The statement critiques the decision of a university to cancel a valedictorian's speech, implying that such actions by institutions can erode public trust. It is a commentary on institutional accountability and the impact of administrative decisions on public perception.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm but rather critiques potential harm caused by institutional actions. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the dignity of the individual involved by not criticizing her but rather the institution's decision. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement promotes understanding by highlighting the potential consequences of the institution's actions on public trust. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement implicitly invites dialogue about the role of institutions in public trust, although it does not directly engage with those who may disagree.Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement does not acknowledge any mistakes as it is a critique of an institution's actions.Principle 5:I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
- The statement uses its influence to critique a perceived injustice, which could be seen as an effort to better society. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech principles by critiquing the cancellation of the valedictorian's speech, which may be seen as a limitation on free speech. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.