Thread: History Doesn't Repeat Itself, But It Does Rhyme Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030657
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
First this:
quote:
A team of Valley high schoolers and parents rally for a separate prom that bans gays.
NBC 2's Paige Preusse reports how Sullivan High School says there's nothing legally they can do to allow it... several students and parents are taking matters into their own hands.
Several parents, students, and others who believe gays should be banned from the Sullivan High School prom met Sunday at the Sullivan First Christian Church.
"We don't agree with it and it's offensive to us," said Diana Medley.
Their idea is to create their own separate...traditional prom. Students say there are several others from their high school who agree, but are afraid to take a stand.
Okay, I know a lot of folks opposed to full legal equality for gays claim to find it offensive when parallels are drawn between their efforts and pro-segrationists from the Civil Rights era. So, if it's true that there's no rhetorical/intellectual/philosophical connection between the anti-integrationists then and the anti-gay-rights folks now, why do they seem to be using the same dumb-ass playbook?
quote:
Prior to the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. Board of Education, most schools in the southern United States were racially segregated. The process of integration of schools was slow, and many schools did not become integrated until the late 1960s and early 1970s. In order to avoid having to hold an integrated prom, many high schools stopped sponsoring any prom*, and private segregated proms were organized as a replacement.
From my perspective, if you don't want to be equated with Segregationists, don't act like Segregationists.
--------------------
*For clarity, Sullivan High School has not stopped sponsorship of its all-students-welcome prom. The initiative to start a "Straights (and Closeted Gays) Only" prom is all too real, though.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
We need a Dead Horses/Hell hybrid so that I can properly express myself on this.
Separate but equal isn't.
There is no Christian love in "You buggers go over there, away from us God fearing people."
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We need a Dead Horses/Hell hybrid so that I can properly express myself on this.
Separate but equal isn't.
There is no Christian love in "You buggers go over there, away from us God fearing people."
Do you want to have another go at your last sentence?
The whole point of Brown's case is that what is separate is not equal. But the argument cannot extend to a so-called private party - there's just not the legal power to do so. However, if those organising the private party made any use at all of school information or property, then the courts could step in.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
My post was nothing of what is legal. Merely what is moral. And, having read a bit of that Jesus fellow, I cannot see him segregating like that.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
It's depressing that one of the instigators of this crap is a special ed teacher who deals with gay students.
I take some confort in the fact that they are poisoning the reputation of their church. Just like the segregationists who aren't mentioned much by the current church, these people will be an embarassment in days to come.
I do wonder how many of the students wanted their separate prom, and how much they're just not talking about how nasty their parents are.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The whole point of Brown's case is that what is separate is not equal. But the argument cannot extend to a so-called private party - there's just not the legal power to do so. However, if those organising the private party made any use at all of school information or property, then the courts could step in.
But it is a school function, not a private party - whether it's held on school property or not.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
As I read the comment from John J - follow the link Croesus gives - the dissident parents and students are proposing a separate prom, otganised by them. Unless that be entirely private, with no school involvement of any sort*, it would be caught by the Brown decision.
* And I suspect that it would cease being private if a parent obtained or used a class list provided by the school.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It's depressing that one of the instigators of this crap is a special ed teacher who deals with gay students.
quote:
"Homosexual students come to me with their problems, and I don't agree with them, but I care about them. It's the same thing with my special needs kids, I think God puts everyone in our lives for a reason," said Madley.
"'So the same goes for gays? Do you think they have a purpose in life?' No I honestly don't. Sorry, but I don't. I don't understand it. A gay person isn't going to come up and make some change unless it's to realize that it was a choice and they're choosing God," said Medley. (my bold)
How can a school continue to employ a person who's publically admitted that they consider that some of the students that they work with don't even have a purpose in life? Surely that's a bigger issue than a school dance, and if a headteacher or a board isn't addressing statements like that, then there're far bigger problems inherant in the system than an end of year party.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
[QB][QUOTE] Sorry, but I don't. I don't understand it. A gay person isn't going to come up and make some change unless it's to realize that it was a choice and they're choosing God," said Medley.
Alan Turing gently disagrees.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It's depressing that one of the instigators of this crap is a special ed teacher who deals with gay students.
I take some confort in the fact that they are poisoning the reputation of their church. Just like the segregationists who aren't mentioned much by the current church, these people will be an embarassment in days to come.
I do wonder how many of the students wanted their separate prom, and how much they're just not talking about how nasty their parents are.
I'm not sure the organizing meeting was church endorsed as opposed to some members of First Christian Church using the church as a meeting place. The senior minister has disavowed direct responsibility (though he also hasn't come out as opposing it). Also the school teacher actively involved is apparently a teacher in a different district.
ps. The church's web site should be dragged to hell as an example of bad design.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I take some confort in the fact that they are poisoning the reputation of their church. Just like the segregationists who aren't mentioned much by the current church, these people will be an embarassment in days to come.
"[D]ays to come" apparently means "the next day", since the church in question is denying that they were behind the meeting, claiming now that they merely provided meeting space for members of the community. It should be noted that as a private organization based on ideology, a church has a lot more leeway in viewpoint discrimination than a public facility would have. If they didn't want to host the separate-but-equal crowd, they didn't have to.
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
But it is a school function, not a private party - whether it's held on school property or not.
Nope. The whole point of the post-Brown segregated prom is that it is a wholly private event; organized, held, and paid for outside the public school system. This system endures today (or at least as recently as four years ago) in a few portions of the U.S.
This whole nonsense started when some concerned parents queried the principal of Sullivan High School about whether same-sex couples would be permitted in the Grand March ( ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
) at the prom. Not liking the answer they got (any student could come to prom and participate fully), these concerned parents decided to hold their own prom and only invite the "right" people. If they want to rent a space, hold a dance, and call it a "prom" there's no law to stop them.
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
How can a school continue to employ a person who's publically admitted that they consider that some of the students that they work with don't even have a purpose in life? Surely that's a bigger issue than a school dance, and if a headteacher or a board isn't addressing statements like that, then there're far bigger problems inherant in the system than an end of year party.
According to the school district for which she works no disciplinary action will be taken against Ms. Medley. It should be noted that Ms. Medley neither works for the school district containing Sullivan HS nor is she a congregant at the church where the organizational meeting for the "Straight Prom" was held. At any rate, it's been pointed out that the Northeast School Corporation bylaws require her to preface her public comments to "state clearly that his/her expression represents personal views and not necessarily those of the School Corporation". That's not evident in the clip of her comments, though it may have been edited for time by NBC.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The whole point of the post-Brown segregated prom is that it is a wholly private event; organized, held, and paid for outside the public school system. This system endures today (or at least as recently as four years ago) in a few portions of the U.S..
Oh my goodness. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I must be really naive to have thought that that sort of thing would have become a total non-issue decades ago.
I was imagining that similarly the epic (but interesting, if at times repetitive) Homosexuality and Christianity thread might gradually dribble off into a non issue (it's languishing on page 3 here at the moment). Maybe not then.
Why?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The whole point of the post-Brown segregated prom is that it is a wholly private event; organized, held, and paid for outside the public school system. This system endures today (or at least as recently as four years ago) in a few portions of the U.S..
Oh my goodness. I must be really naive to have thought that that sort of thing would have become a total non-issue decades ago.
Not at all. When the documentary Prom Night In Mississippi was released a few years ago, detailing a small Mississippi town's first racially integrated prom in 2008, most Americans' reactions were along the lines of "WTF? This still happens?!?"
What I don't get is why anyone today would think this kind of strategy is a good idea if you just swap out "race" for "sexual orientation".
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
My friend couldn't attend her prom because her school wouldn't let her wear trousers to it ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
And this is a regular comprehensive in Cambridgeshire!
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My friend couldn't attend her prom because her school wouldn't let her wear trousers to it
And this is a regular comprehensive in Cambridgeshire!
Did students have to advise what they were wearing before the prom? I would have thought they would have just turned up.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My friend couldn't attend her prom because her school wouldn't let her wear trousers to it
And this is a regular comprehensive in Cambridgeshire!
Did students have to advise what they were wearing before the prom? I would have thought they would have just turned up.
It was included in the information about the prom (time, ticket price etc).
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
A school prom? In Cambridgeshire? ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Prom in British usage:
(i) A seafront walkway, usually giving on to a beach. Dress code: whatever you like but traditionally summer dresses, shorts (for both sexes), gumby hats (possibly) etc. In Cambs, not even Tydd St Giles is close enough to the sea for one of these.
(ii) A promenade concert, notably those held at the Albert Hall in the summer. Dress code: again, whatever you like, but if you want to pass for a hard-core prommer, socks with sandals will probably do you no harm.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
socks with sandals will probably do you no harm.
No. This is Wrong. Socks with sandals is wrong. no matter the time, no matter the place. Socks with sandals damages your soul to such an extent, you may as well lay waste to continents. Socks with sandals is a sin against humanity. Socks with sandals is the sin for which there is no forgiveness.
Now back to where we were, oh yes, "Get off my lawn!"
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
A school prom? In Cambridgeshire?
Prom in British usage:
(i) A seafront walkway, usually giving on to a beach. Dress code: whatever you like but traditionally summer dresses, shorts (for both sexes), gumby hats (possibly) etc. In Cambs, not even Tydd St Giles is close enough to the sea for one of these.
(ii) A promenade concert, notably those held at the Albert Hall in the summer. Dress code: again, whatever you like, but if you want to pass for a hard-core prommer, socks with sandals will probably do you no harm.
Do they mean "a dance" of some sort, or perhaps a party?
We all enjoy a good "bop" now and then, even us middle-aged dads, and a decent party is fine for networking and informal jollification. But does one really need to do it on the sea front? Surely function rooms can be hired at reasonable rates?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Indeed. Or perhaps one might bop in the Proms queue?
lilbuddha: Prommers - the inner, dedicated, hard core- are different from us. Their ways are not our ways. They have their own rules.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Proms are just school balls...? And they're not especially new here, my secondary school had its first in 2003 (this was in Coventry) and I've heard of UK schools having them before this. I don't see the need for outrage over school proms existing here, as if every American import is bad.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Proms are just school balls...? And they're not especially new here, my secondary school had its first in 2003 (this was in Coventry) and I've heard of UK schools having them before this. I don't see the need for outrage over school proms existing here, as if every American import is bad.
For some of us, a 'tradition' that begins in 2003 makes it very, very new. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Proms are just school balls...? And they're not especially new here, my secondary school had its first in 2003 (this was in Coventry) and I've heard of UK schools having them before this. I don't see the need for outrage over school proms existing here, as if every American import is bad.
For some of us, a 'tradition' that begins in 2003 makes it very, very new.
This is getting to be quite a tangent, but does everything you do have to be a tradition?
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
socks with sandals will probably do you no harm.
No. This is Wrong. Socks with sandals is wrong. no matter the time, no matter the place. Socks with sandals damages your soul to such an extent, you may as well lay waste to continents. Socks with sandals is a sin against humanity. Socks with sandals is the sin for which there is no forgiveness.
Now back to where we were, oh yes, "Get off my lawn!"
Indeed--this is why tradition cannot be trusted: the Romans wore socks with sandals. 2000 years of fashion crime.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
socks with sandals will probably do you no harm.
No. This is Wrong. Socks with sandals is wrong. no matter the time, no matter the place. Socks with sandals damages your soul to such an extent, you may as well lay waste to continents. Socks with sandals is a sin against humanity. Socks with sandals is the sin for which there is no forgiveness.
Now back to where we were, oh yes, "Get off my lawn!"
Can the tradition of hundreds of years be wrong?
Well, all right.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Proms are just school balls...? And they're not especially new here, my secondary school had its first in 2003 (this was in Coventry) and I've heard of UK schools having them before this. I don't see the need for outrage over school proms existing here, as if every American import is bad.
For some of us, a 'tradition' that begins in 2003 makes it very, very new.
This is getting to be quite a tangent, but does everything you do have to be a tradition?
I'm not sure whether this is aimed at me and quite what your point is, but I was merely trying to point out (light-heartedly) that for some people, something that started in 2003 is very, very recent indeed (whereas to a young person it might seem older). I wasn't commenting on school proms.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
socks with sandals will probably do you no harm.
No. This is Wrong. Socks with sandals is wrong. no matter the time, no matter the place. Socks with sandals damages your soul to such an extent, you may as well lay waste to continents. Socks with sandals is a sin against humanity. Socks with sandals is the sin for which there is no forgiveness.
Now back to where we were, oh yes, "Get off my lawn!"
Indeed--this is why tradition cannot be trusted: the Romans wore socks with sandals. 2000 years of fashion crime.
This bit may appeal in Ecclesiantics, where all things Roman are either loved or loathed.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
This bit may appeal in Ecclesiantics, where all things Roman are either loved or loathed.
Or indeed provide evidence of the inherent rightness of the Anglo-catholic position: doing Roman things in an British, indeed English, way.
Won't satisfy the Anglo-papalists, of course, who would see frostbite of the toes as a sign of faithfulness ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
Although I take the traditional position on the sinfulness of homosexual acts, I still think this school is being ridiculous and unfair. A school dance is just that, a dance. It is neither a sacramental nor an erotic activity. There is nothing immoral about two men dancing together, no more than it's immoral for them to shake hands.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Proms are just school balls...? And they're not especially new here, my secondary school had its first in 2003 (this was in Coventry) and I've heard of UK schools having them before this. I don't see the need for outrage over school proms existing here, as if every American import is bad.
Ah! A ball! Why on earth didn't you say so. May Balls are a great tradition going back centuries. We have a perfectly good name we all understand here in the UK so let's not use the word prom anymore eh?
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Proms are just school balls...? And they're not especially new here, my secondary school had its first in 2003 (this was in Coventry) and I've heard of UK schools having them before this. I don't see the need for outrage over school proms existing here, as if every American import is bad.
Ah! A ball! Why on earth didn't you say so. May Balls are a great tradition going back centuries. We have a perfectly good name we all understand here in the UK so let's not use the word prom anymore eh?
The word Prom is common here and is used for the news stories referred to here. It is the word I will use as I understand U.S. proms, a tradition going back pretty far. Some U.S. proms are formal, as was my high school prom, some are not. It depends on the school. You have a new word in your vocabulary.
In this instance, some are trying to take a school event and turn it into a vehicle of discrimination. There are already enough social stresses that cause harm to kids this age, why add yet another layer of stigma saying "you're second class" to the mix.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Proms are just school balls...? And they're not especially new here, my secondary school had its first in 2003 (this was in Coventry) and I've heard of UK schools having them before this. I don't see the need for outrage over school proms existing here, as if every American import is bad.
Ah! A ball! Why on earth didn't you say so. May Balls are a great tradition going back centuries. We have a perfectly good name we all understand here in the UK so let's not use the word prom anymore eh?
The word Prom is common here and is used for the news stories referred to here. It is the word I will use as I understand U.S. proms, a tradition going back pretty far. Some U.S. proms are formal, as was my high school prom, some are not. It depends on the school. You have a new word in your vocabulary.
In this instance, some are trying to take a school event and turn it into a vehicle of discrimination. There are already enough social stresses that cause harm to kids this age, why add yet another layer of stigma saying "you're second class" to the mix.
I'm sorry. I was refering to British people using the word "prom" instead of the more common British word "ball" to describe "a dance".
If we British have a perfectly good word, why confuse people by using an American word? Doesn't make any sense to me. A prom is a concert, or a pavement besides the sea in Britain.
Of course Americans should keep using the word "prom". It wouldn't make any sense to use a different word when it is completely part of your language.
[ 17. February 2013, 20:21: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Although I take the traditional position on the sinfulness of homosexual acts, I still think this school is being ridiculous and unfair. A school dance is just that, a dance. It is neither a sacramental nor an erotic activity. There is nothing immoral about two men dancing together, no more than it's immoral for them to shake hands.
If you'll read the linked article carefully, or even just the top half of the thread, you'll discover that it's not the school that's the problem. It's a group of "concerned parents" who don't like the fact that the school apparently won't be discriminating against same-sex couples at a school event and who are trying to organize a competing straights (and closeted gays) only event.
This was, of course, the tactic applied in the Deep South after public schools were integrated. Proms were turned into private events rather than being connected with the public schools, allowing them to maintain a tradition of racial discrimination long after Brown v. Board.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm sorry. I was refering to British people using the word "prom" instead of the more common British word "ball" to describe "a dance".
If we British have a perfectly good word, why confuse people by using an American word? Doesn't make any sense to me. A prom is a concert, or a pavement besides the sea in Britain.
Of course Americans should keep using the word "prom". It wouldn't make any sense to use a different word when it is completely part of your language.
Perhaps because the thread is concerning an American Prom not a British Ball? Some of us Americans use British words when needed. What we are discussing isn't a "Ball" by American definition. It's perfectly ok to add new words and this isn't a strictly British website.
[ 17. February 2013, 21:46: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Although I take the traditional position on the sinfulness of homosexual acts, I still think this school is being ridiculous and unfair. A school dance is just that, a dance. It is neither a sacramental nor an erotic activity. There is nothing immoral about two men dancing together, no more than it's immoral for them to shake hands.
If you'll read the linked article carefully, or even just the top half of the thread, you'll discover that it's not the school that's the problem. It's a group of "concerned parents" who don't like the fact that the school apparently won't be discriminating against same-sex couples at a school event and who are trying to organize a competing straights (and closeted gays) only event.
This was, of course, the tactic applied in the Deep South after public schools were integrated. Proms were turned into private events rather than being connected with the public schools, allowing them to maintain a tradition of racial discrimination long after Brown v. Board.
Corrected granted. And regardless of the exact identity of the discriminating parties, I think they are wrong, in this case.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
I am, apparently, not the only one to notice history rhyming in this area. Howard University School of Law* has filed an amicus brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Proposition 8 case being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
quote:
Today, public debate over interracial unions has generally died since this Court’s Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967 such that we are now long past the time when anyone would seriously claim that race-based marriage equality threatens the moral fabric of our civilization, is contrary to nature, or is harmful to children. Yet these arguments, however discredited, have not disappeared altogether. Instead, they have been recycled to oppose same-sex marriage. See generally Courtney Megan Cahill, Same-Sex Marriage, Slippery Slope Rhetoric, and the Politics of Disgust: A Critical Perspective on Contemporary Family Discourse and the Incest Taboo, 99 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1543 (2005).
This brief demonstrates that there is nothing new about the arguments marshaled to oppose same-sex marriage; the very same arguments — eventually categorically rejected in Loving v. Virginia — were assembled in opposition to interracial marriage. As a society, we have rightfully come to embrace full human dignity for interracial couples and individuals. We should do no less for same-sex couples.
Italics in original, bold added by me. That's from p. 2 of the brief (p. 16 in the electronic version). The whole thing is worth a read if you can tolerate legalese.
--------------------
*Howard University is a traditionally black college, and one of the first traditionally black colleges to offer a law degree.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Canadian here. Western Canadian.
The function is obviously a "grad dance". There is a second type of function here called an "after grad" which means a series of all night activities. Perhaps both are contained. The word "prom" is creeping in a bit, but is rare. "Ball" means either something you kick on the field or between a gent's legs, or to have sex.
There is precisely zero possibility that a grad dance here could be segregated even if completely private. Because it is tied to the school however unofficially. The moment they decided to have it with the history that it has as tied to the grad dance would make it a problem.
I recall an after grad controversy for one of my children. A student whose family owned a farm decided to host a bush party, which means a fire, drinking and hanging out. It was not even said to be related to the grad dance, it happened a different night. Because it involved the students from the school and was discussed in the school, it became a matter for the school to become involved. The understanding was that the school had an ethical and moral responsibility, and might even have legal liability if it knew about it and did not seek to do anything. I think this is probably correct.
Back to gay couples. Because under law in Canada there is no distinction as to the gender of couples, I don't think there would be discussion among students as to whether gay couples would be welcome. Of course they are. Some parents might be less receptive, but the response would be to quietly not attend I'm pretty sure.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Because it involved the students from the school and was discussed in the school, it became a matter for the school to become involved. The understanding was that the school had an ethical and moral responsibility, and might even have legal liability if it knew about it and did not seek to do anything. I think this is probably correct.
This seems overly intrusive. If one student says to another during their lunch break "hey, come over to my place after school and we can watch movies", does that automatically make this planned movie watching "a matter for the school to become involved"? Does the school get veto power over which films are watched? How much time students can spend with each other outside of school? What snacks may be consumed? Is there any limit to the "you talked about it in school, therefore the school is running the show" principle?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
The examples you note are trivial compared to a bush party situation where 50 or 150 students might attend. Obviously small parties wouldn't attract attention.
However, here's a more usual example. If there was a sporting event, e.g., a highschool basketball tournament where it became known that the team and some other students were going to attend an after game party and the coach/school became aware of it, they have an extended responsibility to act like a prudent person, ask questions, and possibly consult. It doesn't mean the school is fully responsible, but if there was say a fatal injury at the party the coach knew about it and could have done something, there is some for of responsibility, whether legal or moral. The coach may also demand certain types of behaviour from players.
Teachers and schools have been held to a higher standard of care here. I think it is a reasonable expectation and response. This is about rights in part, but also about being community. Schools have the authority to 'act in the place of a parent' here. I think it is required.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The examples you note are trivial compared to a bush party situation where 50 or 150 students might attend. Obviously small parties wouldn't attract attention.
That's what I'm asking. Where's that line drawn? If two students hanging out together after classes can go without being managed by the administration but fifty students doing so require it, there must be a number somewhere in between where the school's authority kicks in.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Numbers are part of it, but only part. It is also what the activity is, and what level of harm could come from it. In my view, it is different for a teacher to see 2 students smoke a joint off of the school property than for the same students to be seen hotboxing (smoking up in a car and trapping the smoke). I would probably note the first, but report the second myself.
Back to the issue of gay students, the issue to me seems to be one of outright bigotry. Highschool students are not likely to harmed by exposure to a minority of peers with different orientations, anymore than they would be harmed by exposure from Chinese or Mongolians.
I know rights are bigger in terms of individuals in the USA, whereas rights of minorities have more protection in Canada from individuals. The Bill Whatcott case shows quite clearly that Canada is fully prepared to limit free speech and discriminatory behaviour (the wikipedia article isn't up to date, the Supreme Court of Canada found against him).
[ 12. March 2013, 18:57: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Numbers are part of it, but only part. It is also what the activity is, and what level of harm could come from it. In my view, it is different for a teacher to see 2 students smoke a joint off of the school property than for the same students to be seen hotboxing (smoking up in a car and trapping the smoke). I would probably note the first, but report the second myself.
The question isn't one of teachers-as-random-busybodies, but rather how much control the school-as-an-institution can exert over the lives and activities of its students outside of classtime and off school grounds. Bear in mind that by the time prom rolls around in the U.S. most high school seniors are legal adults.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
But they are still students in a school until they graduate or drop out, so the school has some legal liability in relation to them.
It may be the case that the school ,once informed of what is happening, takes no further action, but they would be seen to be derelict in their duties if they did not do the inital enquiry.
Some of the students may be "legally adults", but equally, and almost certainly, some won't. Drinking, in the US is only allowed at age 21, AIUI, but the age is lower in Canada, opening up the possibilities of mixed parties of legal and non-legal drinkers, for instance. (as if no American students had ever had a drink!)
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Sure. Legal adults means legally adult. But it doesn't mean psychologically and socially adults. A 15 or 16 year old child may be more psychologically and socially independent, emancipated from parents, such that they can psychologically consent to medical treatment, but an 18 year old (legally adult here) may be dependent on parents for everything such that parental consent is part of the consent process for the same treatment different situation.
I return to the point, which has been said here along these lines: "you are a student of this school, it means that you are an ambassador for the school in all that you, and everything connected to the school, that has anything to do with this school is part of your ambassadorship".
The extension of this has resulted in school related concern about all sorts of student conduct. After all the students might not even know each other or hang out in large groups without. We've had this with students hanging out in parks late in June nights when the sun sets at 11 p.m. and rises at 4. Schools have become involved in the necessary control of the partying and noise. The alternative response is police, arrests and charges, which does happen. But the social control via school involvement is a better option. I realize that any sense of community has completely broken down in some places and this is an old time type of approach there, it isn't here, though there is some fading.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But they are still students in a school until they graduate or drop out, so the school has some legal liability in relation to them.
But this isn't typically considered giving the school carte blanche to control students' lives outside of school. According to no prophet, students in Canada seem to forfeit freedom of association for the duration of their enrollment, regardless of whether school is in session or not.
[ 12. March 2013, 20:15: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
They forfeit nothing, except the 'right' to be really stupid or to do really risky things. The Education Acts give schools the power of a parent over students, within some bounds, and this creates mutual obligations.
There's a clear tendency to expect the students reason through things and make 'good choices'. The kids seem to respond positively if this has always been part of the requirements. There's a progression over time. A kindergarten child will be responsible for sharing, grade 5 student for not expressing judgemental comments, a grade 12 student for confronting risks they see with other students' behaviour. It doesn't always work, but it does much of the time.
A problem can be poorly socialized and overly involved parents, who consider that schools cannot tell their child not to smoke or object to other school responses to misbehaviour. But these are not that frequent. It is commonly said "with rights come obligations", and I am pretty sure virtually every student could recite this.
I think we may into cultural differences. Schools here have already discontinued soft drink machines, chocolate bars (Americans I think would say "candy bars"), potato chips etc. It is forbidden to bring one of those large sugar drinks on to school property. It is also regulated of what slogans or pictures are on clothing (no beer, cigarettes, swear words, porn/suggestive), no hats, pull up your pants etc.
Yet, cell and smart phones are usually completely allowed, unless used improperly, in which case they will be confiscated and returned at the end of the day, with subsequent infractions requiring a parent to retrieve the item.
I think I am running on excessively here. But with the gay issue, it is not really a gay issue here, it is a respect of rights and a obligation to behave in non-discriminatory ways. I believe a situation like you described in the OP would not occur the same way if at all.
[ 12. March 2013, 20:49: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
They forfeit nothing, except the 'right' to be really stupid or to do really risky things. The Education Acts give schools the power of a parent over students, within some bounds, and this creates mutual obligations.
Could you expand this? Going by your previous post the "bounds" seem pretty expansive, giving a school the right to forbid any gathering it wishes, even outside of normal school operations. Hanging out with a couple friends on weekends, inviting your classmates to your bar mitzvah, getting a group together to attend that concert, all of these actions seem, by your argument, to be subject to veto by the school system. If there are "bounds" on this authority, where are they?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Back to Cambridgeshire - a ban on girls wearing trousers wouldn't just be about mannish girls wearing trousers, and so belong on this thread, it would also exclude girls wanting to wear salwar kameez (aka Indian Suits) prom wear with trousers?, possibly for religious as well as cultural reasons, and so refer back to the Mississippi situation. I would like to hear more about the reasons for this, and whether it was protested.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Could you expand this? Going by your previous post the "bounds" seem pretty expansive, giving a school the right to forbid any gathering it wishes, even outside of normal school operations. Hanging out with a couple friends on weekends, inviting your classmates to your bar mitzvah, getting a group together to attend that concert, all of these actions seem, by your argument, to be subject to veto by the school system. If there are "bounds" on this authority, where are they?
If read "moral influence and sense of obligation" into "right", you would be closer the the truth. You are making it sound legalistic and rule bound, when it is about agreement and willingness to respond. The school can forbid nothing, but influence much.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
There is precisely zero possibility that a grad dance here could be segregated even if completely private. Because it is tied to the school however unofficially. The moment they decided to have it with the history that it has as tied to the grad dance would make it a problem.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
If read "moral influence and sense of obligation" into "right", you would be closer the the truth. You are making it sound legalistic and rule bound, when it is about agreement and willingness to respond. The school can forbid nothing, but influence much.
I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements. In the first, you assert that a school can prevent a private gathering from occurring ("[t]here is precisely zero possibility") if the school doesn't approve of the guest list. In the second you assert that the school's influence is limited to moral suasion, which implies the ability of truly intransigent individuals to defy the school. These cannot both be true.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
You are wanting a legalistic interpretation. It doesn't work that way here. Just as this is a secular country but there is no separation of church and state such that some religious schools, mostly Roman Catholic, are supported by both property taxes and are budget items from several levels of government. It is not illegal to have school prayer, though it's not done because people who are not religious get offended. People have both rights to do things and rights not to be offended, and it is expected that in some situations that people who have the right to do things, don't because it concerns the feelings and possibly rights of others. I think this is also why people think Canadians apologize a lot. I guess we do.
You cannot reconcile what goes on here to another country's arrangement.
Let me see if I can make this clearer. A gathering sponsored by a school could not segregate. A gathering tied to a school because it had only or mainly students from the school could not either, but this would be a matter of degree and might be a should not versus could not or shall not in some circumstances. So they just wouldn't. People actually do things some times not because it is a requirement of law, but because it should be that way. A gathering tied to a school is not cast in law nor via a rule. Rather, because it contains only or mostly students from the school, the school could interfere with it, and probably would do so with variation among schools, and how closely tied to the school the gathering is.
Example. There is and was a school band program at the highschool my kids attended. The teacher/conductor played in a jazz band which performs elsewhere. Students from the school commonly go and watch. Because the conductor-teacher invited the students, it has a rather clear relationship to the school and becomes something about which the school has involvement and thus something to say about conduct. The same holds true for the party after the soccer or football game. The degree of connection to the school becomes a matter for debate and argument and it not necessarily clear.
Another example. Schools commonly prohibit students from going to a local shopping mall at recesses and lunch time. This is more straightforward than the wish to have children go home from school and not stop at the mall on the way home. However, if something has happened at the mall on the way home, the school would start with an advisory and work from there depending on the situation and who was involved. -- we're talking drug deals and kids getting adults to pull for them. The school (and community) have an interest and some degree of obligation to attend to things like this, so they do.
So the things you cannot reconcile are not within the frame you wish to reconcile them.
[ 14. March 2013, 00:35: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Following the theme of the OP, Mediaite has an online quiz where you try to tell whether the quote is in opposition to same-sex marriage or interracial marriage. Sifting them is almost impossible.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0