Miss. prom canceled after lesbian's date request

[katautumn]

The school is stopping her from free association, and from expressing herself through her clothing.

Students do not have full first-amendment rights at school or school functions, however. Public and private schools alike are granted a tremendous amount of freedom in terms of regulating speech or manner of dress that may pose a moral/ethical dilemma, cause harm to another student, or create a distraction. That's why schools have dress codes. That's why students who write for school newspapers are limited in what they can publish. That's why some schools reprimand students caught using profanity in the hallways.

 

[DeathMagus]

But if a person believes that a black man is naturally inferior, and more likely to be criminal, then wouldn't that lead him to conclude the Defendant was guilty?

Absolutely, it might. But that is not why the conclusion is wrong - it is merely the method by which the wrong conclusion was reached. This makes it an interesting curiosity - and perhaps worth mentioning along with a legitimate dissection of NotreDame's argument - but it cannot stand on its own as an indictment (even a hypothetical one) of his argument.

Thus, to take your post which started this all:

Actually, it has everything to do with it. If you, and I am not saying you are, are bigoted against gays then your judgment is clouded in regards to the case at hand.

Perhaps NotreDame is bigoted - and perhaps not. Regardless, his analysis of anything stands solely on his premises, and the logic he uses to tie those premises to one or more conclusions. His supposed bias may lead directly to faulty logic or false premises, but it is the logic and/or premises that must be proven false to negate his argument.

For a broader treatment of the subject, please see "Some Helpful Hints About Effective Debating". Feel free to PM me with any questions.


You may be right, but all you're doing is poisoning the well, rather than bolstering your own position or challenging NotreDame's.


Another way of looking at it is as follows:
In order for NotreDame's supposed bias to matter, you will have to prove it exists. The only way to do this is to demonstrate that he is misrepresenting reality in this instance - which would negate his argument anyway, making the whole subject of bias irrelevant.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

How do you figure? The school is stopping her from free association, and from expressing herself through her clothing.

It just occurred to me...my high school had a dress code that didn't allow for Christian or religious expression.

How come the ACLU never stepped in when a group of students protested that?

 

[NotreDame]

They were black men, in the South, during the Great Depression, who ere accused of raping a white woman. To claim no bias was involved is like saying the KKK lynched everyone equally, blacks just got in they way a lot.

Bad argument CaptainNemo. Bad argument. You argue from the general to the particular. Racism inundated southern society, therefore, the 12 jurors in this case were racist against blacks. You cannot logically argue from the general to the particular in this manner. Your argument just assumes the existence of bias without even remotely making a demonstration of its existence.

Second, assuming the existence of bias, this does not render the conclusion of guilty a falsity. Your argument ignores the possibility the jury found them guilty, in spite of their bias, because the evidence overwhelmingly showed their guilt.

You really are not making your point here.

 

[NotreDame]

Ah, but here's the rub. Assuming the young men were innocent, the verdict was not wrong because of a bias - extant or not. Rather, the verdict would be wrong because of a lack of evidence. That bias exists in a given situation is, at most, a pertinent contextual fact. Bias itself, however, does not render a conclusion true or false. Bias can point to the possibility of a conclusion based upon fallacious reasoning, but it does not necessitate such.

Absolutely correct DM! A very fine and astute observation.

 

[CaptainNemo1138]

Well, papa always told me to know when I was beat, and while I still believe the school is in wrong here, I must concede that the existence of bias does not necessarily affect a conclusion. However, I do believe bias can shape ones perception of events, and the logic used to achieve one's conclusion.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It just occurred to me...my high school had a dress code that didn't allow for Christian or religious expression.

How come the ACLU never stepped in when a group of students protested that?

Did they ask?

But in the case here, didn't she ask to wear something that was not against the dress code as listed?

 

[one11]

It just occurred to me...my high school had a dress code that didn't allow for Christian or religious expression.

How come the ACLU never stepped in when a group of students protested that?

What kind of Christian dressing did they not allow?

My high school allowed pretty much anything from crosses to Jesus Loves Me t-shirts to tie-dye t-shirts to letting some girls look like hookers with torn clothes, torn fishnet stockings and high heels and tops half hanging off, but formals or proms had dress codes.

 

[one11]

Happy Sabbath! I'm going to get some rest now and it's a time out just for me and my Lord and some rest in Him. Talk to you all later after Sabbath.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

What kind of Christian dressing did they not allow?

My high school allowed pretty much anything from crosses to Jesus Loves Me t-shirts to tie-dye t-shirts to letting some girls look like hookers with torn clothes, torn fishnet stockings and high heels and tops half hanging off, but formals or proms had dress codes.

Specifically t-shirts with religious messages. I think at one point in time they tried to say you couldn't wear necklaces with religious symbols on them, but that never made it to print. That particular form of the dress code, along with the rule that two or more people could not wear the same shirt at the same time, went out the window with the arrival of a new principal, thankfully. I was a junior at that point in time.



Lawton, to my knowledge the students did contact the ACLU but I am not aware of what their answer was, only that the ACLU never got involved.

I only posted that example in reply to LH's claim that the girl's ability to express herself through her clothing had been denied. That happens all the time at high school and it's not really that big of a deal. I think her not being able to wear a tux is the least concern in this issue, but it may be the starting point for her, I s'pose.

 

[DeathMagus]

Well, papa always told me to know when I was beat, and while I still believe the school is in wrong here, I must concede that the existence of bias does not necessarily affect a conclusion.

I actually agree with you that the school is (very likely) in the wrong. No alternate reason, to my knowledge, has been given for why the prom was canceled, and thus it seems reasonable to infer that the lesbian date incident was a primary impetus for the cancellation. A subpoena of administrator emails should make the true cause rather clear.

However, I do believe bias can shape ones perception of events, and the logic used to achieve one's conclusion.

You are absolutely right - bias can cause all sorts of problems. Detecting bias is a great first indicator that someone's position/arguments might not be up to snuff. You just need to dig a little deeper to find out why they're wrong.

 

[LightHorseman]

It just occurred to me...my high school had a dress code that didn't allow for Christian or religious expression.

How come the ACLU never stepped in when a group of students protested that?

Probably because you never asked?

I don't believe the ACLU go about starting trouble on other people's behalf, they only offer to help when help is requested.

ETA; I see you saying the ACLU was contacted. I don't know what to tell you. Without knowing more about the specifics of the case in question. Maybe contact the ACLU directly and ask them? I'm sure they have PR people who's job is to explain such things.

 

[LightHorseman]

Specifically t-shirts with religious messages. I think at one point in time they tried to say you couldn't wear necklaces with religious symbols on them, but that never made it to print. That particular form of the dress code, along with the rule that two or more people could not wear the same shirt at the same time, went out the window with the arrival of a new principal, thankfully. I was a junior at that point in time.



Lawton, to my knowledge the students did contact the ACLU but I am not aware of what their answer was, only that the ACLU never got involved.

I only posted that example in reply to LH's claim that the girl's ability to express herself through her clothing had been denied. That happens all the time at high school and it's not really that big of a deal. I think her not being able to wear a tux is the least concern in this issue, but it may be the starting point for her, I s'pose.

I don't know that we've heard enough about the specifics of the case.
I don't know if the legal fuss being made is predominantly about the freedom of association issue (who she was going with) or the freedom of expression issue (what she was wearing). If it's what she was wearing, I think thats getting towards the frivolous side... however, I will say that its one thing if the school stops EVERYONE from wearing something, its something quite different when they stop one person doing something while others are permitted to. If the boys are allowed to wear tuxs, I can see some merit to the idea that not allowing a girl to wear one is a bit of a double standard. I appreciate its not traditional for girls to wear a tuxedo, but you can hardly say its "against the dress code" if approximately half the people attending the event will be wearing the same thing.

 

[katautumn]

We weren't allowed to wear Christian-themed t-shirts or religious jewelry to school either. One student was reprimanded when he brought a Bible to class. He actually carried it to all of his classes and would read before the teacher started class. He was told having the Bible in class violated the separation of church and state. We were allowed to have See You at the Pole the first week of school, but we had to be there before the school campus was technically open and teachers were not allowed to attend.

 

[NotreDame]

I don't know that we've heard enough about the specifics of the case.
I don't know if the legal fuss being made is predominantly about the freedom of association issue (who she was going with) or the freedom of expression issue (what she was wearing). If it's what she was wearing, I think thats getting towards the frivolous side... however, I will say that its one thing if the school stops EVERYONE from wearing something, its something quite different when they stop one person doing something while others are permitted to. If the boys are allowed to wear tuxs, I can see some merit to the idea that not allowing a girl to wear one is a bit of a double standard. I appreciate its not traditional for girls to wear a tuxedo, but you can hardly say its "against the dress code" if approximately half the people attending the event will be wearing the same thing.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Since half of all those in attendance will be wearing a tuxedo, and this half is exclusively comprised of males, and this is dictated by the dress code all males in attendance wear a tuxedo, but no females, then a woman wearing a tuxedo is not against the dress code? This makes absolutely no sense at all. This conclusion does not follow from the premises at all.

Rather, the female wearing a tuxedo is against the dress code precisely because A.) all males in attendance will be wearing one B.) all males in attendance must wear one or can wear one, or wear something very similar to one and C.) no female attending may wear a tuxedo, where A, B, and C are dictated by the dress code, or some combination thereof.

Furthermore, this commentary of a double standard is equally as intriguing as the allegation of stating there is no violation of the dress code. The reasoning to support the notion there is a double standard is the fact males are permitted, and only males are permitted, to wear tuxedos. Well, where exactly is the double standard? I suppose we could, by following your logic, conclude there is a double standard if the men were precluded from wearing dresses to the prom but not women. This entire notion of a double standard is resting upon the principle of if the sexes are not treated the same, then we have a double standard. Yet, I reject this principle because a double standard does not exist on the mere basis the sexes are not treated the same, and in this instance the act of not treating the sexes the same is the dress code prohibiting girls from wearing a tuxedo to the prom whereas boys may. However, this does not lead to the conclusion there is a double standard.

Now, regarding the legal complaint. The complaint, prepared and filed by the ACLU, alleges a freedom of expression violation. In order for this claim to have any viability, there must be speech or conduct akin to speech. The ACLU alleges in its complaint the conduct constituting as speech in this case is A.) Constance will be expressing she is a lesbian by bringing her same sex girlfriend to the prom and her social or political viewpoint it is okay for gay and lesbians to bring same sex dates to the prom. B.) Wearing a tuxedo expresses her view point it is okay for female students to wear tuxedos to the prom.

I have not really had much time to ponder either one, much less engage in any legal research on these issues yet. However, the above is the basis of her complaint.

 

[Drekkan85]

NotreDame, one problem is that you assume the dress code specifically states women are not allowed to wear tuxedos. The problem with that is we only know that the prom requires "formal attire". Further, tuxedos are a given option for dress options as given by the school. Finally, I would contend that a reasonable person would not find a woman wearing a tux as being either informal or inappropriate. It's a logical extension of wearing suits as has become prevalent on the workplace.

That said, I don't think she has a particularly strong case here, and it could just be a lawsuit to pressure the school to just say "this is more trouble than it's worth".

 

[wanderingone]

The age of consent for what? Do you have a source for this "whatever" consent?

The age of consent has nothing to do with dating - it's the age a person can consent to have sex with another person who has reached the age of consent without legal implications (unless of course it's same sex sex.. then there may be legal implications depending on how obsessed your state law is with sexual orientation currently or at some point in the past.) . This young woman wanted to bring her date to the prom - unless you are suggesting that no persons can possibly be dating, especially if they are going to the prom without having sex.
------------------------------------------
This is a link to guide to "statutory rape" laws state by state.. it was published by the HSS -it is already 6 years old and some laws may have changed but it explains not only age of consent but when someone can be charged with anything (and what) when engaging in sexual acts with a minor under the age of consent.

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/pubs/statutory-rape-state-laws.pdf

 

[LightHorseman]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Since half of all those in attendance will be wearing a tuxedo, and this half is exclusively comprised of males, and this is dictated by the dress code all males in attendance wear a tuxedo, but no females, then a woman wearing a tuxedo is not against the dress code? This makes absolutely no sense at all. This conclusion does not follow from the premises at all.

Rather, the female wearing a tuxedo is against the dress code precisely because A.) all males in attendance will be wearing one B.) all males in attendance must wear one or can wear one, or wear something very similar to one and C.) no female attending may wear a tuxedo, where A, B, and C are dictated by the dress code, or some combination thereof.

Correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to have more legal knowledge than I do, but isn't discriminating against people on their gender like that illegal? i.e. males are allowed to do something, but females aren't, purely due to the gender of the people involved.... isn't that the textbook definition of gender discrimination?

Furthermore, this commentary of a double standard is equally as intriguing as the allegation of stating there is no violation of the dress code. The reasoning to support the notion there is a double standard is the fact males are permitted, and only males are permitted, to wear tuxedos. Well, where exactly is the double standard? I suppose we could, by following your logic, conclude there is a double standard if the men were precluded from wearing dresses to the prom but not women. This entire notion of a double standard is resting upon the principle of if the sexes are not treated the same, then we have a double standard. Yet, I reject this principle because a double standard does not exist on the mere basis the sexes are not treated the same, and in this instance the act of not treating the sexes the same is the dress code prohibiting girls from wearing a tuxedo to the prom whereas boys may. However, this does not lead to the conclusion there is a double standard.

I think I explained my position above.

Now, regarding the legal complaint. The complaint, prepared and filed by the ACLU, alleges a freedom of expression violation. In order for this claim to have any viability, there must be speech or conduct akin to speech. The ACLU alleges in its complaint the conduct constituting as speech in this case is A.) Constance will be expressing she is a lesbian by bringing her same sex girlfriend to the prom and her social or political viewpoint it is okay for gay and lesbians to bring same sex dates to the prom. B.) Wearing a tuxedo expresses her view point it is okay for female students to wear tuxedos to the prom.

I have not really had much time to ponder either one, much less engage in any legal research on these issues yet. However, the above is the basis of her complaint.

Sounds fairly cut and dried so far as free speech goes to me.

 

[Smidlee]

Correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to have more legal knowledge than I do, but isn't discriminating against people on their gender like that illegal? i.e. males are allowed to do something, but females aren't, purely due to the gender of the people involved.... isn't that the textbook definition of gender discrimination?

What about "ladies get in free" I seem to hear often. Another one is children under 12 or senior citizens gets a reduce price. You could call that discrimination yet that seems to be going to the extreme. How about "the more you make the higher rate you taxes will be" discrimination.

 

[LightHorseman]

What about "ladies get in free" I seem to hear often. Another one is children under 12 or senior citizens gets a reduce price. You could call that discrimination yet that seems to be going to the extreme. How about "the more you make the higher rate you taxes will be" discrimination.

Actually, I'm inclined to agree that "ladies get in free" IS discrimination. Maybe you should take it up with the ACLU next time you get hit for a covercharge but your date doesn't?

as for the others, ALL children under 12 and ALL seniors get a discount, thats not gender discrimination. If it were all girls under 12 get a discount, then I'd have an issue with that.

As for income tax, thats a whole can of worms I don't really want to open here.