington D.C.). You've just created an ideal case to re-instate free expression of religion and a clarification by the Supreme Court (after several assenine rulings while Justice O'Conner was on the Court) as to whether freedom of speech includes the right to express personal, nonhateful religious views at a public event.
I am so glad that things turned out the way that they did. You're name will be on the lips of law students and academics for many years to come. But don't let that be your incentive in challenging the school's violation of your rights.
Do it because it's the right thing to do.
One final note, please read the snarky criticism by posters who have never been to law school, have never read the Constitution, and seem to have a revisionist approach to the First Amendment.
You're view of the First Amendment is in line with what the authors of the First Amendment meant by "the right to free speech" and "free expression". Don't let these morons fool you.
Posted by: Free Speech Advocate | August 08, 2006 at 04:16 PM
Julie said "Freedom of Speech is guarenteed, yes, but so is separation of church and state." This is a common falicy. In the Declaration and constitution there is not even a hit of this idea. This phrase was used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a Catholic Church in Maryland reasuring the church that their rights to practice their understanding of christianity would not be taken away.
Posted by: Gracie | August 08, 2006 at 05:38 PM
This girl selfishly hijacked the graduation ceremony of many people who worked hard for that day - just so that she could push her religion. Shame on her and her parents for that and for lying to the school administration.
Perhaps she should retake her government class. She suggests that her free speech rights were "violated". She obviously does not understand that giving a commencement address is NOT a right - it is a privilege. And what about the separation of church and state? Her school is publicly funded... I guess she missed goverment class that day too.
Posted by: American | August 08, 2006 at 10:57 PM
Did you ask the young lady if she was at all familiar with European history of the 16th-18th centuries, the history that led to the United States separating Church and State. Catholics killing Protestants and Jews. Anglicans killing Catholics, and Congregationalists. Congregationalists killing Catholics, Anglicans and Presbyterians. Presbyterians killing the lot.
Posted by: Phillip Good | August 09, 2006 at 08:09 AM
This is a great example of how so many Americans put ideology before principle. Many of the above responders seem angry that she expressed a Christian viewpoint. The principle, though, should be about free expression. Districts are in a qunadry. If they don't prescreen speeches, would they face liability when a speaker advocates violence and someone acts out on it. If they do screen speeches, does that mean that they are in effect advocating on behalf of a message so that to allow a Christian-themed speech would be tantamount to violating the separation clause.
BTW, all to the commentors saying that she violated the sep. of church and state, they don't know what they're talking about. The clause applies to the gov't and its agents, not private citizens.
BTW, I'm a non-Christian lawyer who gave a graduation speech to my high school class in Nevada in 1984 and everyone survived.
Posted by: Wieland | August 09, 2006 at 12:06 PM
The collective stupidity of the liberal left wing is breathtaking.
Posted by: thirteenburn | August 09, 2006 at 12:52 PM
ESPOUSING RELIGIOUS MYTHOLOGY AT A STATE FUNCTION IS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. IF SHE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT HER FAITH LET HER DO IT IN CHURCH....
MY TAX DOLLARS PAID FOR THAT SCHOOL...SHE HAS NO BUSINESS EXPRESSING THAT FAITH AND NOT ALLOWING A SATANIST TALK ABOUT THEIR FAITH....YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
KEEP RELIGION OUT OF PUBLIC AREAS AND OUT OF BEDROOMS.
Posted by: DAVID | August 09, 2006 at 02:21 PM
Free Speech Advocate writes: "The school unquestionably violated your rights to freedom of speech and free expression of religion. You will undoubtedly win your case..."
Historically, most free speech cases regarding students and schools have tended to favor the schools. McComb only has to look to the countless other cases where student journalists have sued the school for censorship, or when students have sued the school for being suspended for wearing inappropriate clothing. This isn't an incredibly unique and unprecedented situation; students are censored ALL the time. Having been a journalism student, naive folks like us feel like the First Amendment is the end all, be all of everything. But it's not.
Free Speech Advocate, if you had gone to law school, you would realize that case law speaks against McComb, not in favor of her. And her case is not unprecedented enough to make it close to the Supreme Court.
The ACLU and the school have done their research. The school IS in its right to censor school-sponsored speech, which is what McComb's speech amounted to. Valedictory speeches are a privilege granted by the school, not a right simply because you kicked butt in all of your respective classes. The school could have taken away McComb's privilege to speak for ANY number of reasons (i.e. if she intended to spread rumors about fellow classmates, or even if her hair was blond--the school still grants it as a privilege). Just because she was asked to speak does not mean she suddenly has a "right" to the content of the speech.
As for McComb, tough noogies. Yes, censorship sucks. And there are many cases in which it is illegal. But as a future journalism student, it would be to your benefit to learn where your rights vs. your privileges are. I wish the best for you in your studies, as I'm sure you will be (4.7? Good god!)
Posted by: Realist | August 09, 2006 at 02:38 PM
Romans 1 tells Christians to obey the authority of the state. Under Constitutional case law conservative justices have decided that students don't have the free speech rights that adults have. Why are Christian conservatives complaining that the school maintained discipline and order in the school? The student crossed the line and proselytized, in violation of guidance from school authorities. By doing so she also violated conservative Christian principles.
Posted by: George in NC | August 09, 2006 at 07:34 PM
"The clause applies to the gov't and its agents, not private citizens."
She was speaking at a government function selected by a government organization, therefore she was no longer acting solely as a private citizen engaging in protected speech.
This is the crux of the issue. There is no RIGHT to speak at graduation. Not everyone gets to go up there and say whatever they want about whatever they want. It is a privledge, granted by the schools to top performers, to speak on a motivational topic within the bounds set by the schools, which can include themes, key points, and things not to be talked about, to include anything that might be controversial, offensive, or just plain irrelevant to what's being discussed. Her 1st Amendment rights are very limited here, the Establishment clause takes clear precedent and numerous course cases set that precedent.
Posted by: Michael | August 10, 2006 at 09:50 AM
"The ACLU and the school have done their research. The school IS in its right to censor school-sponsored speech, which is what McComb's speech amounted to. Valedictory speeches are a privilege granted by the school, not a right simply because you kicked butt in all of your respective classes." Thank you Realist.
Anytime someone comes along and espouses a conserviative christian viewpoint in a quasi governmental setting the ACLU screams bloody murder about the mythical separation of church and state, yet the ACLU will be the first in line to defend a teacher that suggests that G W Bush is the biggest terorist on the planetwhile in the classroom and drape the teacher in the First Ammendment.
Posted by: Sean Fox | August 10, 2006 at 11:00 AM
Hello George in NC,
I am sure that having read the entire New Testament to get to the Epistle of Paul to the Romans; you are recall that obedience to the authority of God as exemplified thru Jesus Christ (obedient to the cross) takes priority to obedience to societal authorities. Where they conflict…well you know the rest.
And I am sure that you recall that Christ admonished His disciples to never deny Him (that’s why Christians are still martyred today in nations like India, Afghanistan, China, Viet-Nam, Indonesia, and occasionally in effigy here in the U.S.
And I am sure that you meant Romans Chapter 13, not Chapter 1 which deals with the ignorance of folks to the manifest glory, power and deity of God in the real world.
A gentle reply is not necessary, I only came to this site to read Brittany's interview and will not return. The bloodlust for Christians here makes me uncomfortable.
Posted by: karen | August 10, 2006 at 11:18 AM
Thank God (YHWH) for this young lady. It is high time we stand up and let people know the truth!
Jesus Christ, Yashua Massiah is the only Salvation there is and the only living Saviour!
Praise God
Posted by: Rev. Alex Baker | August 10, 2006 at 04:48 PM
Go Brittany!!
Glad you are standing up for your Christian faith, and I hope you sue the pants off of the school district and make the ACLU look like total fools.
Posted by: Bob | August 10, 2006 at 06:29 PM
University professors speaking at universities are fully protected by academic freedom and the first amendment. High school students are not. It's that simple.
Brittany would not have been denying Jesus by not giving a sermon at graduation. Her speech was offensive to non-Christians. The school was preserving order by stopping her speech. She could have given a speech which mentioned the importance of God and Christian service in her life that would have been acceptible to the school. However, she presented her beliefs as facts. That she lied about it only makes it worse. She wasn't obeying God, so that's no justification. There was no humility to it. It was an ego trip that makes a mockery of martyrdom.
Posted by: George in NC | August 10, 2006 at 07:19 PM
As a fellow Christain I am Proud of you. It is sad to say but the name of Jesus brings out so much anger in some people. The proof is in some of these other comments that were posted. And yet the name of Jesus also brings love and freedom to others. Some people try to remove all symbols of God from veiw because anything of God angers them. In some countries Christians are put in prison or killed because it is a crime to be a Christian. If someone did what you did in one of those countries they would be drug into prison and beaten or killed on the spot. Be thankful our country hasn't gone that far. Some people like to shout separation of church and state.Which was wrote to protect the church from the state. Not wrote to protect the state from the church which is the body of believers the Christians.It was written so the state could not enforce unfair laws on the Christians from expressing there faith or sharing it or giving thanks or honor to God. So nothing was wrong with you acknowlegeing that God is the one who made you the person you are. You could have given thanks to any one eles in the world, but to thank Jesus made people angry. What is wrong with that picture? The people that first came to this country and settled it was running from perscution in other countries for being a Christian. I would hate to see this country get to that point. Where Christians would have to hide their faith and hide for their life. So be thankful you weren't drug into prison or worst. Pray for those that are being perscuted at this momment. So be encourage, don't take on the negativness of some of these comments from others. What you did was right you followed your heart. If you done what others wanted you to do you would have always regreted it.
Posted by: Kay | August 10, 2006 at 07:32 PM