I don't know if y'all are still reading the news on this, but yesterday a federal judge ruled that the school district was wrong, wrong, wrong.

The school district still refuses to reinstate the prom, and parents are holding a private prom. Constance McMillen isn't sure whether she'll be attending. Her plans were to return to school today and see what sort of reception she receives. She says she doesn't "want to be somewhere I'm not welcomed."

I'll be very saddened if there are students in her school who continue to give her crap over this, and blame her for the school cancelling the prom. It's the school that is to be blamed – Constance didn't MAKE them cancel the prom. The school was wrong in the first place, and compounded their error with their cowardly attempt to make a scapegoat out of that girl.

-- Nephele

Wait a second. A Federal Judge rules that these people were wrong and they go ahead and keep the ban in place?

A degree of common sense - regardless of the sympathies involved, and I make no bones about where mine lie - would surely indicate that it would be a prudent move to listen to what they're being told.

I hate the fact that Constance is being put in this position. I hate the fact that even though there's a private prom, she feels that she can't attend. No person - of that, or any age - should be put through this crap. How deeply is this going to wound her?

Rotten? There's something absolutely rancid in the state of Denmark.

Glad you mentioned it Nephele because I read an article on Yahoo dealing with the girl going to court and all, but what really shocked the hell out of me was the comments left by Yahoo users. So many of them were not only homophobic, but damned ignorant of everything the gay rights movement has struggled to project to the rest of us all these years.

I remember a few commetors saying that the girls were "violating the rights of the other students by planning to come as they were". Um, excuse me, but how is that violating the OTHER STUDENTS rights? Did I step into bizzaro world today because sounds to me like the exact opposite is the case.

And of course there was also comments made on how 'ugly' the users thought Constance was, which whether one finds her physically appealing or not is not even a factor in the first place. Plus the usual psuedo-religious 'immoral' arguments (which thankfully seem to be losing quite a bit of steam as of late, at least among less narrow minded people). Strange, but seems these people never bring up morals when it comes to other definitely immoral things, like murder and theft. I guess morals only apply to sexual things now.

They're not legally allowed to discriminate against her by excluding her the way they did. But they're not legally required to hold a prom, so they can continue to discriminate against her & get away with it by simply calling off the prom altogether.



You never want to read the comments section on news stories online. There's like, some kind of rule of the internet, that news story comments are going to be downright awful. That's why so many news sites have stopped having comments sections (for a while yahoo had stopped having them because of the nonsense that was going on in them).

Ugh! I remember all those comments by assholes after Heath Ledger died. I couldn't believe how many people were jumping on the idea that he had suicided. There was so much nastiness and "I hope he's happy burning in hell!" Shit remarks by so-called 'christians'. I actually got so pissed(suicide being a sensitive issue for me) that I asked them if their god didn't say "Judge not lest ye be judged? Cuz I'm seeing an awful lot of that right now." People don't realize just how high the rates are for an inexperienced opioid user to accidentally OD because they have no idea just what they're fuckin with.

Bottom line is that people don't think when they start typing or open their mouths. Stupidity runs amok on a regular basis!

This was a focus in my Current History class. We all pretty much agreed that it was BS. Even my teacher, who vowed to always be neutral with opinions, said he can't believe this is happening in 2010. Seriously.

The thing that disturbs me the most is not the thing about not letting her bring her girlfriend. I can understand the homophobes (barely). But I can't understand how this blatant sexism is allowed. Letting guys wearing something and girls not = sexism. Schools aren't supposed to support that.

You know what makes me uncomfortable? When students are grinding right next to me at prom. But hey, no one says anything. I just move away! And that's the end of it.

Ahh, but it happens all the time in school dress codes! At my son's school, guys can't have their hair so long that it may touch their collar. If it gets that long and the boy's parent doesn't get it cut, they will write the child up every day until it is tended to. Now, here is where it gets really stupid!! My good friend...her son goes to the same school, and is really good friends with my son. He is more the computer geek type, and likes his hair longer. His hair got below his collar, and the teachers and stuff started giving him a hard time. My friend, who is a hairdresser mind you, finally went up to the school and asked why it was so important that her son have his hair cut. She was told that his long hair was a distraction. She pointed out that girls could have long hair...even have hair that covered their eyes...what was the deal with boys. The principle actually told her that long hair impairs hearing and that is how it was a distraction! My friend, quick as she is, replied, "Oh, so you don't care if the girls in the school don't get a proper education because they aren't hearing properly because of their hair?" She naturally pointed out that this was the dumbest excuse that she had ever heard, and the school finally laid off on her son...as long as he keeps his hair neat and clean, and doesn't let it get too long.

Sexism at it's finest!!!

WTF???

Yeah, they enforce the ideal that the girls are to wear dresses and the boys are to wear suits/tuxedos. Their rules state that if a girl were to show up to prom in a tux, she would be asked to leave since her attire apparently doesn't fit her "gender role", hence the sexism aspect.

~spidey, who's wondering if it really is 2010 or if she somehow took a wrong turn through a wormhole to 1930...

Users remarks and the school's response to Constance just reinforces my belief that (many) people are sickening in their inability to see everyone equally and actually care for others plights even if they do not believe in it.

Yep, sexism indeed does affect both male and female in different regards. I myself have long hair for a variety of reasons, one of which is cultural (I'm part Native American and long hair was considered an extension of spirit ), though most people think I have it to be a 'rebel' and a 'rocker' (though I consider myself neither by their definition). Even now, I will turn down a job that requires me to cut my hair. Thankfully, that hasn't been the case the last bunch of jobs I've had. I don't even think it should be a factor.

I'm glad the idea was brought up of this being a sexist incident as well as a homophobic one. Sometimes I think it's easier to focus on the anti-gay side of this story moreso than the sexist side, but both are indeed equally as bad.

Oh I assure you, if a school like this one had a gay male student asking to bring another guy, while wearing a prom DRESS, their shitfit would have made this story seem like a non-event. Schools are more likely to let girls wear guys clothing than the other way around.



What it boils down to is, is a power-addiction. It's relatively common for administrators to get so authoritarian-happy that they forget where their authority ends due to ethics & the law.

When schools implement a policy like forcing all the guys to get short hair cuts, often what happens is eventually one of the parents gets fed up with it, takes it to the ACLU and the whole thing goes to court.

When this happens, unless the school ditches the stupid policy, it goes to the courts and costs the school a pile of legal fees. If the school administrators actually cared about the students more than their authority, they would drop the pointless rule to save the money (especially if the school already has a tight budget, as most districts in the US do). Worse yet, schools routinely LOSE cases like these (although occasionally they win) so the loss in money is even more pointless. The administrators know this, they just don't care.

A few years ago there was a famous case in Texas where the state legislators decided to pass a law regulating the length of public school cheerleading skirts (you all might remember it from the daily show, Stewart gave it a lot of air time). The state politicians openly said to the media that the bill will end up hurting the students because it will surely be challenged in the courts once it passes, and it was doubtful that it would ever stand up in the courts. Meaning it would end up wasting a ton of money that could have gone towards textbooks & after school activities. The same politicians then told the reporters, publicly that they were going to vote for the bill anyway, because it would help them politically next election by appealing to the conservative voters.

I don't remember hearing about that cheerleader skirt issue.

I knew guys that were sent to the office for wearing dresses & skirts. It might seem trite to some, but at the root, they were trying to get people to pay attention to the blatant double standards in the school system. This was waaaaaay back in the early 90s.

Better yet...require all to wear pants! Then, we wouldn't have to worry about teenaged girls running round with skirts so short they can't bend or sit...distracting all of those hormone raging teenaged boys!