Posted on 04/30/2002 4:30:34 AM PDT by KneelBeforeZod
Thong-Wearing Teens Kicked Out Of Dance
A group of parents are calling for the resignation of Rancho Bernardo High School's vice principal, claiming she enforced underwear checks at a school dance, 10News reported.
The dance occurred Friday and vice principal Rita Wilson turned away girls who were wearing thongs, the parent said.
Kim Teal is among the several parents angry with Wilson (pictured, right).
"First thing (my daughter) said when she got into the car was, 'Mom, it was horrible last night. You have to fight this,'" Teal told 10News.
According to parent Alane Garvik, girls who arrived at the dance wearing short skirts were immediately asked: "What kind of underwear do you have on?"
When Garvik's daughter red-facedly announced that she was wearing thong underwear she was told to "go home and put on appropriate underwear," according to Garvik.
Teal's daughter made it in and claims to have witnessed faculty lifting the skirts of girls to assure that the offending underwear was going nowhere near the dance floor.
"Well, I just saw ... a line of people and the vice principal, Mrs. Wilson, she was checking to see what the girls were wearing under their dresses. And she was literally lifting up their skirts and embarrassing them in front of everyone else," one student told 10News.
Parents and students have placed the blame on Wilson, for spearheading the thong underwear checks, even though there is nothing in the school dress code against them.
"It's not their right to know what kind of underwear these kids have," Garvik told 10News.
10News contacted school officials, who all declined to go on camera. But Principal Paul Gentle did say that he is "looking into the situation."
Parents are now asking for Wilson to resign.
Gentle said that even while enforcing the school dress code, it is not proper procedure to ask students what they are wearing underneath their clothes.
He told 10News that he plans to meet with parents sometime this week.
Schools however do have a legal responsibility to act in loco parentis. Only to you ill informed reactionary types (all school action = bad) does that coincide with usurping certain parental rights.
If a kid is in danger of hurting himself on school property by acting idiotic, the school has a legal obligation, to the Child, The Childs parents and the taxpayers that would by default pay a judgement against said school, to prevent such behavior.
The only thing you've got is a malformed sense of how things work ....
Are you further implying that because 300 million idiots CAN own guns, they can provide for the common defense.
That is patently absurd.
baaaaaaa ....
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth,
but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
Suppose the principal had been a male, instead of a female -- would the same behavior have been equally acceptable? If you say, "yes" -- you will be viewed as a pervert. If you say, "no" -- you will be viewed as sexist.
The answer is -- the principal's behavior was unacceptable and the case is actionable in a court of law. It's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment. It constitutes an illegal search and a violation of privacy rights.
Oh yeah...and lastly...Are you saying that the Parents in this case, have a right to send their minor daughters to a non mandatory school funtion on school property, dressed in any manner they please???????
Here is a hint....The school also has an obligation to those parents that are unwilling to expose their sons or daughters, to such libertine attitudes....
Oh yeah...and lastly...Are you saying that the Parents in this case, have a right to send their minor daughters to a non mandatory school funtion on school property, dressed in any manner they please???????
Here is a hint....The school also has an obligation to those parents that are unwilling to expose their sons or daughters, to such libertine attitudes....
LOL ! !
what's the old saying about 'enough rope' ??
The sole responsibility for educating children must be on the parents. The state has NO authority to get involved.
That is exactly what I DON'T what the state doing.
Lifting skirts is over the line. If the vice principal couldn't tell the difference without lifting skirts, there was no conceivable point to her campaign to eradicate thongs.
As her mom, or dad, it is your job, but when mom's and dad's don't do their jobs, or think there is nothing wrong with strings under mini skirts, then it is up to someone to tell that young girl that she is dressing and acting like a slut.
Your daughter is blessed to have you as her mom or dad, and you likewise have been blessed with a daughter that listens and obeys.
Might I also be so bold as to suggest that it might be wise to get on the phone, or better still, if she lives close enough, go see this ex-motherinlaw and read her the riot act. Using no uncertain terms.
Alas
You have stumbled upon the problem with the very existance of public schools. Public schools are GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS. Therefore, if it is legal on the street, it has to be permitted in public school, since the public school building is NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY. It is nothing more than an extension of the sidewalk outside.
as to the 'necessity' for compulsory public education,
i would refer you to the pre-collegiate educational backgrounds of our Founders.
bunch of longhairs who figured out how to create the greatest nation in history without help from the NEA.
AMAZING !
The preamble to the Constitution reads:
"...We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union... PROVIDE for the common defence, PROMOTE the general Welfare..."
Notice the distinction in wording that our Founding Fathers used to describe the role of government. The word "promote" is vastly different than "provide for."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.