Judge won't force Miss. district to hold prom

Yahoo News ^ | 23 March 2010 | SHELIA BYRD

[RabidBartender]

JACKSON, Miss. – A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a Mississippi school district violated a lesbian student's rights by refusing to allow her to bring her girlfriend to the prom, but he said he would not force the school to hold the event.

[MEGoody]

Yes. From what I understand, the school's expressly forbid the student from attending prom with her "girlfriend". They also told her she couldn't wear a tuxedo. Both actions are plain violations of the girl's 1st Amendment right.

Actually, the school is not preventing the girl from "expressing" her homosexuality. They just aren't providing a school sponsored event for her to do so. So they aren't violating her rights. They are simply refusing to pay for a party. She has the right to pay for and host her own prom if she wishes.

[OldDeckHand]

"Actually, the school is not preventing the girl from "expressing" her homosexuality. They just aren't providing a school sponsored event for her to do so. So they aren't violating her rights. They are simply refusing to pay for a party. She has the right to pay for and host her own prom if she wishes. "

Actually, the judge didn't see it that way. He says quite forcefully and plainly (and several times), that the school has violated her civil rights when they initially prohibited her from attending, and cites similar cases where courts have found for similar plaintiffs.

It was only after she secured the help of the ACLU, did the school cancel the prom - probably because their attorneys told them that they'd lose the case. They were right.

So, while the judge has found (correctly) that it's not within the his purvey to order the school to hold the prom, he's clear that plaintiff can amend her original complaint to seek damages for the school's initial violation of her civil rights.

[Tired of Taxes]

Why would I care, or why would anyone care if you know someone who went to prom with someone else of the same sex.

Apparently, you cared because I was answering your question. YOU asked (in post 77), "Can you cite a media report that has "plenty of girls showing up together at their proms"?" So, I answered that a young relative did with her friends. Yes, it's quite common. You don't have to have a date to go to your prom.

So, gays are allowed, they just can't come with each other. Is that your point?

Once again, my point is that school officials did NOT do what you're claiming they did. They only established a policy for "guests" who aren't upperclassmen at this school.

Here's the link to the complaint: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/McMillen_complaint_final.pdf

Go to page 10 to see the school memo yourself. There is NOTHING in it that restricts juniors/seniors of the same sex from going together to the prom. There is only a policy for guests. Here's what it states:

The fee for a Junior or Senior is $35; a guest ticket for $10 (see guest criteria below).

Each Junior/Senior may invite one guest. Your guest should meet the following criteria:
* may be in grade 9 or 10 at IAHS
* may be in grade 9-12 at another high school
* may be a college age student
* must be of the opposite sex

Clearly, this school never saw it coming. There's NOTHING in that memo dictating the sex of your "date". There's nothing that says, for example, that two upperclassmen of the same sex cannot escort each other to the prom. The school only set a policy for "guests" who aren't juniors/seniors in that school. Do you understand now?

School officials probably were blindsided when this girl asked to wear a tuxedo and escort a sophomore of the same sex. The memo states a guest must be the opposite sex probably to make it clear that the guest policy is intended only to accommodate upperclassmen dating people who aren't upperclassmen at that school. (Without that policy, what's to stop juniors/seniors from bringing all of their sophomore/freshman friends to the prom?)

You brought up the ticket prices first. Look at that memo. If that memo is written correctly, juniors/seniors dating each other have to pay more for their prom than guests do. And this girl is complaining that she can't wear a tux and pay the lower price...?

We're talking about the 1st Amendment - the same amendment that guarantees religious freedom.

That's quite a stretch there. The only way a girl wearing a tuxedo to her prom is a First Amendment issue is if the case is about free speech. And, indeed, she is trying to make the case about free speech because the complaint states she wants to "peacefully express that she is a lesbian and her political and social viewpoint..."

If this girl has a First Amendment right to dress whatever way she wants to her school prom, why should all of the other students have to abide by a dress code? That's why we keep saying this case is all about special privileges for this girl. And she sure is capitalizing off this case. Read the story; she was given $30,000 from Ellen DeGeneres.

[OldDeckHand]

'"Can you cite a media report that has "plenty of girls showing up together at their proms"?"

I was talking about this school. I think that's plainly clear.

"Once again, my point is that school officials did NOT do what you're claiming they did."

My point is, that's NOT what the judge held.

"Go to page 10 to see the school memo yourself. There is NOTHING in it that restricts juniors/seniors of the same sex from going together to the prom. There is only a policy for guests. Here's what it states:"

So what? Does that mean the school didn't expressly forbid her from bring her "girlfriend" as her date? Of course it doesn't, because the judge clearly found that they did indeed expressly forbid her from bring her girlfriend.

"That's quite a stretch there. The only way a girl wearing a tuxedo to her prom is a First Amendment issue is if the case is about free speech."

Are you dense? Did you read the judges opinion? He states several times that the school violated her 1st Amendment guarantees. In it, he quotes his own 5th Circuit when in Canady, 240 F.3d at 440, it held that "the choice to wear clothing as a symbol of an opinion or cause is undoubtedly protected under the First Amendment if the message is likely to be understood by those intended to view it."

"And she sure is capitalizing off this case. Read the story; she was given $30,000 from Ellen DeGeneres."

So, because someone gave her thirty large, you think it's ok that the school violate her civil rights? Nice.

If the public school can force girls to wear dresses, it can also force them to wear burhkas. Fortunately, we still have some jurists that still value the Constitution, even when it protects people who engage in a lifestyle choice in which they may disagree.

[Tired of Taxes]

I was talking about this school.

No, you weren't. If you were talking about this school, you wouldn't have asked, Can you cite a media report that has "plenty of girls showing up together at their proms"? Instead, you would've asked, "Can you cite a report that girls show up together at the prom at this school?"

Whatever. I keep providing you with evidence (the school memo, filed by the plaintiff's attorneys) that the school did not require juniors/seniors to bring dates.

My point is, that's NOT what the judge held.

You can't think for yourself? He's just a judge, not the Almighty.

Does that mean the school didn't expressly forbid her from bring her "girlfriend" as her date?

You still don't get it. The juniors/seniors who identify as "straight" can't bring underclassmen of the same sex, either.

Did you read the judges opinion? He states several times that the school violated her 1st Amendment guarantees.

How many times do I have to tell you? What I read was the complaint filed by attorneys for the girl herself. I even provided you with links to that complaint.

If the public school can force girls to wear dresses, it can also force them to wear burhkas.

You're really melodramatic. FCOL, my friends and I didn't go to our proms because back then we laughed about the gowns and tuxedos. No one is forcing someone to go to a prom in the first place. The prom is an optional event.

You're on the wrong forum if you think a dress code for a prom is a violation of someone's "civil rights".

[longtermmemmory]

IOW the Judge put the blame on the school district.

By endorsing homosexual behavior the judge gave attorney fees to the ACLU.

The judge said the cancellation was pointless.

This is a judge creating a pyric victory.

The ACLU should not be allowed to collect attorney fees.

No lawyer fees no ACLU.

[OldDeckHand]

"You're on the wrong forum if you think a dress code for a prom is a violation of someone's "civil rights". "

You're living in the 1940s if you think the government can demand that female students wear dresses rather than slacks.

[gogeo]

If the school sponsors a prom, then EVERY student DOES have a constitutional right to attend, with whomever they select as a guest - probably provided that guest is a student of the same school. If the guest was not a student, then it becomes more complicated...

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until that line. A school either has the right to regulate school activities, or not. If not, then any line is an arbitrary line drawn in the sand, subject to revision by lawsuit...if not this one, then the next.

The judge is legislating.

[OldDeckHand]

" A school either has the right to regulate school activities, or not. If not, then any line is an arbitrary line drawn in the sand, subject to revision by lawsuit...if not this one, then the next.

The school has a right to regulate activities within the confines of the Constitution.

The judge is legislating. "

No, the judge is following established precedent. If you had the initiative to read his order, and the appropriate subject-matter competency to understand the contents, you would make such a profoundly uniformed statement.

[Tired of Taxes]

You're living in the 1940s if you think the government can demand that female students wear dresses rather than slacks.

To the PROM. What is wrong with you?

Just curious: Is there anything you DON'T think is acceptable to wear to a prom? What about jeans and t-shirts?

[OldDeckHand]

"To the PROM. What is wrong with you? "

Evidently, nothing. If you think the government has the Constitutional prerogative to dictate that woman are forbidden from wear slacks, then you must - if you're intellectually honest - support their right to dictate that woman must wear burkahs.

The judge didn't say that the student had the right to wear a tattered, unkempt and reveling tuxedo. He said she has a right - based on prior judicial precedent - to wear a tuxedo. What part of, "the school can set standards, just not unconstitutional standards", don't you get.

"Just curious: Is there anything you DON'T think is acceptable to wear to a prom? What about jeans and t-shirts?"

Perhaps you can't recognize the distinction between dress slacks and tattered jeans and a t-shirt.

[Tired of Taxes]

If you think the government has the Constitutional prerogative to dictate that woman are forbidden from wear slacks,

The government is not forbidding this girl from wearing pants. A school merely set a dress code for the PROM.

And I didn't say "tattered" jeans. My, how indignant you are suddenly about clothing! Oh, NO, we can't have JEANS. Anything but JEANS. What about a student's First Amendment right to express his or her objection to government-enforced dress codes for the prom?

Suppose a boy wants to wear a gown to the prom. I assume you'd say that's his constitutional right. Then what about a boy who wants to wear a jacket without a tie to the prom? Why does he have to obey a dress code when these other people can violate the dress code all the way?

Again, this case is all about special privileges for one girl. The other students aren't allowed to wear something different.

[OldDeckHand]

"Suppose a boy wants to wear a gown to the prom. I assume you'd say that's his constitutional right. "

Can you imagine that? A man wearing a dress?

The state government shouldn't be the "fashion police". So long as the attire isn't revealing, sheer or otherwise compromising of public decency, it should be allowed. This of course is precisely what has been established in prior court decisions, as the judge points out in his opinion.

The fact that you're advocating such a government position tells me you're much less interested in a free republic, and more interested in compelling people to to comport to whatever your own personal perception of public behavior should be.

What people wear, and who people date is none of the concern of the imperial federal or state governments.

[GonzoGOP]

No prom, but the judge ruled her rights were violated. It’s still going to trial.

Probably not. The violation was for holding a prom and not allowing her to attend. By canceling the prom they made the violation moot. She cannot file a suit for not being allowed to go to the prom, as there was no prom to go to.

[little jeremiah]

The state government has a duty to protect traditional morality and certainly has a right to stop students from “cross dressing” at school functions. The alternative to protecting traditional aka “real” morality is to enforce perversion, which is NOT its duty.

A kilt and female attire have nothing in common.

[Tired of Taxes]

Sean Connery isn't wearing a prom gown in that photo. And it doesn't answer my questions: What about the boy who wants to wear a jacket without a tie to the prom? Why does he have to abide by the dress code? Or suppose he just wants to wear pants and a nice sweater? There's nothing indecent or revealing about jeans and a t-shirt, so why not be allowed to wear them to the prom?

The fact that you're advocating such a government position tells me you're much less interested in a free republic, and more interested in compelling people to to comport to whatever your own personal perception of public behavior should be.

Pardon me while I pause to laugh. If you only knew me, you would be laughing at what you typed above, too.

I am for a free republic. But, you're not. You're for special privileges for a few. ;-)

[OldDeckHand]

"And it doesn't answer my questions: What about the boy who wants to wear a jacket without a tie to the prom? Why does he have to abide by the dress code? Or suppose he just wants to wear pants and a nice sweater? There's nothing indecent or revealing about jeans and a t-shirt, so why not be allowed to wear them to the prom? "

I would imagine - although this isn't fully developed, legally speaking - that the school would make a judgment call. If the boy could cobble together an argument why he shouldn't, then he could try to litigate. But, the courts have given a fairly wide birth with respect to establishing dress codes for school and school functions. For instance, there's plenty of precedent that allows for schools to ban jewelry in the ears of men, but allow it in the ears of women.

Unfortunately for the school, there is also well-established precedent that says you can't mandate a student comport to gender-specific attire. In fact, the 1st Amendment assertion that supports the right of a female student to wear a tuxedo has already been litigated. That student-plaintiff succeeded in such a lawsuit, on the merits, as the judge pointed out in his decision.

Now, these may be somewhat conflicted in their reasoning - tuxedo vs. earrings - but it is what it is. Like most things in law that are dissonant, that dissonance is usually resolved in some later Supreme Court ruling. But, Romer vs. Evans draws a pretty good picture with respect to how that ruling will be crafted - probably with deference to the student's 1st Amendment rights.

[Deb]

Funny, MSNBC has only been reporting that the judge ruled against the school, leaving out the part about not making them hold the prom. I hear Green Day, Ellen and others are providing a special, separate prom for the girls.

[goldi]

“What we’re looking at now is the fact that the case is still on the docket for a trial on the merits,” Griffith said.”

No, it is going to trial. The judge said her rights were violated. The school might try to have her case dismissed, but they probably won’t prevail.

The prom is a lost cause.

[longtermmemmory]

what are her damages?

there is no prom so there are no damages.

THIS IS JUST ABOUT CREATING A DAMAGE JUDGMENT SO THE ACLU CAN GET MONEY.