Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Mar '10 03:47
    BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/8563122.stm

    Headline: School axes prom for lesbian date

    A school board in the US state of Mississippi has cancelled a high school prom after a female student asked to attend with her girlfriend.

    The board said it would not host the event due to "distractions to the educational process".

    Student Constance McMillen, 18, said the move was in retaliation for her request to bring her girlfriend to the event and wear a tuxedo.

    The school had circulated a memo prohibiting same-sex dates.

    Ms McMillen, 18, approached school officials shortly before the memo was issued.

    According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is backing Ms McMillen's case, the school board told her that she and her partner would not be allowed to arrive at the event together nor would she be allowed to wear a tuxedo, AP reported.

    Itawamba County Agricultural High School in Fulton also reserved the right to ask Ms McMillen and her girlfriend to leave if it made any other students feel uncomfortable, the ACLU said.

    The ACLU had given the Itawamba County school district until Wednesday to reverse the school's ban on same-sex couples attending proms.

    In a statement issued on Wednesday, the board said it hoped that "private citizens will organise an event for the juniors and seniors" instead.

    Ms McMillen said cancelling the prom was an act of "retaliation".

    "A bunch of kids at school are really going to hate me for this," she told local media.

    She also said that when she asked a teacher about the school's ban on same-sex dates at the prom, she was told she had to remember where she was.


    She was told by her teacher that she had to remember where she was?

    Where? The U.S.?
  2. 12 Mar '10 03:50
    mississip.
  3. 12 Mar '10 03:50
    can't tell if the teacher was being mean or helpful.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Mar '10 03:53
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    mississip.
    Exactly. Which is a part of the U.S. How on earth - in 2010 - can a modern country like the U.S. still have people in positions of authority in the public education system who are discriminating against people on account of their sexual orientation?
  5. 12 Mar '10 03:53 / 1 edit
    I have no problem with lesbians going to the prom.
    I probably think the school had bad intent.
    But isn't it possible that a school might have an event (like the prom) see that there could be some sort of litigation/ protests (due to sexual orientation) and then decide that the event (which has very little educational value) just isn't worth having?
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Mar '10 04:04
    Originally posted by quackquack
    But isn't it possible that a school might have an event (like the prom) see that there could be some sort of litigation/ protests (due to sexual orientation) and then decide that the event (which has very little educational value) just isn't worth having?
    You mean a school in the U.S. could be sued for tolerating a sexual orientation?

    The plot thickens!
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Mar '10 04:05
    Originally posted by quackquack
    But isn't it possible that a school might have an event (like the prom) see that there could be some sort of litigation/ protests (due to sexual orientation) and then decide that the event (which has very little educational value) just isn't worth having?
    If there were going to be protesters, could the police just set up free speech zones for them a few blocks away so that the prom would be undisturbed?
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Mar '10 04:06
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    can't tell if the teacher was being mean or helpful.
    On the other hand we CAN tell that you are missing the point of the OP.
  9. 12 Mar '10 04:11 / 1 edit
    If there were physical threats, their could be a suit for inadequate security.
    It takes efforts (which cost money) to decide what is the correct policy and maybe for an event like the prom with virtually zero educational value the school decided it was not worth even having it. Prom isn't mandatory. Eliminating it does not have to be discriminatory.
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Mar '10 04:19
    Originally posted by quackquack
    If there were physical threats, their could be a suit for inadequate security.
    It takes efforts (which cost money) to decide what is the correct policy and maybe for an event like the prom with virtually zero educational value the school decided it was not worth even having it. Prom isn't mandatory. Eliminating it does not have to be discriminatory.
    Doesn't demonstrating a willingness to not bow in the face of physical threats from bigots not have some educational value?

    Eliminating the prom discriminates against decent people, supporters of individuals' rights and against people with minority sexual orientation. It seems from the story - "A bunch of kids at school are really going to hate me for this" - that the school's decision has possibly increased the hatred and prejudice aimed at the lesbians.

    Plenty of educational value in this everyday tale of small town life in the Land of the Free, I reckon.
  11. 12 Mar '10 04:25
    Originally posted by FMF
    Doesn't demonstrating a willingness to not bow in the face of physical threats from bigots not have some educational value?

    Eliminating the prom discriminates against decent people, supporters of individuals' rights and against people with minority sexual orientation. It seems from the story - "A bunch of kids at school are really going to hate me for this" - ...[text shortened]... ucational value in this everyday tale of small town life in the Land of the Free, I reckon.
    A willingness not to bow might have value. But the school may have asked themselves the simple question why do we have prom? Maybe when they thought about (1) cost (2) sex/ drinking values that members traditional engage in that they decide the whole activity just isn't worth it. I mean what about prom is so educational that schools MUST have it.
  12. 12 Mar '10 04:34
    Originally posted by quackquack
    A willingness not to bow might have value. But the school may have asked themselves the simple question why do we have prom? Maybe when they thought about (1) cost (2) sex/ drinking values that members traditional engage in that they decide the whole activity just isn't worth it. I mean what about prom is so educational that schools MUST have it.
    You have a point here. When teenagers are expected by law to abstain from sex, why are they having events that promote that activity to a certain degree? Then you could ban all forms of sexual displays at school and badabing, no more problems with those who take issue with any of them.
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Mar '10 04:35
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I mean what about prom is so educational that schools MUST have it.
    Surely, in every Hollywood film that has ever done its bit to lay out the manifesto of the American Dream and the proud tenets attendant thereto such as You Can Put No Price On Freedom, and - indeed - in the fictionalized film about this school in Mississippi that Americans would flock to see in a spirit of philosophical self-congratulation, having been threatened by physical violence and malicious law suits, this prom would have to go on.

    And wouldn't the flash-forward at the end show the now-grown-ups looking back and thinking how the stand that was taken was a seminal event in their lives and could only really have happened in America, where no infringement on freedom is ever tolerated, the realization of which has been hammered home with the blood of warriors from Bunker Hill to Omaha to Falujah?
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Mar '10 04:40
    Originally posted by whodey
    you could ban all forms of sexual displays at school and badabing, no more problems with those who take issue with any of them.
    That would cover up nicely the discrimination against homesexuals you presumably instinctively condone in this case? The school officials (having passed the various prudishness and prejudice litmus tests you'd have to enact) might then perhaps let it be known, off the record, that the real reason that EVERYBODY'S freedom had to be curtailed was because of the danger of homosexuality.
  15. 12 Mar '10 04:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    Surely, in every Hollywood film that has ever done its bit to lay out the manifesto of the American Dream and the proud tenets attendant thereto such as You Can Put No Price On Freedom, and - indeed - in the fictionalized film about this school in Mississippi that Americans would flock to see in a spirit of philosophical self-congratulation, having been threaten f which has been hammered home with the blood of warriors from Bunker Hill to Omaha to Falujah?
    I think you will find that the American dream has been dampened somewhat by the letigious nature of the American culutre. Now it is to the point that people can't so much as pray in their schools for fear of what the ACLU will do to them. Therefore, they should just dress the kids in unisex uniforms, so that people will not be offended and sue the school for the way the kids dress, and be forbidden to display any religious parafinalia so no one gets bent out of shape regarding childrens displays of faith. Their diets should consist of rice and beans for lunch. That way their school lunches will be kosher and, at the same time, no vegans will be offended. I think you will find that meat lovers in general are pretty benign and layed back so no worries there. In addition, I adivise the school to forbid using personal names. Instead, everyone should be alloted a number. You know, like they do on Star Treck as they call each other #! or #2 etc. That way racial backgrounds will be further diluted to the point where racial bigotry will be next to impossible, except for the color of ones skin.