Marvin Wright, president of his high school senior class, spent two weeks working on his graduation speech, staying up till 5 on the morning of the event to finish.

Yeah. That's when he wrote it. That morning.

"his adviser informed him he would have to write a graduation speech."

The article gives the impression that he was supposed to read the prepared speech, NOT his own. Yet his advisor told him to write a speech?

OK. Here's how I see it. He was told to write a speech and give a copy to the school beforehand so they could approve it. He puts it off to the last minute and misses the submittal deadline. So the school gives him a prepared speech to read instead.

A great story with a happy ending.

It was a lousy story with an unhappy ending. Unless you think the consequences of procrastination make for great stories. They seldom do.

In this case, his speech was still on his cellphone. He hadn't printed it nor submitted it to the school in advance. So the principal, who was prepared and used to students who aren't, gave him a canned speech to read -- to save the student embarrassment.

The kid broke the rules and suffered the consequences. Hey! Maybe this was a great story with a happy ending.

The kid broke the rules and suffered the consequences.

And won in the end, and the shortsighted little martinets who enforced petty rules upon him pettily ended up having to submit to him in the end, by apologizing to him and his family.

A very good result. Those who had a petty degree of power exercised it, and were humiliated, forced to crawl before the young adult they temporarily inconvenienced it.

A great story with a happy ending indeed - petty officials forced to kneel and eat shit before a teenager, because they did not exercise their authority wisely.

“All my friends were outside with their big yellow folders taking pictures and I was still inside, trying to get my diploma,” Marvin said. “I was really hurt and embarrassed, basically humiliated.”

Yeah. Happy ending.

Yeah. Happy ending.

We agree!

Marvin did not receive his diploma for another two days, when the principal dropped it off at his home at the request of the superintendent.

- HOME DELIVERY TO THE BOY BY THE VERY MAN WHO DENIED IT

Edgecombe County Schools Superintendent John Farrelly called Marvin on Monday to apologize for the way the school handled the situation on commencement day.

“I have communicated with the family to apologize on behalf of the school,” Farrelly said in a statement to the Wilson Times. “The diploma never should have been taken from the student.”

- PERSONAL AND PUBLIC APOLOGY BY THE TOP GUY.

Yeah. That's when he wrote it. That morning.

hahhahaa..... ever the "submit to authority" no matter what, even if the "authority" does things they are not authorized to do, such as arbitrarily decide to withhold a diploma.

The article gives the impression that he was supposed to read the prepared speech, NOT his own. Yet his advisor told him to write a speech?

Your reading comprehension is lacking. There's no dispute that he was to write a speech as was the norm for class presidents in past years. The school alleges he was to submit it for approval, while he alleges such requirement was not disclosed to him.

And no, he didn't write it that morning. It's clear he claimed to have been working on it for a couple weeks and only put the finishing touches on it that morning. For a 5-minute speech, it does sound like more time than would be required, but he obviously wanted it to be perfect. But again, your reading comprehension fails today.

OK. Here's how I see it. He was told to write a speech and give a copy to the school beforehand so they could approve it.

Yes, there is agreement that he was to write a speech, but dispute that he was told to submit it for approval. Very good!

He puts it off to the last minute and misses the submittal deadline.

No, no, no, no NOooooo...... Unless the commencement began at 5:01 AM, it was not put off "till the last minute", and he claims he was not made aware of any deadline.

So the school gives him a prepared speech to read instead.

Awesome!

But do you actually think the school acted with proper, lawful authority in withholding his diploma, or might you agree that was likely a regegade, unlawful and unauthorized punitive action on their part?

In case it's not obvious, I'm trying to see if you will continue your pattern of hypocritically sticking up for one set of law breakers that is in charge, while condemning another set of law breakers that's not in charge.

Yes, there is agreement that he was to write a speech, but dispute that he was told to submit it for approval. Very good!

You really don't think the school would ask to see a copy of the speech before he gave it?

"But do you actually think the school acted with proper, lawful authority in withholding his diploma, or might you agree that was likely a renegade, unlawful and unauthorized punitive action on their part?"

Who was the renegade here? The school you say?

As for what the school did, what do you think they should have done instead? Harsh language?

You really don't think the school would ask to see a copy of the speech before he gave it?

It depends on if the school is truly proud of it's educational system in preparing students for life, or instead believes that it's a nanny system that needs to hold the hands of students even through the graduation ceremony.

Who was the renegade here? The school you say?

Let's try this again: Did the school personal act with proper authority in deciding at the event to deprive him of his diploma at the ceremony?

As for what the school did, what do you think they should have done instead? Harsh language?

Given the speech he gave was completely fine, they should have ignored their claim of inadequate procedures and allowed the ceremony to proceed without incident.

Now that I answered your question, will you answer mine?

Probably not.

Doing nothing is not an option.

Did the school personal act with proper authority...

"Did the school personal act with proper authority..."

I have no idea. But I believe the school principal should have that authority.

I have no idea. But I believe the school principal should have that authority.

Wonderful.

Now, if the did not have that authority, then denying him that diploma was a violation. In that case, punishment would you recommend for this renegade, outlaw principal who failed to obey his mandates according to the office he held?

Or is violating procedures something you are okay with?

PS: And, BTW, the superintendent did offer an APOLOGY to the student for him not getting his diploma, if that is any evidence that the principal violated procedure.

PS: And, BTW, the superintendent did offer an APOLOGY to the student for him not getting his diploma, if that is any evidence that the principal violated procedure.

To me, that is evidence this linguini-spined superintendent didn't want the student's parent to sue.

As to whether or not the principal violated procedure, I don't know. The linguini-spined superintendent said the diploma shouldn't have been taken, not that it was against procedure.

I'd like to know how the superintendent thinks this should have been handled. Maybe the student shouldn't have been allowed to speak at all.

To me, that is evidence this linguini-spined superintendent didn't want the student's parent to sue.

If that was his concern, apologizing was absolutely NOT the thing to do. You may be unaware of this, but admitting wrongdoing is evidence that can be used in civil court against you.

As to whether or not the principal violated procedure, I don't know. The linguini-spined superintendent said the diploma shouldn't have been taken, not that it was against procedure.

So you don't know if the principal violated procedure, but you DO know that the superintendent is "linguini-spined". That's quite the riot there, you know.

Thanks for playing, misterwhite, but you lose this round -- big time.

My login fortune just now is quite applicable to you so I'll pass it on:

Avoid reality at all costs.

So you don't know if the principal violated procedure, but you DO know that the superintendent is "linguini-spined". That's quite the riot there, you know.

Thank you. I'm here all week.

Thank you. I'm here all week.

Correction. I think you meant "weak".

"His English teacher told him she approved of the speech. Marvin even left a copy of the remarks on his principal’s desk for review on commencement day."

Apparently you missed the above sentence in the article.

1. He got approval of the speech.
2. He clearly had it finished on time to get the approval and leave a copy for the pipsqeak principal.

1. He got approval of the speech.

The mother complained to the principal, who explained to her that her son had missed a deadline to submit the speech to the school. Marvin says he never knew about it.

"2. He clearly had it finished on time to get the approval and leave a copy for the pipsqeak principal."

He was working on the speech until 5am of the day he was to give it! He missed the deadline, so the principal told him to deliver the canned speech. He thought "F**k you, I'm giving my own speech". So the school said "F**k you. No diploma."

Try that in the real world. Your boss asks you to give a presentation to an important client, but wants to see it 3 days before. The morning of the presentation you finish. Your boss tells you to forget it and to give the canned company presentation. You give your own anyways.

You should expect him to tell you to clean out your desk and be gone by the end of the day. The school did this kid a favor.

Still, administrators insisted he should read the address they prepared.

Rules are only required for those on the bottom of the authority food chain. This means ordinary citizens and students for example. For anyone else, such as a police officers or school principals, rules do not need to be followed. They can do things the rules and laws do not permit, but it's okay because they have people that are below them. Apparently, just having subordinates or whatever type is license to act with impunity.

"His English teacher told him she approved of the speech. Marvin even left a copy of the remarks on his principal’s desk for review on commencement day."

Marvin didn't even finish the speech until the morning of commencement day, so I have no idea what the teacher approved or what was placed on the principal's desk. Outline? Rough draft? Notes?

Moot point. He was to submit a copy of his speech by a certain date and he didn't. Meaning he was to give the canned speech. He refused.

Rules and laws are nothing more than suggestions. If you agree with them, you'll go along. But if you don't, you won't.

Which is fine until you get caught. THEN the whining and excuses start. You'll go on social media and cry about how the law is unfair, wrong, immoral, unconstitutional -- whatever. You're the victim here. Can't everyone see that?

But up until you were caught you did NOTHING to actually try to change that law. No petitions. No referendum. No protests. No write-in campaigns. No nothing.

Now that you're caught, NOW you demand change, ignorant of the fact that calling for change after you're caught is self-serving and hypocritical.

Marvin Wright, president of his high school senior class, spent two weeks working on his graduation speech, staying up till 5 on the morning of the event to finish.

You're hanging your hat on a mighty short nail. If he worked on it for two weeks your presumption that he didn't finish until that morning is no more valid than a presumption that he was too excited to sleep and was practicing the speech at 5 AM, perhaps changing a word or phrase to improve it.

Rules and laws are nothing more than suggestions.

Tell us again, why were you banned from FR?

It didn't take long for your colors to show. Does your wife help you remove your jackboots at night, or do you wear then to bed?

"If he worked on it for two weeks ..."

He may have started it two weeks before, but I'm guessing he wrote it the night before. It was still on his phone when he gave it.

He didn't practice. He stumbled and mumbled his way through it, embarrassing himself and the school. Which was why the school wanted the speech written, turned in and practiced well in advance.

"Tell us again, why were you banned from FR?"

Like most others who were banned from FR, I told the truth.

There's some truth!

He stumbled and mumbled his way through it

And not so much truth. He, "stumbled a few times – distracted by the conversations taking place behind him and struggling to read from his phone", which is understandable. I doubt he'll be offered a prize or a debate scholarship, but he communicated with his audience which made the day much better than a canned blurb from the pipsqueak. "Marvin’s speech was welcomed with cheers and laughs from the audience."

You, misterwhite, and the pipsqueak, make writing pompous bumbling characters a breeze.

distracted by the conversations taking place behind him and struggling to read from his phone", which is understandable.

Giving a lame excuse for his stumbling and mumbling doesn't mean he didn't stumble and mumble and it certainly doesn't mean I didn't tell the truth.

"Marvin’s speech was welcomed with cheers and laughs from the audience."

From the students? There's a real endorsement.

He, "stumbled a few times – distracted by the conversations taking place behind him and struggling to read from his phone",

Yet the administrator, principal and other school teachers and bureaucrats were not admonished for the rude distractions.

Which whitey conveniently ignores.

Marvin’s speech was welcomed with cheers and laughs from the audience."

From the students? There's a real endorsement.

Good grief man!

Do you really believe that his speech should be designed to please the school bureaucrats and ignore the students?

From the students? There's a real endorsement.

More truth; congratulations! That is from whom an endorsement of a speaker counts the most -- from the audience.

Truth is not truth if it is adulterated or bowdlerized. There is nothing in the report about his "mumbling", and the distractions are an understandable reason for a stumble or two.

My only criticism is that he did not have notes at the ready. Even that is understandable given today's trend of replacing any hardcopy with electronic text. I would advise any speaker to always have notes (preferably cards) at the ready in case the teleprompter or other electronic aid goes down.

Yet the administrator, principal and other school teachers and bureaucrats were not admonished for the rude distractions.

His excuse for his stumblings and bumblings were the conversations taking place behind him, rather than his ill-preparedness. Those conversations taking place behind him were caused by his deviation from the script.

There is nothing in the report about his "mumbling",

Correct. I got that directly from his embarrassing video. If this is the Class President, what must the rest of the students be like?

why don't they simply hire a stand-up comic for the ceremony?

High schools don't have the budget to hire speakers. Colleges do, and they do hire comedians, including Harvard Law's commencement.

Those conversations taking place behind him were caused by his deviation from the script.

You mean the "canned" script prepared by a petty school bureaucrat?

Yeah - I guess that's typical of you. Take away the kid's only opportunity to address his friends and classmates after he had painstakingly prepared his own words.

I bet you'd like to do away with students giving speeches altogether - they might say something "doubleplusungood"

After all, the State owns your children, according to you.

If this is the Class President, what must the rest of the students be like?

What must the rest of the country be like?

What must the rest of the country be like?

Those who voted for him? No different.

You mean the "canned" script prepared by a petty school bureaucrat?

Yep. As opposed to giving no commencement speech at all. Or giving a speech thrown together at the last minute, with no practice, and delivered in a mumbling and stumbling manner.

That's why the school has these rules. So their Class President doesn't embarrass himself, his parents and the school. But he managed to do just that. And you think that's peachy keen.

The only embarrassment to the school was caused by the pompous bumbling principal. The only personal embarrassment was to the principal who had to apologize in person then have his superintendent issue a public apology.

Keep digging, misterwhite, China can't be far now.

Those who voted for him? No different.

"If this is the Class President, what must the rest of the students be like?"

Did your pipsqueak pal hand you that script change?

That's why the school has these rules. So their Class President doesn't embarrass himself, his parents and the school. But he managed to do just that. And you think that's peachy keen.

You are ....amazing...... I mean, you definitely qualify for a lot of other descriptors at times, but today, amazing is the word.

So now the rules the student supposedly broke were about protecting him and the school from embarrassment. And as punishment, they withhold his diploma, for which they have to offer a public apology for.

Sounds like it was an awesome way to keep the embarrassment to a minimum.

Since when did you become a nanny state advocate, claiming that rules exist to protect people like this student from himself? Did you vote for Trump or Hillary?

So now the rules the student supposedly broke were about protecting him and the school from embarrassment.

Sure. Why not? Why do YOU think those rules were put in place?

"they withhold his diploma, for which they have to offer a public apology for."

Had to? I think the superintendent (Note: Not the principal) apologized to avoid a potential, frivolous lawsuit.

"claiming that rules exist to protect people like this student from himself?"

Fine. The rules were to protect the school from embarrassment.

"Who is advocating that he give a speech that he did not write, doesn't know, and was handed to him at the last minute with no chance to practice?"

He could have refused.

That is what he did.

And actions have consequences -- something he doesn't understand or accept.

And actions have consequences -- something he doesn't understand or accept.

YES, this young-man DOES indeed grasp the "consequences" to standing up to tyranny. He also understands tyranny and a political agenda when he sees it. And NO, he should NOT accept the power-play of tyrannical fascist who abuse their position and LIE about their agenda. MW, YOU are actually a Leftist.

In a different time you, Misterwhite, would have been a sniveling British loyalist ensconced like a termite within the camps of Washington, Adams, and Hancock. You'd be sniping at the very SAME American patriots you eat, sleep and pray with; EXCEPT you'd be spying on General Washington and his troops, blindly and obedient selling out the fundamentals and foundation of liberty. YOUR "God," sir, is Caesar.

In a steel-cage match for the title of World Champ of Fascist-Statists, not even Major Burns or Roehm would beat you.

We KNOW exactly what he is politically because ONLY the LEFT manages to beat these abuses of power.