Linguistics in Speech

I'm really really furious just now.

We're giving seven-minute persuasive speeches next week in my communications/speech class. Today, we went over our topics. My topic was on the part of linguistics that I always found most interesting and controversial and that I feel most strongly about: I was going to take words like "ain't," "you," and "he," which are banned from formal settings, and discuss them from a linguistic setting. For example, I was going to mention how "ain't" is a perfectly legitimate contraction for "am not," but it was denounced by grammar Nazis when they first started writing down "grammar rules for English" as being uneducated slang because it was overused by peasants and used as contractions for "isn't" and "aren't" as well. I was also going to mention that "you" is used, to this day, as a broad term for "people in general" and "he" shouldn't be considered "sexist" because it has always been simply a gender-neutral pronoun, which we now apparently no longer have, thus making sentence wording often difficult, unclear, and awkward. I was going to make the speech persuasive and apply it to the class by arguing that we should be allowed to use those words in our speeches.

The teacher said no. Absolutely not. I'm not allowed to give a speech about that topic, and if I try to, she will give me a zero on my speech, I will fail the class, and then I'll have to retake it in a later semester.

Why?

As far as I can tell, she won't let me use that topic because she disagrees with me. She says it's "inappropriate" for the class because it's arguing against something she teaches, a principle that the department has used for a long time and that has always worked.

She justifies banning my topic by saying she wouldn't let another girl give a persuasive speech on how to give a persuasive speech because the girl would be using information given in the class and citing the teacher as a source. This is completely irrelevant. I'm not using information given in the class, I'm simply applying information gleaned from other sources TO the class to make it relevant, and that will only be a tiny part of the speech.

I don't see why linguistics is "inappropriate" for the class, but it's okay for another girl to argue that prostitution should be legalized, or for another guy to give a five-minute informative speech about condoms, passing out free samples to the class as a visual aid. It's "appropriate" for a guy to show a video clip where a guy gets his head shot off at point-blank range in a persuasive speech about JFK, but it's "inappropriate" to discuss the word "you." What the heck?

She absolutely will not listen to anything I have to say about it, and has added that I can't talk about anything to do with linguistics because it will be "toeing the line." I even asked if I could discuss the topic if I got permission from the head of her department. She told me to put it in writing, but that it would take several weeks for the Dean to go over it, and in the end, he supports his TAs anyway, so I wouldn't get anywhere. Also, I have to give my speech next week, and he won't have even read my complaint by then. When I finally gave up, she smirked at me and made a snide remark as I left.

So now I'm absolutely furious, and it seems like there isn't anything I can do about it. So, possible topics. Let's see. Maybe I should argue that teachers shouldn't be permitted to wear clothing that reveals their midriffs or hiphuggers so low that their buttcracks stick out when they bend over. That's relevant to the class. Oh wait! Personal attack on the teacher. I'd get a zero. Darn. How about a persuasive speech on why I should be allowed to give a persuasive speech on linguistics? Nooo, that's "toeing the line." Another zero.

The only topic I can think of that might both interest me and be controversial is quantum physics, but that's too broad to cover in seven minutes. Mom suggested arguing that college exams should be given on colored paper. Unfortunately, that's against the policy of the college too, since they've always given exams on white paper, and since they've "always done it that way," then white paper is good enough and I'm not allowed to argue with that.