I was thinking it would be a smallish class, with the population of the county as a guide.
You may be thinking of Jackson, where I now live; I moved here from Oxford when I was 29.
Better gay cooties than bigot cooties. At least the gay cooties will be fabulous!
Maybe in the short run, but not in the long run.
If nothing else, this girl probably inspired dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of gay teenagers to think about who they are, and at least consider standing up for themselves. She might even have saved a few lives if a gay kid heard about this when they were on the brink of despair. Obviously we can’t know, but to me it makes sense that it’s possible.
That was quick. “This member is no longer active on Flickr”
I did get to read a few. These little bigots are learning well from their parents and community*. Their children and grandchildren will be appalled. Let’s hope, anyway.
- I’m not slamming Mississippi. It’s a beautiful state, and this could have happened anywhere in the country.
It’s just that it just so happened to happen where we’d all stereotypically expect it to.
Not at all. I’m saying that in the real world, standing up for justice has a cost, and for an issue like this, the ocurts cannot provide all the remedy she seeks.
To put it bluntly, although I thought was was blunt and clear above, she wanted two things. She wanted the school officials to treat her like anyone else, and she wanted the school kids to treat her like anyone else.
Courts can force officials to do the right thing.
They cannot force kids to do the right thing.
“we’d all … expect it to”? Leave me out of that please.
Fair enough. When you wrote, “So… in future years, if the school simply drops ‘prom’ from its list of sponsored events, a similarly-situated student may be out of luck,” I read something different from what you summarize in your current gloss.
As to your clarification that you meant only to state that the government can’t force kids to be nice, I don’t think anyone on this board, and certainly not Constance McMillen, needs to be told that. That the situation is unfortunate sort of goes without saying.
Always getting the good lines before I can heh
Inasmuch as anything is possible, that scenario certainly is. Following it through, though, leads to the conclusion of standing up for themselves = cancelled prom. I’d rather she did this in a manner that inspired others to fix the system AND have their event.
How terribly rude of Constance to ask that a school policy not discriminate against gays and lesbians. What utter gall. I’m glad there are such stalwart dopers to stand here and cluck their tongues at her for not having the forethought to start campaigning before high school.
Back away from it if you want to. Of all the places in the states, I’m not surprised it’s happening here. Grave has acknowledged that the community has a high percentage of homophobes.
Why the hell should a town of bigots get to have a prom? If you’re going to discriminate against people, I see no reason to mourn for your cancelled fun stuffs.
My thoughts exactly. And again judging from the “Quit yer bitching, Constance” pages, these seem like spoiled brats who have in no way earned the privilege of a prom.
Here? Is this happening in Phoenix ? 
Heck, I’ll acknowledge that the whole state probably has a high percentage of homophobes, seeing as how we’re in the middle of the Bible Belt.
I’m not surprised that you’re not surpised. I’m also not surprised that one of the school boards in a rural county still has a stupid rule like this. That doesn’t mean that you can say that it’s the one state in the U.S. where “we all” would think that a lesbian woman would not be allowed to take another woman to prom.
I meant the Bible Belt, not the state in particular.
We are in agreement, then.
A few quotes in response to the discussion at hand:
I don’t care if Constance made the request the night before prom was to be held. The inconvenience of her timing is an excuse to dismiss her cause.
Change is uncomfortable. Being called to account for your actions is uncomfortable. Facing people you disagree with is uncomfortable. Reviewing your convictions, admitting their faults, and changing them is past uncomfortable and downright painful. It is also moral, ethical, and righteous. The principal, the teachers, the board, and the students had the opportunity to do the right thing. They failed miserably. Because, apparently, it made them uncomfortable.
This is the part that gets me. The principal says the policy is wrong. Grave says the policy is wrong. The teachers say the policy is wrong. But none of them will lift a finger to help her.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned as a teacher, it’s that, if it isn’t typed up, signed, and published, then it doesn’t exist. The principal’s so-called benign DADT policy didn’t exist. Only the school district’s homophobic one.
If the principal had the courage of the convictions, at the very least, he should have brought it to the school board when Constance asked and argued in favor of repealing it. Instead, he avoided conflict with the gay students by giving them a wink and a smile, and he avoided conflict with the school board by nodding his head and shuffling his feet. He allowed the administration, the faculty, and the student body to frame the argument as one of timing and convenience, not of justice. That is not morality. It’s not ethical behavior. It is conflict avoidance, and it is cowardice.
He should have spoken for Constance. He should have fought for her. He should have protected her. Yes, facing the school board with that request would have been unpleasant. He might have even been threatened with the loss of his job, and if his job was worth more than her human rights, he should have been honest about that.
The teachers should have spoken on Constance’s behalf. Not because they liked her. Not because she was a good student. Not because she was popular. But because she was right. They should have supported her petition and demanded it go to the school board. They should have made their case to the school board, even if their tenure was threatened. Even if it meant being snubbed at the PTA meetings. Even if it meant their other students hated them.
Constance’s fellow students should have stood up for her. They should understand by now that principles do not weigh less because the persons involved aren’t as sociable or important. They should grasp that doing the right thing is difficult because there is a cost involved, and that people who refrain from doing the right thing because it is too uncomfortable are not heroes. They are selfish cowards.
Change is not some seamless gradation of attitude. A bigot does not alter at a steady rate of reconsideration every day. Change comes when someone is willing to face the pain, ridicule, and ostracism of making their community uncomfortable. A bigot changes when he or she is confronted and held to account.
Constance did everything she should, just as she should have. She was brave, honest, dignified, and true to her convictions. It’s too bad no one else in that school was. Because these “good” people stood by and did nothing, even in some cases abetted evil, evil was allowed to triumph. And others excuse or applaud it. That’s what sickens me.
Very, very well put. You express my thoughts exactly.
Phouka, I agree with the spirit of your well-written post.
But I don’t think any one of us, watching this story unfold, can say for certain everything each person involved did or didn’t do, because we’re not privy to that information. We also don’t walk in each of those people’s shoes, we don’t know what their lives are like. We don’t know the dynamics of the community and the high school. So we can’t parse the situation out as finely as we might like.
I will also point out that there is a difference between explaining something and excusing it.
I agree with the spirit of it also.
But I just want to point out that in the real world, sometimes practical considerations intervene.
For example, let’s say that our “cowardly” principal is well aware that if he makes the kind of stand in front of the Board contemplated by phouka, he will be fired. And let’s say, further, that he knows with pretty solid certainty who will replace him, and it’s someonethat the Board is VERY confident will never kick up this kind of fuss – someone who will, in other words, not supply even the “nudge and wink” tolerance he had, but make every effort to make gay kids’ lives hell.
Is the principal entitled to undertake a cost-benefit analysis and conclude that he’s doing more good where he is, and that his gesture of support, if made, would (a) change nothing except (b) his employment status which would (c) be bad news for LGBT rights at the school?
I’m now pretty convinced you don’t give a shit about LGBT rights. I think this is all basically an excuse to support non-action.
I can understand someone wanting to explain it, but I think it should be in the context of “whoa, did they mess that one up,” not “here’s why you shouldn’t be mad at them.”
It’s true that we can’t know for certain what each individual person did, but we do know with certainty what they didn’t do. They did not stand up publicly for what was right. I’ve been there. Caught off-balance, unprepared, or too intimidated to speak up, I held my silence. I was furious with myself, and when the circumstances came around again, I spoke up. Once in a while successfully, but mostly failing, and in a couple of cases, catching hell, but I spoke up. If I can do it, so can they.