March 11, 2010 at 10:01 am (democracy, education, freedom, moral relativism)
Tags: forced, lesbian, prom, school district
School Prom, School Choice
Is prom night now a human right? Can schools be forced to have prom night?
In Mississippi, a teen who identifies herself as “lesbian” challenged school standards and dress code rules when she petitioned the school district to allow her to wear a tuxedo and escort her girlfriend to the school prom. The school refused and responded by canceling the dance for all students rather than let the school prom become a platform for political shenanigans.
The girl, backed by her parents and GLSEN, are now suing the school district to force them to hold prom night:
“A lot of schools actually react rather than do the research and find out what the rights of these students are,” said Presgraves.
McMillen says she hopes her fight will make it easier for gay students at other schools facing discrimination.
“I want other kids to know that’s it not right for schools to do that,” she said on CBS’s “The Early Show.”
In 2002, a gay student sued his school district in Toronto to allow him to attend a prom with his boyfriend. A judge later forced the district to allow the couple to attend and stopped the district from canceling the prom. —Associated Press
Forcing the school to hold prom night? Do schools owe students prom night? Or is prom night simply one activity among many offered by the school at their discretion?
Personally, I think the school did the right thing in this case. If they couldn’t allow a breech of their standards for all students, then they shouldn’t allow it for one student. In this political environment where upholding standards is merely another wall to be broken down, their choice to avoid the confrontation altogether by canceling the dance is an unfortunate, but equal response.
They aren’t telling her that only she can’t go, they’re telling her that no one can go if standards cannot be upheld.
Is equal treatment enough? Apparently not.
Forcing the school to not only have prom, but to break their standards in order to do so goes against the freedom of the school and community to decide what standards their children will be subject to in their own community.
There is nothing keeping this girl and her parents from arranging an alternative prom. People in our area do it all the time. In many public schools the standards are already so low that parents don’t want their kids attending, and alternatives to proms are popping up all over as public school norms continue to degrade.
With all the alternatives out there, once again it’s obvious that for gay activists, acceptance is the goal— not equality.
November 3, 2008 at 11:46 am (politics, proposition 8, Stand Up for Something)
Tags: administration, California, conejo unified, CTA, freedom, prop 8, proposition 8, school, school board, school district, speech, theft, thousand oaks, vandalism
SCHOOL BOARD DESTROYS FREE SPEECH–SMASHES PROP 8 SIGN
November 3, 2008
This morning several individuals from the local Conejo Valley School Administration in Thousand Oaks, CA, destroyed the giant proposition 8 sign that school officials say was placed too close to their property.
Residents erected the sign yesterday on the property but it lasted less than 24 hours before school officials destroyed it. There was a disagreement about whose property the sign was on, but rather than discuss the matter in a reasonable way, angry school officials marched out to the location saying they were going to “nuke” the sign. Local resident, Kitch Laxdal, was walking in the area and went over to the administration building to see what the commotion was about. She mingled with the administration staff and commented that the sign “sure made a big impression.” Comments she heard were quite harsh and very angry, “We’re going to Nuke it!” she reported them as saying. She thought it was an extreme reaction and kept walking. Kitch notified the owners of the property, who notified Darryl, the owner of the sign that there was some commotion regarding placement, and that he’d better come down and talk to these people. Darryl (who wishes his last name to be withheld) and the owners of the adjacent property were on hand and called Tim Cooley to help remove the sign peaceably. They told the school administration staff that they didn’t have to destroy the sign, that they’d be happy to take it down as soon as the tools arrived. The man in red (later identified by readers of this blog as Jack Wilson, ) of the administration staff told the witnesses, “It’s coming the hell down NOW!” Residents continued to plead with him, offering to remove the sign but the administration officials refused to allow the sign to be removed peaceably and began destroying it instead. Darryl had his camera on hand and was able to photograph the destruction(see pictures below).
Tim Cooley, who arrived shortly after the destruction began, had been hoping to help dismantle the sign before it was destroyed. He reported that he saw the school officials throw the sign face down onto the lightbulbs. They then walked on the plywood backing, crushing it in places and breaking the bulbs further. Tim said that the destruction was done with obvious malice, the intent being to destroy the sign. Darryl reports that the lightbulbs were smashed, and wires ripped out, and the plywood backing was crushed.
Officials then ripped out the extension cords and took them to prevent the sign from being erected in a new place. Tim and Darryl as well as the other witnesses on hand called police who made a report. The police went and spoke with the school officials about the vandalism and were shown a recent property map that they claim proves their ownership. The sign was placed on the public easement adjacent to the school property and is technically owned by the school. The easement is used by Edison power company for access to the power lines in the area. Residents say that Edison gave them permission to use the easement for their personal use (they currently have horses on the property).
Police spoke with the school administration staff and asked for the stolen property to be returned. They were able to return the cords to the proper owners. A report was made but charges have not been pressed by the owners who say that though the administration officials were outrageously in the wrong, they would rather spend their efforts, time and means in the passage of proposition 8. Similar stories of vandalism and destruction have been heard all across the state. Both Tim and Darryl say that the best possible ending to the story is not in legal action and focusing on the negative actions of the school, but in focusing on the good.
Darryl was able to replace the bulbs and wiring and stabilize the crushed wood enough to install it in a new home. The First Baptist church welcomed the rebuilt sign saying it was “an honor” to be the new custodians of the giant sign. That in itself was quite a story. See the rebuilt sign and the rest of the story here:
Update: The Assistant Superintendent is the one who actually gave the direction to destroy the sign. It wasn’t just some janitors or groundskeepers, this was from the top. In addition, it has come to my attention that the Superintendent himself, Mr. Contini has been defending the actions of his staff and disputes the witnesses’ accounts. I would invite Mr. Contini to speak with me directly on this matter. I would be happy to put him in contact with any of the witnesses who contributed to this story.
Conejo Valley Unified School District
805-497-9511 ext 213
Conejo Valley Unified–Teaching Tolerance
Conejo Valley Unified teaches tolerance by destroying private property
Administrators "nuking" Residents' Free Speech
Local Residents exercise their free speech
First Amendment Rights in Action