US school cancels prom to avoid lesbian student bringing a date

[Miller]

One thing I don’t quite get from Grave’s posts. We are asured that if Candace had gone about this the “proper” way, things would have been much more likely to have been resolved in her favor, because really, no one cared about gays at prom and everyone regarded the rule against it with a nudge and a wink. Yet we are also told, by the same source, that the prom was not cancelled out of any antipathy against gays by the school administration, but because Constance’s actions had created so much turmoil and controversy that it was making it impossible for the school to function. It seems to me that these two statements are in opposition to each other: if there was so much strife over her request, that seems to me a pretty clear indication that there was a strong popular support for the ban, and likely an equally strong institutional support for it. If I am to believe the first report, I find great difficulty in believing the second. And if I am to believe the second report, I still cannot find it in myself to blame the girl for following the path that appeared to have the greatest chance of changing the policy while she was still young enough to enjoy the benefits of the change. The “slow and steady” approach to civil rights would have done her no favors if she were in college by the time the appeal worked it’s way through the “appropriate” channels.

I’m also mildly amused by the juxtaposition of “you don’t understand what it’s like in the South,” with, “She should have started agitating for her rights as a lesbian when she was fourteen.” The posters in this thread may be displaying some minor ignorance of Southern society, but you are betraying a massive ignorance of the grim, meathook realities of being an openly gay teenager. Simply being out at all at that agebrakes enormous courage: sufficient enough that I would have few qualms about calling her a hero for that alone. Standing up against a bigoted institution is just icing in the cake.

[Yookeroo]

@Grave

Sure the rule should be fought, but do you really think a letter and lawsuit the month before the prom makes a valid attempt?

Yes. Unequivocally. Because:

@AClockworkMelon

No. EVERY moment is the right moment to fight.

Right. Some times might be better than others, but no time is the wrong time.

@Grave

No, not false. It was (in retrospect) so much easier to fight for racial equality.

Say what?

@Grave

The lines were drawn by colors, and visual identifiers which were so, so much easier to decry and defeat. When it comes to homosexuality (or really, anything beyond vanilla hetero) the lines are not so easy to see.

No, they’re quite clear. In retrospect, the lines for racial equality are quite clear, but don’t think the bigots had an easy time seeing them. Just like today.

@Grave

I merely intended to point out that the fight for sexual orientation rights is complex; more complex than most seem to understand.

It’s really not. It’s about as black & white an issue as there is.

@NinetyWt

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.

Maybe not “the one”, just one of the most likely.

[Freudian_Slit]

@Miller

I’m also mildly amused by the juxtaposition of “you don’t understand what it’s like in the South,” with, “She should have started agitating for her rights as a lesbian when she was fourteen.” The posters in this thread may be displaying some minor ignorance of Southern society, but you are betraying a massive ignorance of the grim, meathook realities of being an openly gay teenager. Simply being out at all at that agebrakes enormous courage: sufficient enough that I would have few qualms about calling her a hero for that alone. Standing up against a bigoted institution is just icing in the cake.

Yeah. I’m not getting it either. It was the wrong time–she came out of nowhere with this as a senior, and it’s immature? And then on the other hand, we have the fact that homosexuality isn’t like other civil rights issues. It’s complicated, and all races and religions hate gay people, so you know… Plus, it’s just different than other issues, somehow. And things are different down here.

Which is it–should she have been working hard to change, or should she have just been all, it’s “Mississippi-town, Jake?”

And has anyone ever said that gay people asking for rights is a complex issue without resorting to bigotry like, “Marriage is between a man and a woman”?

[Equipoise]

@Grave

Inasmuch as anything is possible, that scenario certainly is. Following it through, though, leads to the conclusion of standing up for themselves = cancelled prom.

This prom cancellation is more important than uplifting and empowering a questioning, confused gay kid somewhere. Got it.

I ain’t racist or nothing, but I’own giveashit that that Parks lady inspared a buncha folks that mebbe they had rights and culd stan up for thereownselves. Bitch made me late to work! Causin’ a brouhaha and makin’ the busses late, damn, that’s what people oughta remember and think about!

@phouka

A few quotes in response to the discussion at hand:

Great quotes, great post.

Here’s a quote from the great Nina Simone:

Lord have mercy on this land of mine
We all gonna get it in due time
I don’t belong here
I don’t belong there
I’ve even stopped believing in prayer

Don’t tell me
I tell you
Me and my people just about due
I’ve been there so I know
They keep on saying “Go slow!”

But that’s just the trouble

[phouka]

@Bricker

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.

This is one of the few times when I think Godwinizing an argument is valid.

What if the mayor of a small town occupied by Nazi Germany doesn’t cooperate with the Reich’s order to round up all the Jews and ship them to Dachau? He will, at the very least, be fired. Quite possibly, he’ll be taken out and shot. The person who follows him won’t turn a blind eye to the tiny ghetto. His successor will round up every practicing Jew, every ethnic Jew, and anyone he can reasonably denounce as being a Jew, and hand them over for extermination.

So, should the mayor cooperate, knowing he may be able to spare a few Jews, the ones no one has a beef with, the ones most able to pass as Aryan, the ones who will give up Shabbos and pretend they are not what they are? Or should he refuse to allow evil to triumph. Should he act as his convictions say is the right thing to do?

No one’s life is at stake in Mississippi, maybe, but that doesn’t mean the stakes are negligible.

I would have a great deal more respect for the principal if he had stated, “Constance is right. She deserves this, but I cannot help her. If I do, I will be fired, and the next principal will be hateful and bigoted, and the tiny bit of progress I’ve managed will be destroyed.”

I’d have had more respect for the principal if he had petitioned the school board to change the policy in their own best interest, by pointing out their legal liabilities, the likely damage a media storm would inflict, and the cost of dealing with the whole mess.

I’d have had far, far more respect for him if he’d told the students and parents that they had better make sure all the students knew where the alternate prom would be held.

If doing the right thing were easy, there’d be no moral dilemmas. There would be no reason to recognize courage, tenacity, and dignity in others. If doing the right thing were impossible, nothing would ever get better. In that spectrum, individual human behavior changes everything.

That principal had the opportunity to make the world a better place, even if it was just by taking a stand and acting on his declared principles. He chose not to. The world is a poorer place for that.

[Freudian_Slit]

@Equipoise

This prom cancellation is more important than uplifting and empowering a questioning, confused gay kid somewhere. Got it.

I ain’t racist or nothing, but I’own giveashit that that Parks lady inspared a buncha folks that mebbe they had rights and culd stan up for thereownselves. Bitch made me late to work! Causin’ a brouhaha and makin’ the busses late, damn, that’s what people oughta remember and think about!

Yeah, this is what is resonating with me, too. And I do get that kids will be short-sighted. I don’t agree with them and I hope one day they’ll realize that what they did to her was wrong. It is appalling that none of the adults see that at the end of the day, it shouldn’t be about, “Well, the kids got their party so it worked out fine.”

And as someone else pointed out, Constance’s brave act may bring hope to even one scared, lonely, depressed gay teenager somewhere else. For that, whether or not the other kids had a good time is besides the greater point, which I wish more people would see.

[NinetyWt]

@phouka

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.”

Agreed, and like I said above, I don’t get that “excuse” vibe from Grave’s posts.

I’ve been there.

Yes, I have been caught up that way too. I think what I bring to this current event from having had those experiences is a sense of “there but for the grace of God…” . Surely there are good people in the community who didn’t speak up when they should have, and are now kicking themselves for it.

[Freudian_Slit]

@NinetyWt

Agreed, and like I said above, I don’t get that “excuse” vibe from Grave’s posts.

How is it anything but an excuse? The school behaved poorly. I’ve seen no admission on Grave’s behalf that they were ultimately wrong. From Grave’s post, the person who seems to be responsible for this is Constance.

[NinetyWt]

@phouka

I’d have had far, far more respect for him if he’d told the students and parents that they had better make sure all the students knew where the alternate prom would be held.

I may regret bringing this ups but Ms. McMillen was quoted in the paper as saying she knew about the other event:

McMillen said she knew there was another event in the works and she has seen several pictures from the party on Facebook.

“When I found out that there was another prom, I called and asked if I was invited and (a student) told me the prom was at the country club so I took that as a ’no,”’ McMillen said.

Story here.

[NinetyWt]

@Freudian_Slit

And as someone else pointed out, Constance’s brave act may bring hope to even one scared, lonely, depressed gay teenager somewhere else. For that, whether or not the other kids had a good time is besides the greater point, which I wish more people would see.

Yes, and I also think that having their Facebook stuff splashed all over the 'net should make the kids realize how they were wrong. It is a good lesson for them too.

@Freudian_Slit

How is it anything but an excuse? The school behaved poorly. I’ve seen no admission on Grave’s behalf that they were ultimately wrong. From Grave’s post, the person who seems to be responsible for this is Constance.

I just don’t see that Grave is saying that. shrug

[Freudian_Slit]

@Grave

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.

This to me reads that Constance was the problem, in Grave’s eyes, not the school.

@Grave

No, not false. It was (in retrospect) so much easier to fight for racial equality. The lines were drawn by colors, and visual identifiers which were so, so much easier to decry and defeat. When it comes to homosexuality (or really, anything beyond vanilla hetero) the lines are not so easy to see. All races tend to be very vocally anti-homosexual, religion plays a crucial part… to conflate the two is to dimish them both. While both may be civil rights, the struggles are not the same.

And this reads like fighting for gay rights isn’t quite the same as fighting for race rights because, well, a lot of people hate gays and it’s complicated and this is the south and people hate gay people. If there were a policy in any school that said a white student couldn’t take a black student as a date to prom, but the principal decided to oh so graciously let the races mingle, I’d be disgusted, and I’d hope most people would feel the same. The response I’m getting from Grave is that this isn’t the same for some really strangely articulated reasons and that this is all on Constance for stirring up trouble.

[phouka]

The impression I get from Grave is that she considers the principal and faculty to have been put in a tough spot by Constance, and that Constance had unreasonable expectations, thus, the misery of the situation is her fault and her choice. Grave is quick to question Constance’s motives, implying that she’s a drama queen, and quick to deflect blame away from the principal and faculty.

I could be misinterpreting Grave’s posts. At any rate, I don’t actually include Grave among those who applaud or excuse the actions of the community. Grave seems more interested in defending Mississippi’s reputation and honor, and I have no argument with that. After all, even if statistically, Mississippi might be more likely to see human rights violations like this than, say, Massachussets, that is just a reflection of American cultures and values.

[phouka]

@NinetyWt

I may regret bringing this ups but Ms. McMillen was quoted in the paper as saying she knew about the other event.

She had to call someone, had to ask that person, and that person apparently implied that Constance was not invited or welcome. The principal should have made clear that excluding Constance from any alternative party was the wrong thing to do. And perhaps he did. So, I remove that objection.

[tumbleddown]

@Grave

Actually as I stated before, this had happened in previous years and no one cared. So Constance had no reason to expect problems for her prom.

So you say. But this year, the rules were, indeed, different. Why?

Because this was the year that Itawamba Agricultural High School suspended, apparently permanently, a student named Juin Baize because of his gender non-conformist appearance.

It should be noted that gender non-conformist appearance was an issue with regard to Constance’s attendance at the prom. The rule stated that as a female, she would be required to wear a dress. Wanting to wear a tux would put her squarely into the same status as Juin Baize, whose ostracism and rejection from Itawamba she had been witness to herself earlier this year.

Given Baize’s situation, all suggestions that this town and this school were quietly accepting and tolerant and everything was going to be okay until Constance went and made a stink and how dare she? Are exposed as lies.

[Grave]

Actually I never sought to place ‘blame’ on anyone. From the start I stated the policy was wrong and hoped to shed some light on a complex and (to some) almost alien situation. This is very emotional subject and emotional responses are natural but that was not what I intended to bring here.

I had a chance to discuss the situation with people who were involved, and wanted to share that information. The sheer differences in perception by readers here has made that difficult at best. I am still glad I tried to present the other side of a ‘media storm’.

As for supporting Constance, or rather the accusation I did or would not, allow me to clear that up. The rule is wrong, and whether or not I agree with how she acted I could not ever refuse to support changing such a policy. Both by financial support to several groups who have offered to assist her and by offering physical support to groups in the area I have tried to ensure the rules will be undone. To be clear, the financial contributions predated her and will continue after but I contribute so they can fight these fights.

The way she acted was foolish and selfish in my opinion and even when the rules are changed her actions will cause a chilling effect. As Bricker noted, actions have costs and she chose a high cost path with a long tail for others to follow.

To accurately explain why taking a stand for sexual orientation as a civil right is so vastly different than taking a stand for racial equality in the society of this area is beyond the scope of time I can commit to this disussion. That doesn’t mean I feel one is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than the other, nor have I ever stated such. Just to try to directly equate the two is foolish beyond that they should be basic rights every person enjoys. I apologise for not simply ignoring those statements, as my responses muddied the waters.

Thank you all for the time you took to read and respond.

[ENugent]

@Grave

Constance chose a course with a predictable outcome, why should she be sheltered from that?

It was equally predictable that a small-minded, bigoted policy would someday be publicly challenged, and that an uproar would ensue. Why should the community be sheltered from that?

[Freudian_Slit]

@Grave

The way she acted was foolish and selfish in my opinion and even when the rules are changed her actions will cause a chilling effect. As Bricker noted, actions have costs and she chose a high cost path with a long tail for others to follow.

And I’ll reiterate–I don’t know why what she did was selfish. I see a LOT of selfish people. The kids, and their parents, who wanted a prom. The principals and the teachers who cared more about themselves than about one student standing up for what is right. I see Constance as brave and heroic. I don’t see her as selfish. I don’t see what’s “chilling” about the effects either. Hopefully, the school will see that they’ve been bigoted fools and change their policy.

To accurately explain why taking a stand for sexual orientation as a civil right is so vastly different than taking a stand for racial equality in the society of this area is beyond the scope of time I can commit to this disussion. That doesn’t mean I feel one is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than the other, nor have I ever stated such. Just to try to directly equate the two is foolish beyond that they should be basic rights every person enjoys. I apologise for not simply ignoring those statements, as my responses muddied the waters.

You know, I see people making this argument all the time. It’s not like race, it’s different. I don’t see why someone wanting to not be discriminated against on the basis of race is any different than someone not wanting to be discriminated against on the basis of sexuality. But no one’s ever articulated to me WHY it’s different.

So far, you’ve mentioned that it’s different because people of all races and religions hate gay people. Doesn’t that mean we should be fighting even harder, not less so?

Honestly, I’ve just seen this, “It’s different, okay, it’s just different” argument so many times, and no one’s ever explained why. I can’t help but read it as people just don’t want to rock the boat.

[eleanorigby]

It seems very clear to me (who has spent some time in the South in my day)…

Constance is guilty of a heinous Southern crime: she has caused a scene and brought embarrassment onto her community. She has let outsiders into an insider’s view. This is unforgivable in families and in small towns. In essence, she washed this community’s dirty laundry in public. And for that she must be punished–hence the private prom; hence the “it was the WAY she went about it that was just so Drama Queen” (paraphrased) etc.

I say go Constance and throw more egg on their faces. Please do–and in the future washing of that collective face, maybe some light of intelligence and tolerance will come through. I completely agree that this could have happened in just about any rural community, north or south of the Mason-Dixon line. Thing is, it’s done MS no favors on the national scene. In fact, it’s reinforced a damning stereotype of a state that could be so much more, if only it would drag itself into the 20th century. Yes, I mean 20th.

I have met many a delightful, intelligent and informed Southerner in my day, but I have to say the culture does not encourage diversity or initiative. I speak as one who has family/friends in VA, KY, FL , SC and TX. I highly doubt the good people of rural MS are all that different in social conservatism from the good people in rural KY and VA…

[tumbleddown]

An article about Juin Baize from February, and look who’s front and center, leading a cross-dressing protest in support of Juin…

This is entirely about gender performance.

[Freudian_Slit]

Growing up different–gay, trans, of a different race/religion culture, whatever–has got to be hard no matter where you live, even with the most loving supportive culture, friends, teachers. Growing up different in a town like this has to be a special kind of hell. I feel really awful for both Juin and Constance and hope that wherever they go on in the rest of their lives, that they’re surrounded by people who support and love them.