georgia plans white only prom

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-05-03 11:19pm

Glocksman wrote:
Free speech does not exist in schools.
Not true.

SAN DIEGO--In accordance with a settlement agreement negotiated by the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego, a local high school principal has issued a formal written apology to a student he threatened to punish for distributing pamphlets which advised students of their right not to take a standardized test, the ACLU announced today.

"School administrators cannot ban the distribution of student material merely because they disagree with what those materials say," said Dale Manicom, a volunteer attorney with the local ACLU. "Students do not lose their constitutional rights just because they have crossed the threshold of a school building."
Schools can limit the right under certain circumstances, but disagreement with the message, no matter how offensive, isn't one of them.

How is strolling down a hallway, dropping your books and going "Aw fuck!" a reasonable circumstance for punishment? If a school can punish students for something as trivial as swearing, then the right to free speech is infringed at an incredibly basic level. So yes, a school can punish students if they don't like what was said.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-03 11:20pm

Darth Wong wrote:And is the organization of an event which is publicly advertised in association with the school's name one of them?

Simply for mentioning the school's name? No. And I can site the case of my college against the owners of a website about the school which included a rate the teacher feature. The school tried to have it closed, filed suit but it was tossed out.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-03 11:20pm

Stormbringer wrote:At the cost of millions of dollars from every thing else the school does simply to win?

You can make that argument when you have presented a shred of evidence for it.

Given that they said it's for interacial dating issues no doubt lawsuits and protests are certainly a big issue given some of the comments expressing disappointment. At least for this batch of administators.

How do you know they aren't simply issues of community attitude rather than lawsuits?

And of course there is also the fact that until last year both dances were segragated so maybe there were racists on both sides.

Then why is no one trying to organize a blacks-only dance? I don't understand why you're trying so hard to make excuses for these fuckers.

That assuming they are claiming official status. Which as far as I can tell they aren't.

Sure, it's a nice quiet little private get-together, which was so well publicized that it made national news.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-03 11:21pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:And is the organization of an event which is publicly advertised in association with the school's name one of them?
Simply for mentioning the school's name? No. And I can site the case of my college against the owners of a website about the school which included a rate the teacher feature. The school tried to have it closed, filed suit but it was tossed out.

Apples and oranges. That site was not made on behalf of the school.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-05-03 11:22pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:And is the organization of an event which is publicly advertised in association with the school's name one of them?
Simply for mentioning the school's name? No. And I can site the case of my college against the owners of a website about the school which included a rate the teacher feature. The school tried to have it closed, filed suit but it was tossed out.

That gets a little fuzzy. My university has a "Campus Catholic Center" or something like that, but I'm not sure if they're allowed to call it, for example, the "Illinois State University Catholic Center."

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-05-03 11:23pm

And is the organization of an event which is publicly advertised in association with the school's name one of them?

It would depend upon the wording.
'We students at X school have organized this dance' would probably be acceptable, as would 'Dance for students at X school'. Neither states that the school has endorsed the event.

Now if it said 'X School Dance', probably not, as that implies at least the endorsement of the school and most people reading that would think it was a school organized event.

Put it in a non racial context using names such as 'Harrison students against the war' or 'Students of Dexter School Opposed to Poverty'.

Mere use of the name isn't sufficient to ban.

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2003-05-03 11:26pm

Okay, answer me this.

If it were the black kids holding a black-only dance, would this have become a 7-page debate?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-03 11:26pm

You can make that argument when you have presented a shred of evidence for it.

.
Provide proof that the administrators are doing it because they're racists. Not just assumptions that they are, especially since some critisize the whites only prom.

How do you know they aren't simply issues of community attitude rather than lawsuits?

How do you know it's really closted acism?

Then why is no one trying to organize a blacks-only dance? I don't understand why you're trying so hard to make excuses for these fuckers.

Three years ago they did, the black dance was only integrated last year according to the article. It's problem for both sides.

Sure, it's a nice quiet little private get-together, which was so well publicized that it made national news.

Attention grabbing stories will do that. It doesn't prove that they claimed any sort of official status.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-03 11:27pm

Darth Wong wrote:Apples and oranges. That site was not made on behalf of the school.

And the dance is an equally private affair, Mike. It was organized by parents not school officials.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-03 11:29pm

Kelly Antilles wrote:Okay, answer me this.

If it were the black kids holding a black-only dance, would this have become a 7-page debate?

Who gives a shit? It would still be just as wrong. Besides, I don't see any black kids in this situation adamant on expressing their right to not have to deal with the presence of members of another race.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-03 11:36pm

Durran Korr wrote:Who gives a shit?

She's just pointing out the double standard inherent in race relations in America and this case in particular.

Durran Korr wrote:It would still be just as wrong. Besides, I don't see any black kids in this situation adamant on expressing their right to not have to deal with the presence of members of another race.

Given that both sides segregated I think that's something.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-03 11:39pm

She's just pointing out the double standard inherent in race relations in America and this case in particular.

There is no double standard, at least not here. No one has argued that it's OK for blacks to have segregated dances.

Given that both sides segregated I think that's something.

Uh, no. The blacks at this school clearly are not happy about this, and rightly so.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-03 11:49pm

There is no double standard, at least not here. No one has argued that it's OK for blacks to have segregated dances.

Didn't say anyone had. Just no one noted that there's a clear racial division practiced by parties on both sides, black and white.

Uh, no. The blacks at this school clearly are not happy about this, and rightly so.

The majority seem to be. Yet the dances three years ago were segregated on both sides.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-05-03 11:52pm

Sherman obviously wasn't thorough enough.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-03 11:52pm

The majority seem to be. Yet the dances three years ago were segregated on both sides.

Of course, because the whites WANTED it to be that way. The blacks had no choice; they could either have no dance, or they could have their own segregated dance.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-03 11:53pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Sherman obviously wasn't thorough enough.

Shut up.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-03 11:56pm

Sorry, that was abrupt. I just have troubling getting hyped up about a guy who destroyed our state, setting both whites and blacks back for years.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-04 12:09am

Durran Korr wrote:Of course, because the whites WANTED it to be that way. The blacks had no choice; they could either have no dance, or they could have their own segregated dance.

I got the impression that both dances were discriminatory from the article. Especially since it makes a point that the dance was open to all last year and the "black" dance is this year as well but not the white dance. Differing interpretations I suppose.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-05-04 12:12am

Sorry, that was abrupt. I just have troubling getting hyped up about a guy who destroyed our state, setting both whites and blacks back for years.

He destroyed the South's ability to fight, quickening the war's conclusion and saving many, many lives. He deserves thanks, not scorn.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-04 12:16am

HemlockGrey wrote:He destroyed the South's ability to fight, quickening the war's conclusion and saving many, many lives. He deserves thanks, not scorn.

He also burned, looted, and raped his way across the South. It did shorten the war but at best his March to the Sea a nasty necessity.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-04 12:18am

Stormbringer wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Of course, because the whites WANTED it to be that way. The blacks had no choice; they could either have no dance, or they could have their own segregated dance.
I got the impression that both dances were discriminatory from the article. Especially since it makes a point that the dance was open to all last year and the "black" dance is this year as well but not the white dance. Differing interpretations I suppose.

No, it's an incorrect interpretation. There is an integrated dance open to all, and a whites-only dance. I love the way people work their asses off to make excuses for these fuckers.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-04 12:19am

Kelly Antilles wrote:Okay, answer me this.

If it were the black kids holding a black-only dance, would this have become a 7-page debate?

No, because we would have said "that's fucking stupid and racist" and no one would have LEAPT UP TO DEFEND THEM.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-04 12:25am

HemlockGrey wrote:
Sorry, that was abrupt. I just have troubling getting hyped up about a guy who destroyed our state, setting both whites and blacks back for years.
He destroyed the South's ability to fight, quickening the war's conclusion and saving many, many lives. He deserves thanks, not scorn.

Easy to say for a state who wasn't set back years on account of it. He certainly could have been a little elss brutal.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-04 12:27am

Darth Wong wrote:No, it's an incorrect interpretation. There is an integrated dance open to all, and a whites-only dance. I love the way people work their asses off to make excuses for these fuckers.

Then why is it such a big deal made about the dance being open to all last year if it was white and open-to-everyone dances?

I'm not making excuses for the racists. I just think you're unfairly nailing everyone because of your own biased out look.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-04 12:28am

Darth Wong wrote:No, because we would have said "that's fucking stupid and racist" and no one would have LEAPT UP TO DEFEND THEM.

No one is defending the racist. Some of us don't agree that everyone in that district is racist because of a private dance they can't do much about.