School Threatens to Ruin Valedictorian’s Naval Academy Appt.

[bodecea]

Well, in the absence of feedback from the Principal and the School District - subject to revision if-and-when their side of the story is ever made known - based upon what I know so far, my opinion is...

The boy acted like a boy, graduating high school, having done well, and having been accorded the honor of enrollment at the US Naval Academy...

A top-performer and a potential leader who was further accorded the honor of performing as valedictorian for his high-school graduating class.

He desired to mention God, et al, as part of his speech to the student body, and even went so far as to submit a draft of his speech which contained those very sentiments, and he was apparently told by the school district folk that he could not mention God in his speech.

In his 17-18 year-old mind, he saw a conflict between a blind following-of-orders and a resistance to what must have seemed to him a despicable violation of his Constitutional Rights, and he chose to stand up to authority on behalf of those Rights; the displeasure of the school district be damned.

I like the kid already.

Whether he decided rightly or wrongly, or somewhere in between, is not so much the point as is the array of positive character traits which such a decision brings to the surface; independent thinking, situational awareness and related analysis and decision-making, honesty and fair-play in conveying his intentions in advance to the school authorities, and considerable personal courage in actually delivering on his announced intentions despite the controversy which was sure to unfold afterwards.

None of this impinges upon his ability to follow lawful orders on some future date, and it strikes me as a marvelous learning opportunity for the kid, and an early manifestation of personal courage in the face of overwhelming power held over his head.

He's a 17-18 year -old kid, and he's already served-up one attribute of a good military leader: Personal Courage.

He has plenty of time to smooth-out any wrinkles in his priorities and decision-making processes, and the Naval Academy will, no doubt, do wonders for him in this regard, as, indeed, it does to most prospective leaders who choose to study there.

But you can't teach 'love of the Constitution', and you can't teach 'balls' - you can't teach Personal Courage...

And this kid has already passed those tests with Flying Colors... good for you, kid!

So, when he makes the same "authority be damned" decision at the Academy........

 

[Kondor3]

"...So, when he makes the same 'authority be damned' decision at the Academy..."

His conduct would be reviewed, and if they felt he was not justified in his decision, there would be disciplinary action on the horizon for that student.

The curriculum at each academy also has a component focused upon ethics and lawful orders versus unlawful ones.

The point of the exercise at any service academy is to turn-out the next-gen officer corps.

Kids - students - make their mistakes at the academies, so that they will not make the same mistakes once they've received their commissions and are on active duty.

Young people get to make mistakes.

The better ones learn from those mistakes.

But the academies need something to build on.

And this kid shows one helluva lot of promise as new, incoming raw material.

 

[Kondor3]

Oh, and... forgot to mention earlier...

As a matter of personal opinion...

The school principal is a Genuine, Bona Fide, USDA-approved, Grade-A fukkwad for threatening to write to the service academy about the incident...

That's nothing more than being pi$$y and vengeful... a most juvenile demonstration, under the circumstances, from someone whose job it is to supervise the education and guidance of young people...

 

[Clementine]

I know religion is banned in schools, but since when do they object to talking about the constitution? Is that one of the new liberal targets? First, there was a teacher suspended for reminding students of their constitutional rights and now a student is in the hot seat, partly for talking about our founding document. This shit is going too far.

 

[Gracie]

Oh, and... forgot to mention earlier...

As a matter of personal opinion...

The school principal is a Genuine, Bona Fide, USDA-approved, Grade-A fukkwad for threatening to write to the service academy about the incident...

That's nothing more than being pi$$y and vengeful... a most juvenile demonstration, under the circumstances, from someone whose job it is to supervise the education and guidance of young people...

 

[Esmeralda]

The principle should be thrown out of education permanently from what the story says. In my opinion he should be prosecuted for official oppression.

So...you take this on face value automatically.

That's the thing: they take everything at face value. They have no critical thinking skills. And it's always the ones who denigrate the education system who do this: those who believe their teachers had nothing to teach them and who resisted learning. Now they are nimnos with no ability to do any critical thinking, and they accept whatever they are told at face value, as long as it is told to them by people they choose to believe. Pathetic.

 

[bripat9643]

Yours is that anyone who doesn't do what he is told without thought is wrong.

If you think that is what the military is about, then you are wrong. I am glad you never served.

That's what you're about, Fakey. You're a boot-licking toad. You respect authority without question.

 

[Ravi]

Naval Academy huh?

Where you are supposed to follow instructions without question? And he can't even deliver the valedictorian speech he agreed to give?

Not Naval Academy material

Yep. Not to mention lawyering up because someone is going to give you a bad review. So many entitlement junkies in this country.

 

[rightwinger]

Naval Academy huh?

Where you are supposed to follow instructions without question? And he can't even deliver the valedictorian speech he agreed to give?

Not Naval Academy material

Yep. Not to mention lawyering up because someone is going to give you a bad review. So many entitlement junkies in this country.

I love all the posters protesting how the boys Constitutional right to free speech is being violated, yet the principal doesn't have a right to free speech to contact the Naval Academy?

 

[Esmeralda]

Naval Academy huh?

Where you are supposed to follow instructions without question? And he can't even deliver the valedictorian speech he agreed to give?

Not Naval Academy material

I think that's a very good point. He has agreed to use the speech that was approved. To go against that agreement may be what he wanted to do and support his feelings of free speech, but it doesn't bode well for his attitude as a naval academy cadet, where he will have to do what he is told without question.

If the principal wrote a letter of recommendation for this kid, and then the kid does that, the principal is within his rights to contact the school and say the recommendation is altered as the student has proven to be something other than what he thought when writing the recommendation.

 

[bripat9643]

Naval Academy huh?

Where you are supposed to follow instructions without question? And he can't even deliver the valedictorian speech he agreed to give?

Not Naval Academy material

Yep. Not to mention lawyering up because someone is going to give you a bad review. So many entitlement junkies in this country.

You,. on the other hand, believe government toadies should be able to destroy you at the slightest whim.

How beautifully liberal!

 

[Kondor3]

"...I love all the posters protesting how the boys Constitutional right to free speech is being violated, yet the principal doesn't have a right to free speech to contact the Naval Academy?"

Nobody is saying that the principal is not free to contact the Naval Academy.

But people are saying that such contact represents a malevolent and vengeful and juvenile attempt to continue to punish the student outside the domain of the school district.

Rather like swatting a mosquito with a cruise missile.

Directed against a puppy still wet behind the years.

Nobody likes a malignant miscreant who picks on puppies.

 

[bripat9643]

Naval Academy huh?

Where you are supposed to follow instructions without question? And he can't even deliver the valedictorian speech he agreed to give?

Not Naval Academy material

Yep. Not to mention lawyering up because someone is going to give you a bad review. So many entitlement junkies in this country.

I love all the posters protesting how the boys Constitutional right to free speech is being violated, yet the principal doesn't have a right to free speech to contact the Naval Academy?

That's called slander and defamation of character. I'd sue his ass myself.

How unsurprising that you support the ability of some boot-licking government toady to destroy the future of someone in his charge.

 

[rightwinger]

"...I love all the posters protesting how the boys Constitutional right to free speech is being violated, yet the principal doesn't have a right to free speech to contact the Naval Academy?"

Nobody is saying that the principal is not free to contact the Naval Academy.

But people are saying that such contact represents a malevolent and vengeful and juvenile attempt to continue to punish the student outside the domain of the school district.

Rather like swatting a mosquito with a cruise missile.

Directed against a puppy still wet behind the years.

Nobody likes a malignant miscreant who picks on puppies.

The boy was playing a game many valedictorians play......I have graduated, you can't do anything to me

Free speech does not say that you can say anything you please without consequences. This is one of the consequences.

Never seen a little puppy with a lawyer

 

[rightwinger]

Yep. Not to mention lawyering up because someone is going to give you a bad review. So many entitlement junkies in this country.

I love all the posters protesting how the boys Constitutional right to free speech is being violated, yet the principal doesn't have a right to free speech to contact the Naval Academy?

That's called slander and defamation of character. I'd sue his ass myself.

How unsurprising that you support the ability of some boot-licking government toady to destroy the future of someone in his charge.

Do you even read what you post?

Slander? To prove slander you have to prove that what was said was not true
Defamation of Character? He is merely reporting on the character of the boy

 

[Kondor3]

"...I love all the posters protesting how the boys Constitutional right to free speech is being violated, yet the principal doesn't have a right to free speech to contact the Naval Academy?"

Nobody is saying that the principal is not free to contact the Naval Academy.

But people are saying that such contact represents a malevolent and vengeful and juvenile attempt to continue to punish the student outside the domain of the school district.

Rather like swatting a mosquito with a cruise missile.

Directed against a puppy still wet behind the years.

Nobody likes a malignant miscreant who picks on puppies.

The boy was playing a game many valedictorians play......I have graduated, you can't do anything to me

Free speech does not say that you can say anything you please without consequences. This is one of the consequences.

Never seen a little puppy with a lawyer

This is a matter of ethics, directed at the Principal who threatened the student.

Just because one CAN do a thing, does not mean that one SHOULD do a thing.

This is especially true when examining the conduct of a public servant who, in turn, is charged with the education and care and guidance of young minds and preparing them to go out into the broader world beyond the school.

And, as in most matters of ethics, there is a highly subjective component to the incident.

There is nothing within School District Policy which says that District officers SHOULD go out of their way to endanger a former student's future prospects simply because the student violated some intangible and controversial administrative policy.

There is nothing within the realm of commonly-accepted educator ethics and guidelines which says that an educator SHOULD go out of their way to punish a student beyond the school district and once the student no longer falls within the district's jurisdiction.

You are quite probably correct in observing that this is one possible consequence of such an act of defiance on the graduating podium.

But that is insufficient to the day.

The real substance of the matter is whether or not the Prinicipal SHOULD have done such a thing or whether or not the Prinicipal SHOULD have threatened to do so.

Not whether a thing CAN be done, but whether a thing SHOULD be done.

You know... ethics.

 

[Esmeralda]

Nobody is saying that the principal is not free to contact the Naval Academy.

But people are saying that such contact represents a malevolent and vengeful and juvenile attempt to continue to punish the student outside the domain of the school district.

Rather like swatting a mosquito with a cruise missile.

Directed against a puppy still wet behind the years.

Nobody likes a malignant miscreant who picks on puppies.

The boy was playing a game many valedictorians play......I have graduated, you can't do anything to me

Free speech does not say that you can say anything you please without consequences. This is one of the consequences.

Never seen a little puppy with a lawyer

This is a matter of ethics, directed at the Principal who threatened the student.

Just because one CAN do a thing, does not mean that one SHOULD do a thing.

This is especially true when examining the conduct of a public servant who, in turn, is charged with the education and care and guidance of young minds and preparing them to go out into the broader world beyond the school.

And, as in most matters of ethics, there is a highly subject component to the incident.

There is nothing within School District Policy which says that District officers SHOULD go out of their way to endanger a former student's future prospects simply because the student violated some intangible and controversial administrative policy.

There is nothing within the realm of commonly-accepted educator ethics and guidelines which says that an educator SHOULD go out of their way to punish a student beyond the school district and once the student no longer falls within the district's jurisdiction.

You are quite probably correct in observing that this is one possible consequence of such an act of defiance on the graduating podium.

But that is insufficient to the day.

The real substance of the matter is whether or not the Prinicipal SHOULD have done such a thing or whether or not the Prinicipal SHOULD have threatened to do so.

Not whether a thing CAN be done, but whether a thing SHOULD be done.

You know... ethics.

Ethically: If the principal has supported this student's application to the naval academy, and if he has written the student a reference letter, he then has every right to contact the school and explain this event. As has been noted, the naval academy will expect their cadets to respect authority, and to be ethical, which means if you agree to read an approved speech, that is what you do. The principal has a right to let the academy know the student has proven to not be respectful of authority and to rescind on an agreement to read the pre-approved speech. He has a right to say he was mistaken about the student whose naval academy application he initially supported.

Personally, I wouldn't do that; I'd just let it go. However, when a person writes a reference, his or her reputation is on the line in that the reference needs to be honest and to be born out by the subsequent behavior of the applicant. So if this student is not what he pretended to be, the principal has a case for exposing the truth about the kid's character.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Ethically: If the principal has supported this student's application to the naval academy, and if he has written the student a reference letter, he then has every right to contact the school and explain this event..."

Again, we are talking about right (CAN) versus SHOULD.

"...The principal has a right..."

Ditto (CAN versus SHOULD).

"...Personally, I wouldn't do that; I'd just let it go..."

Yes. Neither would I. Neither would most folks. And there is a reason for that. It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. There is something not-quite-right about it, no matter how much one flops-about seeking justifications.

"...However, when a person writes a reference, his or her reputation is on the line in that the reference needs to be honest and to be born out by the subsequent behavior of the applicant..."

1. do we know whether the Principal DID write a reference to the Naval Academy?

2. the juicy rationalization of preserving one's reputation is paper-thin under the very best of circumstances, in contemplating the risk of injury to a student's future prospects, and this one walks a tightrope above the chasm of 'getting even' and 'punishment beyond graduation' - it is why neither you nor I would do it.

3. letters of recommendation or reference pertain to the PAST - and are not conditional upon subsequent events or behaviors; they pertain to how the subject comported him-or-herself in the time period up to and including Letter Writing Day, but, once the Letter has been written, the subject is not obliged to conform to any particular standard for the rest of his or her lifetime, just so that the Letter may remain in effect. The real world doesn't work that way and you know that just as well as I do.

"...So if this student is not what he pretended to be, the principal has a case for exposing the truth about the kid's character."

'Has a case for' ( CAN ) is NOT the same as 'SHOULD'.

And I am assuming that the kid was EXACTLY what he portrayed himself to be and was not pretending in the slightest.

In this context, that means that the kid may very well have portrayed himself as respectful of authority, and that that portrayal was 100% genuine and truthful.

Until 'authority' did a Wrong Thing - to the kid's way of thinking, anyway.

Wrong Things should be resisted.

Authority should be respected routinely... right up to the nanosecond when it does a Wrong Thing.

At such a time, resistance or sidestepping is legitimate.

Now... whether or not the kid was CORRECT in his assessment that Authority was doing a Wrong Thing... well... that's another matter.

But the kid gets the benefit of a doubt that he was acting in good faith and really believed that Authority had done a Wrong Thing.

This was all a pimple... a gnat... a flea... right up to the moment when the Principal threatened to erase years of the kid's good works because he chose to stand up to Authority when he was convinced that Authority was doing a Wrong Thing.

Then again, come to think of it, given the service academy God-and-Country mentality, they'll probably give him a ticker-tape parade, arriving on campus for the first time, rather than throw rocks at him.

With the Academy Superintendent calling the kid into his office after he got settled-in and shaking the kid's hand behind closed doors, as part of private but special welcome-on-board exchange.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yours is that anyone who doesn't do what he is told without thought is wrong.

If you think that is what the military is about, then you are wrong. I am glad you never served.

That's what you're about, Fakey. You're a boot-licking toad. You respect authority without question.

Respect for the Rule of Law instead of fallible man is what I respect.

Constitutional republican democracy is so much better than the reactionary nonsense in which you believe/

 

[JakeStarkey]

"But people are saying" falsely and for partisan purpose" that such contact represents a malevolent and vengeful and juvenile attempt to continue to punish the student outside the domain of the school district."

The "malevolent and vengeful and juvenile" words merely reflect the weirdness of those who oppose the principal. He is within his rights to write, and properly so, to influence the academy's decision.