I didn’t say that Grave didn’t fit in - I said that his response didn’t fit into the simple black-and-white categories.
Perhaps this will be instructive - do you believe that Constance was denied the right to attend the prom, to bring a same-sex date to the prom, or to wear a tuxedo to the prom? IOW, was Constance prevented from doing any or all of those three things?
Regards,
Shodan
Why does it possibly matter? The first is a red herring and the second and third are both illegal.
Reread Shodan’s last few posts on the matter. He’s making a fairly obvious point. After Freudian or someone else who was arguing against Graves reponds, I’d be happy to explain it if he doesn’t.
I have a feeling he’s going to be a bit disappointed with the result though. I’ll explain why on that, too, in the appropriate time.
No, it wasn’t, and it was explicitly stated as an honest, non-snarky request. People have given ample examples of Grave’s seeminly contradictory or inconsistent statements; many of us are confused as to what, exactly, he thinks. So asking him to again summarize or clarify his position is, I think, a perfectly reasonable request. Now, it would be one thing if he’d have said, “I can’t fit it into a sentence, but here’s a longer post where I explain exactly what I think and clarify any seeming contradictions in what I’ve previously said,” I’d respect that. But he didn’t. He blew it off, explicitly. And to me, that’s as good as saying, “I don’t really have a coherent position, because if I did, it would be in my best interests to explain it to you.”
By the explicit written policy of the school, yes, she was denied both from bringing the partner of her choice and from wearing the formal attire of her choice.
So the mere fact that the principal told her that she would not be prevented, and that same-sex couples had already been allowed to attend other proms, and that no particular action was taken against PDAs between same-sex couples - that doesn’t matter?
She was denied the right to attend with her girlfriend, even though she was not going to be denied the right to attend with her girlfriend?
Regards,
Shodan
According to Grave, everything was fine and dandy, but Grave’s arguments are a mass of contradictions. According to what I’ve read, she was prevented.
Anyway, I’ve paraphrased Grave’s arguments, and I can go back and quote. They are odd. They don’t have anything in common except that Constance was wrong. There’s the argument that this is so important that she should have been protesting it months in advance. There’s also the argument that things are different in the south and many people of all stripes hate gay people which makes me think that perhaps he’s saying gay people should be less, not more, vocal. So…which is it? This is so important it should have been protested a long time ago or it’s not important enough to take a stand because the principal looked the other way before?
If Rosa Parks had been told, “Ma’am, you stay right there… folks, I know what the official bus line policy is, but today, ladies and gentleman, the line stays right here!” then she would undoubtedly have been relieved, but the policy would have remained the same, subject to inconsistent, but still odious, application.
When the policy says one thing, and you don’t challenge it, then your own personal situation may be just great, but others will still be burdened by the policy. Challenging it was a chance to correct it for everyone, now and in the future.
No, it does *not *matter, so long as the discriminatory policy stays on the books–*and especially *since the principal refused to guarantee in writing that she would be allowed to attend the prom in the manner she chose. **Bricker **pretty much said everything I would have in reply.
No, Grave did not say this.
If the goal is to change the policy, would you agree that there might be times and circumstances in which your chances of actually effecting the change are maximized, and others in which it would be ineffectual and/or counter-productive?
Would you not agree, for instance, that efforts to change policy should be directed at those who set policy?
Or is it the case that you decide which side is right, and then they get everything they want, instantly and notwithstanding anything else, and that anyone who does not instantly cooperate 100% is a bigot and a homophobe and so on?
Because I am getting the vibe from some in the thread that their minds were made up by the time they got to the end of the OP’s title. And the title is misleading at best. It would be roughly equally misleading to title the thread “Spoiled Brat Tries to Ruin Prom to Draw Attention to Herself”. IYSWIM.
Regards,
Shodan
The best time to fight injustice is always right now.
I’d say the person who enforces policy is also a valid person to include, especially when that person is more immediately accessable. Now, that person may then refer you to the people who set the policy, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t ever even discuss it with them, especially when the person doing the enforcing is already fairly high up the administrative chain.
So you think there can possibly be a *valid *reason to discriminate against an LGBT student?
No, it’s not remotely equivalent. How about, “U.S. School Cancels Prom in Attempt to Avoid Dealing with the Fallout from Refusing to Remove a Bigoted Policy”? I’d say that pretty well sums it up.
Just something cool to share:
Constance will be one of the Grand Marshals for the LGBT Pride Parade in NYC.
As a Mississippian, I’m proud of her!
Sweet! 
Mississippi expat chiming in here, too: Go ahead on, Constance!
Meh. I deserve that 30k more than she does. :mad:
She can keep the meeting with Wanda Sykes, though.
Well, then, You’ma be you.
Oh, it’d be so much fun if a lot of people in the parade and among the spectators dressed up like they were going to a Prom. If I were in New York, I’d find a cheap prom dress, and go.
As an American, I’m proud of her!
As a gay, black, came-up-poor man from Mississippi who experienced its “societal” pressures based at least in part on the characteristics, I will now say that I wasn’t quite in line with the defense some have given the state when it has been criticized here. This especially includes not having any fond memories of prom time because, well, back them, it didn’t feel like there was anything there for me (and it was still black/white segregated (don’t know if that’s still true)).
However, after not having deliberately gone to the Parade for many a year, I might just go this year just to give a wave and a smile to Constance. I’m not sure if her journey started out with fully thought-out decisions, but I’m proud of where she’s seems to be ending up (that’s includes her prior support of the cross-dressing kid).
Ain’t wearin’ nobody’s prom dress though.
I’ll amen that! 
I’m afraid that some probably still are, out in the rural areas. But proms have been integrated here in the Jackson area as long as I’ve lived here (21 years).
You’re crushing everyone’s fun ! 
ETA: Do you ever go to the Mississippi picnic in NYC? My sister has lived in TriBeCa for, oh, about 30 years and she’s never been.
Okay. So, Shodan’s thing backfired, like I thought. It should be clear that his purpose was to see how biased the people in the thread were. Unfortunately, that’s not going to work because the argument is really about de facto vs. de juro rules. It seems to me that she was de juro prohibited, but not de facto.
The thing is, without codification, there’s nothing to prevent someone else from being discriminated against later. So it’s stupid to argue that one should not challenge a ban just because it is not enforced.
As for the current topics:
I have to admit that my pride in her depends on her intentions. I can’t be proud of someone doing the right thing if they do it for the wrong reasons. I’m not saying she did anything wrong, but pride takes a little more than that. At the very least, I would need selflessness.
Oh, and I wonder why my state capital was forced to integrate much longer ago.