A high school senior in Michigan that was selected as the valedictorian of her soon to graduate class was issued a mandate by the school’s principal that stated that she could not discuss her faith in Jesus Christ as part of her graduation speech.
Amy Goldsmith, Hillsdale High School principal, was a harsh critic of the girl’s speech straight out of the gate as the high school senior, Elizabeth Turner, prepared her graduation speech. She criticized the speech for “anything associated with death and living a meaningful life, commenting that ‘a commencement ceremony is literally about new beginnings, not endings,” claims First Liberty Institute, the representative party for Turner.
As part of a correspondence sent to GOldsmith, First Liberty stated that Turner had altered her original version and included two additional paragraphs:
For me, my future hope is found in my relationship with Christ. By trusting in him and choosing to live a life dedicated to bringing his kingdom glory, I can be confident that I am living a life with purpose and meaning. My identity is found by what God says and who I want to become is laid out in scripture.
Whether we want to admit it or not, not one of us can be certain of how our lives will unfold, but we do know that trials will come. The reality of this is that we face an unpredictable future, and while we are making all these plans to prepare, ultimately none of us are promised tomorrow, making it all the more important to make today count.
First Liberty stated that on May 24th, 2021, Goldsmith made it a point to talk about the two paragraphs, chastising the girl saying:
This is better and you fixed the language, but you are representing the school in the speech, not using the podium as your public forum. We need to be mindful about the inclusion of religious aspects. These are your strong beliefs, but they are not appropriate for a speech in a school public setting. I know this will frustrate you, but we have to be mindful of it.
Turner quickly replied to the chastizing with an email stating:
I read your comments and unfortunately I don’t think I would be able to deliver a genuine speech under those circumstances. I don’t agree that we should avoid the topic of tragedy and death because that is a part of everyone’s future. I understand what you are saying, but for me, this is a time for my peers and I to evaluate our lives and to choose how we want to live since we’re not promised tomorrow and I don’t want to write a speech that won’t be meaningful just to check off the box. I believe it is celebratory to call people to a life of purpose and meaning and a call to action to live a life well.
In response to this email, Goldsmith stated: “While there is a degree of freedom to the content of your speech, there are also considerations of what the content and message should be at a commencement celebration and it’s [sic] appropriateness for the audience.”
First Liberty issued a statement to the principal in a letter on May 26th, “That day, during a conversation between you and Ms. Turner, Ms. Turner expressed confusion by your comments about sharing her faith because she believed she had the legal right to do so. You told her that as a valedictorian, she would speak on behalf of the school and the school could not make religious statements.”
First Liberty stated in a legal letter:
“Student graduation speeches constitute private speech, not government speech, and private speech is not subject to the Establishment Clause. Contrary to your statements that religious sentiments are “not appropriate for a speech in a school public setting,” Ms. Turner’s statements do not transform into government speech simply because they are delivered in a public setting or to a public audience.
Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely content-neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content and may include prayer. By contrast, where school officials determine or substantially control the content of what is expressed, such speech is attributable to the school and may not include prayer or other specifically religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate, neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech (whether religious or nonreligious) is the speaker’s and not the school’s speech.
Hillsdale High School must comply with the law by allowing private student religious expression during graduation. By doing so, it will teach students that the government should treat religion neutrally. Any perceived danger in students seeing their classmates engaging in religious expression, including prayer, is no greater than the danger in students seeing religion banned from public view.”