Miss. prom canceled after lesbian's date request

[PreachersWife2004]

Good for him! And thanks for the info.

Cool. Thanks for the info

ETA: Reps to Mr. Sean Cummings too.

You're quite welcome, gentlemen. Sorry I didn't provide it at the time I posted my assertion.

 

[NotreDame]

After a considerable amount of time devoted to pondering this scenario, I think, in this context, under these facts, the young lady A.) brining her girlfriend to the prom and B.) choosing to wear a tuxedo, both possess sufficient communicative elements and the message expressed in their conduct would be understood by those in attendance to the prom.

First, and unfortunately, I have to presume some facts which may not be true. If all or some combination of these facts are true, then the young lady may prevail, or is likely to succeed on the merits of her 1st Amendment claim.

1. She is a lesbian. I am assuming this is known amongst her peers.
2. It is known amongst her peers she is dating a girl in the 10th grade of the same school.
3. Dances are social functions, where students attend to not only relax and enjoy each other's company, but to undoubtedly express themselves. This is not to suggest dances are forums created specifically, purposefully, or deliberately for students to express themselves but it is certainl an atmosphere conducive for students to do so, and students do it.

Just as school, while not created specifically, purposefully, or deliberately for students to exress themselves, they are nonetheless allowed to express themselves in a manner which does not "materially and substantially interfer[ing] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

Dances, like the school environment, is a coming together of students to learn, socialize, expose others and be exposed to different perspectives, viewpoints, beliefs, principles, and ideas about life, politics, and so forth. This is precisely what happened in Tinker v. Des Moines when students wore black armbands to school to protest American military involvement in Vietnam. A dance, which does not occur during normal school hours, or in a setting where education transpires, but a more relaxed atmosphere, but no doubt a school function. It seems to me if students can engage in expressive conduct during normal school hours, and in the classroom, then a more relaxed atmosphere, such as a school dance occurring outside of the classroom, and not during a time of education, is also a suitable atmosphere for students to engage in expressive conduct.

4. Bringing a lesbian in this context, under these facts, is expressive conduct. A prohibition on same sex couples attending, and a same sex couple attending, sends the social message of A.) being gay and lesbian is okay, is permissible, and B.) it is okay for gays and lesbians to attend a high school formal function, such as a prom and C.) the two of them are dating, in a relationship, have feelings of affection for one another.

Okay, for the time being, this is as far as I can go in my analysis. This is all time permits. I will finish with my analysis tomorrow.

 

[lux et lex]

Yeah the whole registering names before you can buy prom tickets is a bear. I have a man's first name, as did my date. We got questioned on it, but once I proved that I am very much female and he is very much male it was dropped.

 

[Billnew]

Racism exists everywhere. Racism is not something unique to the South, just as it isn't unique to the United States, just as it isn't unique to Republicans, Christians or even white folks. My grandfather is a pretty racist/anti-semitic man. He was born and raised in Yarmouth, Maine. He learned how to hate the blacks and Jews from his father, an upper-class Cadillac dealership owner. Let's see, who else? Ah! A guy I knew from San Francisco who was probably the most racist person I've ever known.

Ah, I don't think you got the memo. Racism only happens predominately in the Republican party, in the "Republican south", and only occasionally in the independant parties. Nothing a democrat sys is ever racist, we just misunderstood them.
***End of sarcasm.***
You are correct, every different group has some form of descrimination practiced by thier members.

How is THAT a defence?


Ordering a school to have a formal would be an interesting precedent.

#1: they know the public would fight the situation, and cause a great disruption in school. They wanted to keep the school actually teaching kids, so they dropped the activity. Just like any other school would do if something would become a distraction. Avoid disruption, now gets a law suit.
#2:I agree.
Equal treatment: everyone loses.

I think it would depend if they (girl and ACLU) can show that the reason the school closed the prom was to stop her from taking a same gender date. If they can't show that, I can't see how they can win.

I would counter that arguement, the prom was cancelled to prevent disruption to the school. The school may or may not endorse the poor attitude, but they only need to maintain that the prom would disrupt the education of the students.
Thier hand was forced by the people in the district(possibly bigots) and this girls request. The school ducked out of the situation.
They might get a prom this year, but I bet they won't have one again.
No prom, no disruption. Of course, if the school district or city change to allow untraditional couples, then the prom could be held again.
Like I said at the start, had the girl brought her friend that was a girl to the dance, without a grand announcment, she could have had the dance, and a great lawsuit if they removed her.(& her date)
Also, a private Prom can descriminate all they want, because its private.

I am interested to see how this is different than a school in the past canceling the prom so blacks would not have to be allowed in. And if the school holds a 'straight only' unofficial formal, my interest in this goes up about 3 magnitudes.

Was this the case in history? How did the courts handle it?

I don't see where you getting this conclusion from?
she's being disqualified from the prom because she dates another girl.. and rather than repeal the discriminatory rules, the school canceled prom for everyone.. non of this has anything to do with being above or bellow the age of consent.

She and everyone else in school have been denied a prom. Equal treatment.
My school has it written:
Cheerleading; no boys.
This is to prevent the disruption of the game and the cheer team. More so to prevent the class clowns from wasting time. I don't believe they could or would enforce it if someone challenged it.
Peewee school football(new to our district) allows girls to play, that is why I assume if someone challenged it it would not be enforced.
Personally, I think the policy should require an interview with the cheer coaches, to verify they are serious.

If the school descriminated against the student, I would support her suit.
They cancelled Prom, so no one gets to go. I feel for the preasure she is under having single handedly ended the prom, even after students warned this would happen.
She should have acted as if she was normal, and brought her date just like everyone else, the night of the prom. Then when they refuse her entrance, she would have a clear case of descrimination, and the distraction would be on the school, not on planning an event.
I believe if the school required special permission to bring a same sex date, that would be descriminatory. That would be the different treatment.
Mandate petition to bring a "special" date, then when it happens, you cancel the prom. Built in guarantee that the prom will not allow homosexual students to participate.
I would support this arguement.

 

[wanderingone]

and brought her date just like everyone else, the night of the prom. Then when they refuse her entrance, she would have a clear case of descrimination, and the distraction would be on the school, not on planning an event.

I agree with this, although many schools now require their students to provide information on who they are bringing to the prom before the event, or require anyone bringing a date who is not a student at the school to provide their name ahead of time. I don't recall if that was the practice at the school involved in this case.

 

[Chyke4real]

The evil that men do lives after them.

 

[Maren]

From CNN:

A Mississippi lesbian Tuesday won a judge's backing for her contention that her First Amendment rights were violated when her high school refused to allow her to attend her prom with her girlfriend. But U.S. District Judge Glen H. Davidson refused to order the Itawamba County School District in Fulton, Mississippi, to hold the dance it had canceled over the matter.

In his 12-page order, Davidson also ruled that Itawamba Agricultural High School's denial of 18-year-old Constance McMillen's request to wear a tuxedo to her prom was a violation of her rights.

The judge ruled as to bringing a same-sex date, "According to the clearly established case law, Defendants have violated her First Amendment rights by denying Constance's request to bring her girlfriend as her date to the prom." He went on to rule about her not being allowed to wear a tux, "The record shows Constance has been openly gay since eighth grade and she intended to communicate a message by wearing a tuxedo and to express her identity through attending prom with a same-sex date. The Court finds this expression and communication of her viewpoint is the type of speech that falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment."

He went on to state, "The Court is also of the opinion that the motive behind the School Board's cancellation of the prom, or withdrawal of their sponsorship, was Constance's requests and the ACLU's demand letter sent on her behalf. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Constance's First Amendment rights have been violated and therefore, she has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to her First Amendment claim."

Basically, the judge sided completely with Constance and the ACLU. He goes on to state that he did not require to have the school hold a prom because a private prom has been planned and will be open to all students of the school, including Constance, and that the parents who have been planning that prom would be damaged by ordering the school to hold a prom. He also mentioned the difficulty of the court trying to oversee the details of the school planning and holding the prom.

Interestingly, in denying her claim for the prom to be reinstated the judge will allow Constance to amend her Complaint so that she can seek compensatory damage and other appropriate relief. Constance in her original Complaint only asked for $1 in damages, along with attorney's fees.

 

[BigBadWlf]

From CNN: The judge ruled as to bringing a same-sex date, "According to the clearly established case law, Defendants have violated her First Amendment rights by denying Constance's request to bring her girlfriend as her date to the prom." He went on to rule about her not being allowed to wear a tux, "The record shows Constance has been openly gay since eighth grade and she intended to communicate a message by wearing a tuxedo and to express her identity through attending prom with a same-sex date. The Court finds this expression and communication of her viewpoint is the type of speech that falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment."

He went on to state, "The Court is also of the opinion that the motive behind the School Board's cancellation of the prom, or withdrawal of their sponsorship, was Constance's requests and the ACLU's demand letter sent on her behalf. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Constance's First Amendment rights have been violated and therefore, she has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to her First Amendment claim."

Basically, the judge sided completely with Constance and the ACLU. He goes on to state that he did not require to have the school hold a prom because a private prom has been planned and will be open to all students of the school, including Constance, and that the parents who have been planning that prom would be damaged by ordering the school to hold a prom. He also mentioned the difficulty of the court trying to oversee the details of the school planning and holding the prom.

Interestingly, in denying her claim for the prom to be reinstated the judge will allow Constance to amend her Complaint so that she can seek compensatory damage and other appropriate relief. Constance in her original Complaint only asked for $1 in damages, along with attorney's fees.

This is good news

 

[lawtonfogle]

From CNN: The judge ruled as to bringing a same-sex date, "According to the clearly established case law, Defendants have violated her First Amendment rights by denying Constance's request to bring her girlfriend as her date to the prom." He went on to rule about her not being allowed to wear a tux, "The record shows Constance has been openly gay since eighth grade and she intended to communicate a message by wearing a tuxedo and to express her identity through attending prom with a same-sex date. The Court finds this expression and communication of her viewpoint is the type of speech that falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment."

Unless the judge is willing to allow an open nudist come to the prom nude, he really needs to add some clause that reasoning such as 'and considering a tuxedo is an appropriate form of dress for such an event' or something. Otherwise, as is written, an open nudist should be allowed to go to the prom nude, especially if they are trying to make a statement about nudism.

He went on to state, "The Court is also of the opinion that the motive behind the School Board's cancellation of the prom, or withdrawal of their sponsorship, was Constance's requests and the ACLU's demand letter sent on her behalf. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Constance's First Amendment rights have been violated and therefore, she has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to her First Amendment claim."

Basically, the judge sided completely with Constance and the ACLU. He goes on to state that he did not require to have the school hold a prom because a private prom has been planned and will be open to all students of the school, including Constance, and that the parents who have been planning that prom would be damaged by ordering the school to hold a prom. He also mentioned the difficulty of the court trying to oversee the details of the school planning and holding the prom.

Interestingly, in denying her claim for the prom to be reinstated the judge will allow Constance to amend her Complaint so that she can seek compensatory damage and other appropriate relief. Constance in her original Complaint only asked for $1 in damages, along with attorney's fees.

Now comes a big question. If she has to be paid damages, who does the money come from? The community at large, or the school in specific? If it comes out of the schools budget, then there is less money to educate the students with. And while $1 will not make a dent, attorney's fees will.

Granted, you have the same issue with the school hiring an attorney as well.

 

[DeathMagus]

Unless the judge is willing to allow an open nudist come to the prom nude, he really needs to add some clause that reasoning such as 'and considering a tuxedo is an appropriate form of dress for such an event' or something. Otherwise, as is written, an open nudist should be allowed to go to the prom nude, especially if they are trying to make a statement about nudism.

Wouldn't that already violate public decency laws?

 

[Maren]

Unless the judge is willing to allow an open nudist come to the prom nude, he really needs to add some clause that reasoning such as 'and considering a tuxedo is an appropriate form of dress for such an event' or something. Otherwise, as is written, an open nudist should be allowed to go to the prom nude, especially if they are trying to make a statement about nudism.

It isn't necessary. There are already various lawsuits on school dress codes that largely establish what a school can require. Beyond that, from what I've read the school had nothing in their written dress code that would deny a girl the ability to wear a Tux, or even pants, which was denied to this girl.

Now comes a big question. If she has to be paid damages, who does the money come from? The community at large, or the school in specific? If it comes out of the schools budget, then there is less money to educate the students with. And while $1 will not make a dent, attorney's fees will.

Granted, you have the same issue with the school hiring an attorney as well.

How the damages are paid would largely depend on how the school gets its money and how their budget works. And even some of the answer depends on what the girl does, if she amends the Complaint and then, if she does, how much she asks for. OTOH, one has to wonder what the school was thinking, as everything I've seen indicates this type of ruling, that the school violated the girl's rights, was to be expected. The case law here appears to be well established.

It would seem to me the smart thing for the school to do now would be to settle the suit. My suspicion is that if the school were to admit their fault and establish new policies that protect a student's choices based on sexual orientation that the girl and ACLU would agree. Not to mention, going to trial would add thousands of dollars in attorney fees for both sides on a trial that it appears the school cannot win.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It isn't necessary. There are already various lawsuits on school dress codes that largely establish what a school can require. Beyond that, from what I've read the school had nothing in their written dress code that would deny a girl the ability to wear a Tux, or even pants, which was denied to this girl.

My point is he should have gave a nod to the rulings that a Tux did not violate dress code.

How the damages are paid would largely depend on how the school gets its money and how their budget works. And even some of the answer depends on what the girl does, if she amends the Complaint and then, if she does, how much she asks for. OTOH, one has to wonder what the school was thinking, as everything I've seen indicates this type of ruling, that the school violated the girl's rights, was to be expected. The case law here appears to be well established.

If I wanted to be cynical, they were trying to give a bad name to homosexuals, as some of the extreme conservatives will take this a farther proof that homosexuals are evil blah blah blah you heard all that before.

It would seem to me the smart thing for the school to do now would be to settle the suit. My suspicion is that if the school were to admit their fault and establish new policies that protect a student's choices based on sexual orientation that the girl and ACLU would agree. Not to mention, going to trial would add thousands of dollars in attorney fees for both sides on a trial that it appears the school cannot win.

Yeah. Do schools in general pay attorney fees out of their budget?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Wouldn't that already violate public decency laws?

If so, that law would thus be unconsitutional under the Judges ruling.

"The record shows Constance has been openly gay since eighth grade and she intended to communicate a message by wearing a tuxedo and to express her identity through attending prom with a same-sex date. The Court finds this expression and communication of her viewpoint is the type of speech that falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment."

If a nudist, who had been an open nudist for years, was trying to communicate a message by wearing nothing, why would this not be considered the same? Because we are talking about the USA's Constitution, you cannot appeal to any lesser law for why it would be different.

 

[DeathMagus]

If so, that law would thus be unconsitutional under the Judges ruling.

"The record shows Constance has been openly gay since eighth grade and she intended to communicate a message by wearing a tuxedo and to express her identity through attending prom with a same-sex date. The Court finds this expression and communication of her viewpoint is the type of speech that falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment."

If a nudist, who had been an open nudist for years, was trying to communicate a message by wearing nothing, why would this not be considered the same? Because we are talking about the USA's Constitution, you cannot appeal to any lesser law for why it would be different.

Is nudism classified as protected speech? I don't think it is.

 

[Maren]

My point is he should have gave a nod to the rulings that a Tux did not violate dress code.

From what I recall of my review of his ruling, he did.

If I wanted to be cynical, they were trying to give a bad name to homosexuals, as some of the extreme conservatives will take this a farther proof that homosexuals are evil blah blah blah you heard all that before.

Yeah. Do schools in general pay attorney fees out of their budget?

It would depend on the school district. I would expect, however, that most district does have some money in the budget in case of attorney's fees in case their is an injury, discipline, or other problem that parent's blame the school for.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Is nudism classified as protected speech? I don't think it is.

But what you wear, if done so to make a point, according to this judge, is classified as protected speech. Perhaps one cannot go fully nude, because someone will nitpick wearing not an option when choosing something to wear, but wearing a single article of clothing, say a belt, would be wearing something, and thus, if done to make a point, a form of protected speech.

I do not disagree with the judge's conclusion, but I think his reasoning leaves a gap open. Yes, it is a gap that only a nudist who really wanted to make a point or some <insert inappropriate word> would actually capitalize, but there are nudist who want nudism to be more accepted, and the world has more than it's fair share of <insert inappropriate word>s.

 

[Billnew]

From CNN: The judge ruled as to bringing a same-sex date, "According to the clearly established case law, Defendants have violated her First Amendment rights by denying Constance's request to bring her girlfriend as her date to the prom." He went on to rule about her not being allowed to wear a tux, "The record shows Constance has been openly gay since eighth grade and she intended to communicate a message by wearing a tuxedo and to express her identity through attending prom with a same-sex date. The Court finds this expression and communication of her viewpoint is the type of speech that falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment."

He went on to state, "The Court is also of the opinion that the motive behind the School Board's cancellation of the prom, or withdrawal of their sponsorship, was Constance's requests and the ACLU's demand letter sent on her behalf. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Constance's First Amendment rights have been violated and therefore, she has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to her First Amendment claim."

Basically, the judge sided completely with Constance and the ACLU. He goes on to state that he did not require to have the school hold a prom because a private prom has been planned and will be open to all students of the school, including Constance, and that the parents who have been planning that prom would be damaged by ordering the school to hold a prom. He also mentioned the difficulty of the court trying to oversee the details of the school planning and holding the prom.

Interestingly, in denying her claim for the prom to be reinstated the judge will allow Constance to amend her Complaint so that she can seek compensatory damage and other appropriate relief. Constance in her original Complaint only asked for $1 in damages, along with attorney's fees.

I was sick when he reached this decision, I do not have the facts, but from his decision, I believe his decision was the proper one.

I wonder if the school will offer a prom next year, knowing they can't desciminate against groups of people they don't agree with?

The tux thing was stupid, a female should not be required to wear a dress just because its a formal event.

I do hope those bigotted people in the district that encouraged the school to do this will fess up enough money to cover the fine. So the kids aren't harmed by the stupid actions of the school and those that encouraged this.

 

[LightHorseman]

Happy to hear the judge's decision. There may yet be hope.

 

[one11]

But what you wear, if done so to make a point, according to this judge, is classified as protected speech. Perhaps one cannot go fully nude, because someone will nitpick wearing not an option when choosing something to wear, but wearing a single article of clothing, say a belt, would be wearing something, and thus, if done to make a point, a form of protected speech.

I do not disagree with the judge's conclusion, but I think his reasoning leaves a gap open. Yes, it is a gap that only a nudist who really wanted to make a point or some <insert inappropriate word> would actually capitalize, but there are nudist who want nudism to be more accepted, and the world has more than it's fair share of <insert inappropriate word>s.

I was thinking a good comparison of discrimination is for Jews -- those whose diet is only Kosher. I wonder if anyone would have done anything about that or even cared?

Another as far as dress code, I wonder if a vegetarian could wear a blood stained butchered looking cow suit to a prom and have protected freedom of speech?

 

[LightHorseman]

I was thinking a good comparison of discrimination is for Jews -- those whose diet is only Kosher. I wonder if anyone would have done anything about that or even cared?

I'm pretty sure there is already case law in respect to this, which is why even the military and prisons are required by law to provide kosher meals to observant Jewish people.

Another as far as dress code, I wonder if a vegetarian could wear a blood stained butchered looking cow suit to a prom and have protected freedom of speech?

Interesting question.

I suppose one could make an argument that a girl in a tux is not intended to be intentionally confronting, while the cow suit is, which may effect the appropriateness of the clothing. I don't know. I look forward to seeing the case law following the first vegetarian who has to file suit when her school cancels the formal rather than let her attend in such a get up.