• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lesbian teen back at Miss. school after prom flap

Catz Part Deux said:
These kinds of policies are discriminatory. The case law was established back in the 1990s in Rhode Island. Your posts demonstrate a significant degree of ignorance about these laws.

You can make these kinds of claims, but they are inaccurate.

CASE LAW & PRECEDENT, FTW.
Click to expand...

Do you just throw **** against the wall and hope it will stick?
 
Jerry said:
In schools where uniforms are required, girls can not wear the boys uniform and boys can not wear the girls uniform.

The only exception to this I can think of is when the student can document transsexualism or GID.

If she's just a lesbian then she still has to dress as a woman.
Click to expand...

In public schools where uniforms are required, there are no "boy uniforms" and "girl uniforms".
If there were, it would be legally challenged and found unconstitutional.

You're thinking of private schools.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
These kinds of policies are discriminatory.
Click to expand...

It's not discrimination if there's no right being infringed.

I know of no right to cross-dress at a formal occasion unless she can prove that she thinks she's the sex she's trying to dress as.
 
Jerry said:
In schools where uniforms are required, girls can not wear the boys uniform and boys can not wear the girls uniform.

The only exception to this I can think of is when the student can document transsexualism or GID.

If she's just a lesbian then she still has to dress as a woman.
Click to expand...

in general, in schools where there are uniforms, the male/female uniforms are virtually identical. For instance, khaki pants/shorts/skirts and polo shirts.

Many stores now carry uniform lines, such as Old Navy, the Gap, and Target. The male/female uniforms are very similar, just sold in boys/girls sections.
 
Jerry said:
It's not discrimination if there's no right being infringed.

I know of no right to cross-dress at a formal occasion unless she can prove that she thinks she's the sex she's trying to dress as.
Click to expand...

Public schools are not in the business of forbidding females to wear pants, Jerry. Not since the late 60s or so.

I'm not sure how to get this across to you. It is unconstitutional.
 
Also, Jerry, I'd encourage you to read up on Aaron Fricke.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Fricke]Aaron Fricke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Shortly after he came out in 1980, Fricke began seeing another male student. Fricke decided to bring him as his date to the prom. When the high school informed Fricke he could not bring him to the prom, he filed suit in U.S. District court. The presiding judge, Raymond J. Pettine, ruled in Fricke's favor, ordering the school to not only allow him and his partner to attend as a couple but also to provide enough security to ensure their safety.[1] The case received considerable media attention,[3] and news camera crews filmed and interviewed the couple at the dance.[4]

The case set a precedent, that has been used across the United States, to establish a legal right for students to bring same sex partners to school proms and other school social events.[5]
Click to expand...

Ten states now have laws on the books making it illegal to discriminate against gay/lesbian students.
 
1069 said:
Public schools are not in the business of forbidding females from wearing pants, Jerry. Not since the late 60s or so.

I'm not sure how to get this across to you. It is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It's only unconstitutional if there's a right being infringed, and there's only a right being infringed if she can document transsexualism or GID, otherwise her preference in clothing is entirely under her control, is a choice, and therefore is not discrimination.
 
Navy Pride said:
Do you just throw **** against the wall and hope it will stick?
Click to expand...

You can see the case quoted above:

Plaintiff - Aaron Fricke

State: Rhode Island

Date of case: 1981

The plaintiff won, and this case has been used as a legal precedent in PROM cases around the U.S. to prohibit discrimination against gay/lesbian students. 10 states already have laws on the books prohibiting schools from doing this sort of thing.

I hate to break it to you, Navy, but the war is already over. You lost.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
It's only unconstitutional if there's a right being infringed, and there's only a right being infringed if she can document transsexualism or GID, otherwise her preference in clothing is entirely under her control, is a choice, and therefore is not discrimination.
Click to expand...

YOu can keep saying that, but it's wrong. :mrgreen::lol::lol:
 
Jerry said:
It's only unconstitutional if there's a right being infringed, and there's only a right being infringed if she can document transsexualism or GID, otherwise her preference in clothing is entirely under her control, is a choice, and therefore is not discrimination.
Click to expand...

Regardless of sexual orientation, Jerry, public schools are not legally allowed to prevent female students from wearing pants.

Why is this not getting through? :confused:
 
Jerry said:
I'm not talking about blocking her from attending, I'm talking about how she dresses while attending.
Click to expand...

I work with dress code issues all the time because of my job. IN order for the dress code to be upheld, the school has to prove that the dress code addresses SAFETY ISSUES or items of dress that would be significantly provocative.

Given that 50% of the people attending will be wearing tuxes, the school doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

ANd, frankly, as the parent of a teenager, I don't really get why the guys here are so miffed by the girl wanting to wear a tux. It's significantly more modest than any of the dresses the girls are likely to be wearing.
 
Jerry said:
You can keep saying I'm wrong but your wrong :2wave:
Click to expand...

Happy reading. ;)

firstamendmentcenter.org: Student expression in Speech - Topic

Legal standards
Some courts apply the Tinker standard to determine if school officials can regulate student clothing. This standard asks whether school officials can reasonably forecast whether the student expression will cause a substantial disruption or material interference with school activities. For instance, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently struck down a portion of a school’s dress code in Newsom v. Albemarle County School Board that prohibited clothing depicting weapons.

The controversy arose after school officials forced student Alan Newsom to quit wearing his National Rifle Association T-shirt, which depicted three silhouettes of men holding guns and bore the message “NRA Sports Shooting Camp.” The school policy prohibited “messages on clothing, jewelry, and personal belongings that relate to … weapons.”

In its December 2003 decision, the 4th Circuit determined that the policy was too broad and was not necessary to prevent disruptions at school. The court explained that the language of the school dress code would prohibit clothing bearing the state seal of Virginia, which depicts a woman holding a spear, or clothing bearing the athletic mascot of the University of Virginia, which contains two crossed sabers.

Many courts will analyze student dress cases under a threshold test established by the Supreme Court in flag-desecration cases. This two-part test asks: (1) whether the student intended to convey a particular message, and (2) whether reasonable observers would understand this message. A federal district court in New Mexico applied this standard to rule that a public school student did not have a First Amendment right to wear sagging jeans.

In Bivens v. Albuquerque Public Schools, the judge questioned whether sagging pants conveyed any particular message: “Sagging is not necessarily associated with any single racial or cultural group, and sagging is seen by some merely as a fashion trend followed by many adolescents all over the United States.” The judge said that even if sagging somehow constituted a message, the student failed to establish that reasonable observers would understand any message coming from the wearing of sagging pants.

Other courts have applied a test developed from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1968 decision on draft-card burning, U.S. v. O’Brien, to determine whether a school dress code is constitutional. Under the O’Brien test, a school dress code or uniform policy is constitutional if it:


Is authorized under state law.
Advances an important government interest.
Is not related to the suppression of free expression.
Only incidentally restricts free expression in a minimal fashion.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has used the O’Brien test more than once to uphold a school-uniform policy against constitutional challenge, as in Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board:

“The School Board’s purpose for enacting the uniform policy is to increase test scores and reduce disciplinary problems throughout the school system,” the appeals court wrote in Canady. “This purpose is in no way related to the suppression of student speech.”

Another legal standard is sometimes applied to student dress-code disputes. Courts will apply the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision Bethel School District v. Fraser, which allowed a school to punish a student for giving a vulgar speech before the student assembly. Some courts will use the Fraser precedent to prohibit students from wearing any clothing that contains vulgar, lewd or plainly offensive expression. For example, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that Norfolk school officials could prohibit a student from wearing a shirt with the anti-drug message “Drugs Suck.” According to school officials and the federal judge, the word “suck” was a vulgar term with sexual connotations that could be prohibited by school officials.

When applying these varying legal standards, many courts have upheld school dress policies, rejecting constitutional challenges by students. For example, the 5th Circuit has upheld school-uniform policies in Louisiana (in Canady) and Texas. Many students have lost when they challenged their suspension for wearing Confederate flag clothing. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a school district’s flat ban on the Confederate flag.

However, sometimes students do prevail in dress-code disputes. Because the Tinker decision emphasized that the students wearing the black armbands were engaged in political speech — the type of speech the First Amendment was most designed to protect — students wearing clothes containing political slogans and other messages can argue that a reviewing court should apply the Tinker standard to protect their right to wear political-slogan clothing.

For example, Michigan high school student Bretton Barber successfully obtained a preliminary injunction in a federal district court that prevented school officials from banning his T-shirt showing a photograph of President George W. Bush with the words “International Terrorist.” U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Duggan ruled in October 2003 in favor of the student because, he said, school officials had silenced Barber’s expression more out of a dislike of its message than fear that it might disrupt school.

In other words, Duggan applied the Tinker standard and determined that the school officials failed to meet that test. In fact, the judge compared Barber’s shirt opposing President Bush’s policies in Iraq to the students from the Tinker case who opposed the Vietnam War.

“Clearly the tension between students who support and those who oppose President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq is no greater than the tension that existed during the United States’ involvement in Vietnam between supporters of the war and war-protestors,” Duggan wrote, adding that “students benefit when school officials provide an environment where they can openly express their diverging viewpoints and when they learn to tolerate the opinions of others.”
Click to expand...
 
1069 said:
Regardless of sexual orientation, Jerry, public schools are not legally allowed to prevent female students from wearing pants.

Why is this not getting through? :confused:
Click to expand...

The word is "tuxedo", not "pants".

I'm sure if the lesbian couple showed up in woman's pants suit suitable for any other kind of formal occasion that that would be acceptable.

The article in the OP claims that the gil intends to dress as the opposite sex, hence more drama surrounding the story.
 
Jerry said:
The word is "tuxedo", not "pants".

I'm sure if the lesbian couple showed up in woman's pants suit suitable for any other kind of formal occasion that that would be acceptable.

The article in the OP claims that the gil intends to dress as the opposite sex, hence more drama surrounding the story.
Click to expand...

A tuxedo is a pant suit, Jerry.
Public schools are not legally allowed to prevent female students from wearing modest pant suits.
 
Jerry said:
The word is "tuxedo", not "pants".

I'm sure if the lesbian couple showed up in woman's pants suit suitable for any other kind of formal occasion that that would be acceptable.

The article in the OP claims that the gil intends to dress as the opposite sex, hence more drama surrounding the story.
Click to expand...

And, that attire is likely to be upheld in court based upon precedence. Dress code law, because it deals with the 1st amendment, is quite specific. Public shools simply cannot prohibit items just because they want to. They are required to prove that those items "will cause a substantial disruption or material interference with school activities."

Given that fully half of the participants in the prom will be wearing a tux, the school will be unable to meet the burden of proof under the law to force this issue.

The federal court takes first amendment issues seriously. ;)

As they should.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I work with dress code issues all the time because of my job. IN order for the dress code to be upheld, the school has to prove that the dress code addresses SAFETY ISSUES or items of dress that would be significantly provocative.

Given that 50% of the people attending will be wearing tuxes, the school doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

ANd, frankly, as the parent of a teenager, I don't really get why the guys here are so miffed by the girl wanting to wear a tux. It's significantly more modest than any of the dresses the girls are likely to be wearing.
Click to expand...

Dressing as the opposite sex is indeed disruptive.

As I said, the school is perfectly within their rights to require her to dress as a lady.
 
Jerry said:
Dressing as the opposite sex is indeed disruptive.

As I said, the school is perfectly within their rights to require her to dress as a lady.
Click to expand...



I'll tell you what. We'll both be around when this is decided. Let's make a wager. The person who is right gets to choose the other person's avatar on here for a month.

Are you game?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I'll tell you what. We'll both be around when this is decided. Let's make a wager. The person who is right gets to choose the other person's avatar on here for a month.

Are you game?
Click to expand...

I may not be, when it being decided?
 
Dressing as the opposite sex is indeed disruptive.

As I said, the school is perfectly within their rights to require her to dress as a lady.
Click to expand...

Since the school is not requiring the male contingent of the student body to "dress like ladies", no, the school is not "perfectly within their rights" to require her to do so.

It is sexual discrimination, and they will be penalized for it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom