Thursday, August 10, 2006

Speech.

You may have heard about it; earlier this year, there were several instances, I believe, of a valedictorian’s speech causing unrest among the employees of the school and such. In any case, this is one of those speeches. From the end of the paragraph to the end of this post, the speech is presented in its entirety. I forget what school it was in; one in either Maryland or New Jersey. Anyway, it isn’t a bad speech, and holds many truths regarding—well, read it and judge for yourself.

Four years ago, we gathered here for an education. Today marks a milestone in that pursuit, a culmination of four years of learning, growth and shared memories. At such times, it is appropriate to reflect on years past, to examine what we have done and what we have learned. Today I am charged with that difficult task, and I would like to thank the school for the opportunity to stand before my peers and reflect on our time together. Education can be defined a number of different ways. For me, it is the product of human curiosity. Intellectual thought, as far as I can tell, is nothing but the asking and answering of questions. In my reflection, however, and I have reflected on this a great deal, I found that many of life’s most important questions are ignored here. What is the right way to live? What is the ideal society? What principles should guide my behavior? What is success, what is failure? Is there a creator, and if so, should we look to it for guidance? These are often dismissed as questions of religion, but religion is not something opposed to rationality, it simply seeks to answer such questions through faith. The separation of church and state is, of course, important, but it should never be a reason for intellectual submission or suppression of any kind. Ethics — it is what defines us — as individuals, as a society — and yet it is never discussed, never explained, never justified. Rousseau, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Aquinas, nearly every major writer I’ve encountered devotes time to the subject. And it’s not as if these questions are without practical concern, that they are less immediately relevant than science for instance. Our laws, our institutions and all our actions are a reflection of our ethics. Our own society owes itself to the writers of the enlightenment, but we never probe their work — we fail to espouse the movement’s central principle, doubt — doubt everything. We study what is, never why, never what should be. For that reason, the education we have received here is not only incomplete, it is entirely hollow.
What’s more, this same lack of focus can be found in many of the subjects we do study. We approach history as though it were a story, endlessly cataloging every major character or event. But the details of that story are insignificant — what is significant is the progression of ideas. A study of history should get some sense of how the society he sees around him developed from those built thousands of years ago, what ideas changed and what changed them. When humanist scholars looked into ancient Rome during the Renaissance, they searched for moral examples, for ideas. They didn’t mull on every single daily event. They were inspired, and they transformed society. History is not an end in itself; it should act as a tool for greater thought. But it’s not only history. I’ve taken a literature class nearly every year of my life, but never has a question so basic as “What is good writing?” come up. Literary technique, what should be the focus of the class, is never discussed. How does an author develop plot? How can an author control mood or tone in his writing? What is the advantage of one author’s methods over another’s? Such matters are never discussed. We read for the sake of reading, to talk about our interpretations in class as though we were in a book club. But no attention is paid to why we read the books we do, what makes them so special. And this pattern, grade for the sake of a grade, work for the sake of work, can be found everywhere. Ladies and gentlemen, the spirit of intellectual thought is lost. I speak today not to rant, complain or cause trouble, and certainly not to draw attention to myself. I have accomplished nothing and I am nothing. I know that. Rather, I was moved by the countless hours wasted in those halls. Today, you should focus on your child or loved one. This is meant to be a day of celebration, and if I’ve taken away from that, I’m sorry. But I know how highly this community values learning, and I urge you all to re-evaluate what it means to be educated. I care deeply about everyone here, and it is only our fulfillment I desire. I will leave now so that the ceremony can go on. Again, my deepest apologies, God help me.


x.x

15 comments:

toni said...

interesting. thats all i can say.

Thanxforthevenom said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I believe what she (he?) says however I dont think it belongs in a valedictorian's speech. She is telling the truth but a validictorian speech is designed to celebrate the years in the school and reflect on the years of learning (she certainly reflects but the implication is you are supposed to reflect on the positive side). Something bad happens to every high school student but that doesn't mean that bad thing should belong in your speech. She complains about the learning but she provides no alternative- this is our school system and it will not change that dramatically so where else will you go to find an education like that? Even though she complains, did she take it upon herself to still read those books she has wanted to read or thought of history the way she wants? Even if something is not supported by a school, it does not mean that the student cannot do it on her own. Basically I think she had a good point, but who in her audieence really listened to her or even cared what she had to say? A good speech is supposed to touch the audience and frankly, I don't think that she was telling her speech to an audience intelligent enough to fully appreciate her words.

On another note, she must have read Ayn Rand :) - parts of her speech sonded strikingly similar (especially 'History is not an end in itself').

Kevin said...

Bravo. I did so enjoy that speech; thank you, Colin, for bringing it to my attention.

I'm not sure I understand where Kelly is coming from. She admits the person has a valid point, but maintains that the point doesn't belong in the speech of a validictorian? Let me ask you: if not in the most important speech any high school student can make in those four short years of schooling, then where does such an important message belong?

On an online blog? In a journal? In a college classroom? I think the speech writer was correct in asserting that much of what we do and are supposed to do in school is time wasted on trivial matters.

And I have to disagree with (at least) one part of the speech. The 'history is not an end in itself' part. I personally find history very interesting, and believe it to be both an end in itself, and also a tool 'for greater thought.'

JohnC said...

I think it's a pretty good speech, and I agree with a lot of what the student said. In history and literature we don't learn enough of the things which are actually important. As the speaker said, there is too little discussion of philosophy and such, and the practical applications of the subjects. Of course any good student would independently consider those things as the information was presented, but I think it would help for it to actually be in the curriculum. As it is we are often given the raw data and not told what use it is, other than for passing tests.

History is only important if we learn from it, (not learn of it) knowing certain important dates or people from history is completely useless in itself. I agree with the speaker, history should not be treated as a story, a series of events, but as a lesson. Through history we can learn about lots of useful things, human nature, philosophy, economics, and how to conquer the world (don't invade Russia during the winter) among others. All the potentially useful things we learn from history have no "correct" answers to them, which is the only reason why we need to know the facts - to form out own opinions, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about the big ideas in class. The same is true of literature, but to a lesser extent, frankly I don't consider the subject to be as important, but we should spend more time on rhetoric, and not on a lot of the boring stories that we just read for the sake of reading.

Most valedictorian speeches are completely pointless wastes of time, this one actually had a purpose. Instead of making some boring speech that isn't going to help anyone, she talked about the state of the education system and how it could be improved. This wasn't for her benefit, it was for the other, less gifted students who, like her, aren't being given a good education but unlike her, aren't motivated enough to get one by themselves. It's unlikely that anything will change, but she's spreading these ideas, and it's sure to have a positive effect on someone.

Colin. said...

It is a he.

I must say I agree with him whole-heartedly. I don't mind a bit about the fact that it was in a valedictorian, for the same reasons Kevin mentioned, as well as the purpose for getting the message out. From what other outlet could he so blatantly and correctly criticize the school system, and get this much attention? He could've of written an article for his school, a letter to the editor of his local newspaper, put it on a blog of sorts--but people have been complaining in those arenas for years, and not much has changed. But this speech has gotten national attention. If he's looking to make a difference, this was the way to approach it. And I have to give him credit for having the guts to make such a speech after the school administration made it known to him that they did not approve of it.

There are many flaws in our schooling, many more than the now most common one: the No Child Left Behind Act lowering standards to a dissappointing level; don't get me wrong, this is a flaw. He pointed out many of them. History isn't always applied or put into context. Literature is full of busy work and reading 'classics' without always knowing why they're classics. These things have faulted our schooling for a long, long time, as people attempt to divide any possible connection between some religion and state. He articulated these thoroughly, but people have been complaining of these for years.

It's been said that high school is meant to prepare you for college, and college for the real world. Although, more realistically, I do believe that high school, to at least some degree, is supposed to prepare you for life outside the school's walls. This isn't done very well; we aren't taught how to live; or discuss theories pertaining to it. Some believe it common sense, and others don't care, but I believe most show some interest in philosophies. Unfortunately, the only way I can see them coherently and evenly making this available would be a high school class on philosophy; but then, I fear, it would be like history. We'd learn cut and dry the beliefs of different philosophers, but never discuss their merits or which we believe to be the right way.

Of course, we Governor School students, and some others besides, have picked up debates over philosophy, government, and other subjects. But most these days don't, which is not promising.

People have voiced worry over the future, if our generation is the one to take over the United States. If this worrying is right, it won't be due to our stupidity, but, rather, values of the individuals that make up our generation. Never taught what to value and what to detest, the beliefs are somewhat skewed. Their has never been a generation like us; never has life been able to become so detached from values.

Of course, these values can still be taught. And we can discover what makes great literature great. And we can learn life lessons from history. As long as we have this national schooling, we should do it right.

x.x

Kevin said...

Did you know this: that every school who receives national funding under the No Child Left Behind act must submit a roster of their students to the United States military for recruiting purposes? (I learned that from the lead singer of Anti-Flag; he told us this in an attempt to get the crown riled up.)

No Child Left Behind? I thought it was an educational act, not an act of war.

Colin. said...

I did not know that. I don't know if I would call it an act of war. It is just for recruitment purposes, to which any can say no.

x.x

Kevin said...

You too, Colin?

AMPaquette said...

yeah actually i'm not really upset by that either. i like the speech though.

Colin. said...

Me too, what, Kevin? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but they'd get the information either way. It's the government using its money to its advantage. It'd be different if they were taking the top 2% of each school and forcing them into service. But they aren't, it's only for recruitment purposes. Frankly, I'm not surprised and information like such.

x.x

Kevin said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kevin said...

"They'd get the information either way"? You'd be surprised at how inefficient the government is, and how much red tape there is.

Frankly, I don't believe the military should place my name higher on a recruitment list, simply because my school received federal funding from a bill of which I don't even approve.

Which would you rather have as your problem: the government, or apathy?

Colin. said...

I wouldn't. They aren't incredibly efficient, but with the power they have the ability to weild, they'd get the names.

Also, you've mentioned nothing about your name being higher for going to a school under No Child Left Behind. I doubt that your name is placed higher, but it is just a more efficient way for the government to get a mailing list so that they can send out those packets to us encouraging us to join the Marines, the Army, etc.

And that would depend. I assume you mean our government, in which case I am not sure. If apathy, the country's politics slow to a stop and a anarchy of sorts springs up. As of right now, I'd take the government; I believe they could be trimmed back more easily than trying to get more people to care about politics.

x.x

JohnC said...

I don't really have a problem with it, and I don't think it would have any effect on the quality of education the students get at the school. (so mabey it shouldn't be in an education act, but one can argue that since the military provides good training and education opportunities it does belong there)

Yes, they are going to try to recruit you more than someone at a school which doesn't comply because it makes it easier for them to contact the students in these schools. The section of the bill says that the schools have to provide names addresses and phone numbers for students, as well as allowing the military to recruit in the school as much as any college or buisness is allowed to. (I'd assume this is the reason for the army recruiters who often sit in the cafeteria and hand out information packets)

If you really don't like it, there's a provision that says you can request that your information isn't released, but it also says the school was supposed to inform you of that option.