"This valedictorian began to talk about sexual misconduct at her graduation. Then her mic was cut."
by Eli Rosenberg June 9, 2018
"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."
She was waned. She shoud have included the material in her practice script.
"“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.”"
Perhaps the student was wrong, and misjudged whether she would be allowed to speak her truth about sexual misconduct investigations by asking for permission to address the topic? She was frustrated and wanted to see more aggressive action by the school.
"The Press Democrat reported that Seitz was frustrated by what she claimed was a lack of action from the administration on a claim of sexual misconduct.
Stirrat said the students were welcome to include potentially controversial material in their speeches.
“In Lulabel’s case, her approved speech didn’t include any reference to an assault,” he said. “We certainly would have considered such an addition, provided no individuals were named or defamed.”
Seitz told The Post that she never planned to name anyone — and that it should have been clear to administrators from the tone of her speech."
Legally the school had the right to cut the mic, but was the school doing the right thing?
"“If the school is providing the forum, then the school has the ability to have some control over the message,” Rose said."
Law, justice, doing the right thing . . . it can be complex.
