I don’t think so. If I’m reading things correctly the proms were privately hosted. A private person has the right to invite whoever he or she pleases to a party. The point is that it’s a sucky thing to do and only illustrates these peoples’ bigotry.
From last week’s paper:
Linkto story.
Sounds like maybe the other kids decided to attend other parties rather than the one at the country club. I’m disappointed that they chose not to attend the country club one in support of McMillen. I reckon it’s possible that the parents pressured them not to.
Interesting bit from that story: the high school principal says that he received some 4,000 emails, of which about 90% were in favor of McMillen.
Well, is someone going to bite the bullet and express the opinion that, “Hey–maybe she should have been grateful to have gone to some prom, any prom at all? Seems like people are just looking for a reason to be mad at this point”? No? Didn’t think so. Narrow minded bigots!
[Mother] Just think of all the poor children in Africa who never get to go to a prom. [/Mother]
I understand that she’s probably not the most popular person at that school, but I still have a hard time believing that she was so out of the loop as to know nothing about this even though all the other students managed to get the news.
Why couldn’t this have been resolved like in the olden days: they just invite her to the real prom and dump pigs blood on her.
I’m not going to go into any detail, but given what I remember from my own high school I have absolutely no problem believing this is possible.
Actually, I think that what’s happened isn’t great, but I think it does rather vindicate what I’ve been saying throughout the whole thread: She’s made herself really, really, REALLY unpopular and the people who live there have rather made their point on the subject.
Nobody ever contradicted that point, Martini Enfield. Everyone acknowledges that this incident has made her unpopular. However, I think that it’s the school that is to blame, not the girl.
I don’t think anyone’s completely blameless in this one, FWIW.
I thought about making a new thread for this, but I’m hoping the interested parties will see the post here and avoid any more drama over this.
I do have cousins that attend IAHS, and a cousin’s husband is a teacher there. I’ve stayed out of this thread due to the hate and bigotry towards Mississippi (thanks for the defense NinetyWt!) but I hope the SDMB will appreciate some facts anyway.
Constance and her friend are NOT the only gay couple at the school, nor were they the only gay couple to plan on attending prom. Per the principle (whom I had the pleasure of meeting this weekend) the school operated a very benign informal “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. While community standards are very much anti-homosexual, the administration at the high school would rather be accepting of all their kids and could care less about sexual orientation. This is, as stated by both the related teacher and principle, to the point that a few couples will (or would) walk the halls hand in hand and / or with minor displays of affection. They are NOT singled out for any kind of punishment, nor would they be tolerant of ‘gay bashing’ on campus.
Since my relative would have worked the original prom and did work the replacement I find it factual that he stated Constance (with or without partner) would not have been barred from the event. Tux, dress, jeans, no one would have cared in the least - and yes, they had same sex couples have formal pictures taken last year. Not a single chaperone complained.
The original prom was cancelled not out of spite but because it had become such a massive distraction. Teachers were constantly dealing with kids on both ‘sides’ and losing class time to it. No one wanted to end the prom, but like the Candyland analogy earlier it seemed the best course. Prom, like any function, should add to the school not take away from it.
As for the ‘fake’ prom - no, it wasn’t. Informal polls of Constance and her friends indicated a large group would attend in the week before but by Friday it had dwindled to what you saw in the reports. The teachers who had volunteered to work it (including my relative) did not cut it short or do anything other than host it as usual. The students who were there, especially the mentally challenged ones, said they had a wonderful time. For the record, everyone who worked that event did it because they wanted too, and wanted the kids to have a prom. Most of the kids who went somewhere else did so more because they feared media would ruin their night than anything. They really did not care about Constance at all.
We had a rather good discussion on why, from an adult point of view, Constance chose to act the way she did. Much bafflement ensued … Did she want to force them to allow her? The school would have gladly anyway, and the principal couldn’t change the policy. Did she hope to call attention to a silly policy? Nothing in her actions or statements indicates this was the case. Did she hope to change the community? No one who lives in a rural area all their life could be that dense to how it works.
The community in Itawamba county and Fulton is very conservative and fundamental protestant - not exactly the most tolerant group of any divergent viewpoint. The school hoped by setting a quiet example they would help show people that that wasn’t the only way to think, but Constance really upset that. Her actions did not have any positive effect on the school or community.
No, I don’t post much. This bothered me enough to do so, forgive the syntax as needed, please.
Right, she should have censored her actions at a public event at a school funded with public money.
What did the lesbian student do that was “to blame”? She didn’t stay home? She and her girlfriend didn’t dress in evening gowns and pay a couple of guys to take them? They wanted to be acknowledged the same as the straight students? Sorry, not buying it. I think blaming her for anything she did is pretty much victim blaming.
No, FS. They were ttly asking for it. They were probably holding hands and everything. Just asking to get victimized.
A girl at this school posted this on her facebook page.
I don’t really get why everyone is blaming Constance for stirring up drama. If the school had just decided to waltz on into the 21st century, they could have had the prom, no drama, No stress. But yes, let’s yell at the lesbian girl.
Grave–just saw your post. What do you mean, why did Constance act as she did? Do you seriously think it’s all that odd for a girl to want to go to a prom with her peers with the date of her choosing? Besides if the school did cancel it just because it had gotten out of hand, why was an off campus prom had?
Lovely post, Grave. I noticed that principal’s last name as rather unique - I used to work with a fellow from Shannon, Mississippi with that name, I’d bet they are related. I also know some folks from Fulton/Itawamba County that I went to University with. I thought well of all of them.
Because she could have gone with her date if that’s what she wanted. Neither the principal nor (per my relative) the faculty thought for a moment about denying her that experience - and she could not have thought they would. As I stated, they would not have been the first openly gay couple to attend. It really appears she wanted drama for drama’s sake.
I don’t understand.
What drama did she cause?
1.) Prom is happening.
2.) Lesbo plans to go to prom with girlfriend.
3.) Prom is canceled.
I feel like, based on your account, I’m missing a step.
If she could have gone with her date, then what was she asking for?
All of it - she chose to try and force the ‘issue’, as it were, by asking the principal to state she would be allowed to attend in direct violation of published policy. He could not do such a thing (as it is beyond his keen to change policy) but had been letting it occur for years. So she put a principal who is supportive of bending the rules in a rather untentable position.
What you missed (to me) is thus - lesbian decides to cause serious drama for no understandable gain.
That would be the point we discussed, sadly with no decent conclusion.