Thats why the public school system is a sham. Its been watered down and liberalized so much that even a high school diploma is a joke.
Public schools cannot have rules that discriminate on gender or sexual orientation (among other things).
Thats why the public school system is a sham. Its been watered down and liberalized so much that even a high school diploma is a joke.
No, I don't really think you are. That has not been demonstrated by your posts in this thread.
That said, there is dress codes at proms.
The dress code is not "you must wear a tuxedo or a dress."
The dress code is "if you are a guy you must wear a tux if you are a girl you must wear a dress."
For a cop it isn't you must wear a uniform, its you must wear a cop uniform.
For a football player it isn't you must wear a uniform, you must wear your team's uniform.
If you don't wear your team's uniform you don't play ball.
But if she is simply a chick that wants to dress like a dude then sorry you don't get to.
I say clothing should be optional... solved.
Thats why the public school system is a sham. Its been watered down and liberalized so much that even a high school diploma is a joke.
More political correctness taken to absurdity levels. Talk about stupid: the idiots are asking the court to force the school to have a prom? That makes no sense. The school is not obligated to have any prom, and they canceled. They don't need to provide any justification for not having a prom. Stupid PC people.
Just imagine how much money schools save by not having things like football games.Exactly. It probably saves the taxpayers some money too. Spending money on luxuries like prom in this economy is pretty frivolous.
Just imagine how much money schools save by not having things like football games.
Just imagine how much money schools save by not having things like football games.
It depends where you are. In a lot of areas (TX, OH, PA and in much of the southeast), the schools make a lot of money on football merchandise, tickets, concessions and they get donations from alumni based on the football program. If the football program is a huge money loser, I'd be in favor of getting rid of it.
I know at my high school, football supported itself and every other sport.
Nothing more than gay agenda run amok. Why couldn't they have just gone and not make some bold statement. STFU and live life. I could care less if two girls showed up. Now if they had the ACLU riding on their trains shut them the F down.
With regard to the dress code though, the school is perfectly within it's right to set a certain dress code for men and for women. If the dress code for men is tuxes, then men should wear tuxes. Want to wear your football uniform instead? Tough shit, that's the dress code. The girls should have been allowed to attend, provided they follow the rules like anyone else.
Tons. I still don't know why they finance that shit. If people want to play football, they are welcome to on their own dime, not the taxpayer dime.
The girl wasn't trying to go to prom in a football uniform. She just wanted to wear a tux, and there's nothing wrong with that.. and the school doesn't have a right to say only men can wear a tux and only women can wear a dress. They can say that formal attire is required, but not pigeon-hole who can wear what kind of formalwear. That's gender discrimination.
If the school says that a tux is not allowed for girls then that shouldn't be an issue. It is a dress code thing.
Gender discrimination happens already. There is a boys bathroom and a girls bathroom.
I disagree. The school has no right to set that kind of rule, and I will fight any such restriction in every way I can.
I don't think there should be boys and girls bathrooms, but I can let this one slide because there's more of a threat of misbehavior than there would be if a girl wore a tux to the prom.
Sorry but until the right of a school to set dress code is removed, they have every right to set whatever they want.
As it stands right now, they have the right to set dress code. There isn't any limitation put on that.
You can disagree with that right but it is their right. I don't believe they should be able to enforce any dress code but the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that individuals can and do wear clothing to express ideas and opinions. The authority of public schools to regulate the types of clothing worn by its students therefore touches upon First Amendment freedom of speech rights. In its landmark 1969 decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (393 U.S. 503, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731, 89 S. Ct. 733, 1969), the court struck down a school district's ban on the wearing of black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Central to the court’s decision was the fact that the policy was “viewpoint-specific” and did not ban other clothing that expressed controversial views, including Iron Crosses, often seen as symbols of Hitler and the Nazis. This aspect of the decision is consistent with a number of later Supreme Court decisions signaling that viewpoint-specific dress restrictions violate the First Amendment.
In general, the Tinker case established the principle that, while maintenance of order and promotion of acceptable standards of classroom conduct are synonymous with ensuring an adequate education system, school officials do not have free reign to abridge students' constitutional rights. In the aftermath of Tinker, federal courts have been asked to address numerous cases involving school uniform and dress code policies. In some cases, these cases have narrowed the application of First Amendment protections to student dress.
The most recent case was decided in March 2001 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a ruling regarding a Kentucky high school’s dress code (Castorina v. Madison County School Board, 246 F.3d 536, U.S. Ct. App. 6th Circuit). The court indicated that several criteria were crucial in determining whether school policy interferes with student rights under the Constitution. Those criteria include:
1. If the school policy appears to be viewpoint specific (as in the Tinker case), the courts will apply a higher level of scrutiny to a school’s proposed regulation.
2. If the disputed clothing is obscene, vulgar or worn in a manner that disrupts school activity or causes unrest during the school day, the courts will allow school districts more discretion in prohibiting the clothing.
3. If the student speech/dress could be considered to be “school-sponsored,” the courts will allow school districts more discretion in prohibiting the clothing. For instance, school officials could regulate school-sponsored activities such as publications, theatrical productions and other conduct related to the school's curriculum if their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
The Supreme Court has not yet addressed the issue of school uniforms per se. As a result, this issue is a matter of first impression for all circuit courts of appeals and most federal and state courts. In the most recent case, decided in January 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of a mandatory public school uniform policy in a Louisiana school district (Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board, 240 F.3d 437, U.S. Ct. App. 6th Circuit). The court held that, “the school board's uniform policy will pass constitutional scrutiny if it furthers an important or substantial government interest; if the interest is unrelated to the suppression of student expression; and if the incidental restrictions on First Amendment activities are no more than is necessary to facilitate that interest.”