Rule Breaking Or Homophobia?

[John Doe]

Social pressure doesn't have the best interests of the individual in mind. It has the "most easily recognizable patterns of a group" in mind, to make it easier to interact when you want to signal social intent. She is clearly signaling her own social intent. Using those symbols to suit her purpose is a choice. She's telegraphing to other people socially and sexually that she is this person. Putting her in a dress might result in straight men hitting on her, or worse, not attracting the people she wants to attract. She probably would not welcome that and dresses this way to avoid it.

It's an entirely valid concept. I'm really missing why this is not being grasped. She is not a straight girl. She does not wish to look like one. Looking like one is not suiting her purpose or her needs.

I'm missing who hasn't grasped it.

I'm not questioning the validity of the concept. I'm asking why it is (or should be) a constitutional issue.

If an individual in society has not realized that there are more than two valid genders or ways to present oneself, I have no sympathy with their being confused at this point in history.

I'd like to see more guys in dresses, too.

Political correctness is not addressed by the Constitution. Abuse of power is.

 

[Recidiva]

I'm missing who hasn't grasped it.

I'm not questioning the validity of the concept. I'm asking why it is (or should be) a constitutional issue.

Political correctness is not addressed by the Constitution. Abuse of power is.

I think this principal (or whoever, dean, principal, prom, yearbook, take your pick) hasn't grasped it and shouldn't be in charge of kids.

The only law about clothing is that bits be covered. A tux is not indecent.

I'm not sure about any precedent that equates freedom of speech with freedom of fashion. But it has a correlation to censorship.

I likely wouldn't go the constitutional route, I'd go the "indecency" route and as a lawyer probably say something like "So this girl needs to dress in a way that makes her principal think she's hot?" I think he's being indecent, see. And entirely clueless about teenagers and their social structure.

Anyway, I'm less clear on the constitutional thing, but I do think there's legal precedent in the examples I cited regarding fashion being used to control people's behavior. Make a salad out of all of the issues and I think you got a case.

 

[John Doe]

I think this principal (or whoever, dean, principal, prom, yearbook, take your pick) hasn't grasped it and shouldn't be in charge of kids.

The only law about clothing is that bits be covered. A tux is not indecent.

I'm not sure about any precedent that equates freedom of speech with freedom of fashion. But it has a correlation to censorship.

I likely wouldn't go the constitutional route, I'd go the "indecency" route and as a lawyer probably say something like "So this girl needs to dress in a way that makes her principal think she's hot?" I think he's being indecent, see. And entirely clueless about teenagers and their social structure.

Anyway, I'm less clear on the constitutional thing, but I do think there's legal precedent in the examples I cited regarding fashion being used to control people's behavior. Make a salad out of all of the issues and I think you got a case.

I think freedom of expression has been argued in similar cases.

I agree with the indecency argument, but it's the ACLU so they have to make it constitutional.

 

[Etoile]

What about it?

I have no idea. You said they didn't argue the Constitutional rights point, and I saw some amendment-y stuff, so I thought you had missed it. I dunno!

 

[sugaredwalls]

I think freedom of expression has been argued in similar cases.

I agree with the indecency argument, but it's the ACLU so they have to make it constitutional.

Not really, ACLU is for when your rights as an American are violated. It may not fall exactly under a specific constitutional amendment all the time.

The right for a girl to wear a tux in a yearbook photo has been fought and won in other states, which is why the ACLU knows they can win. It's a no brainer but the fact is the school should of never prevented Ceara Sturgis from wearing one in her photo in the first place.

Indecency will not be the argument they use, that's a whole other ball of wax. They will most likely simply state Sturgis has a right to choose whatever she wants to wear from the given choices for yearbook photos. She's not asking to break the rules, she's just wants to have the right to choose a tux instead of the drape.

 

[Etoile]

Can I just say - for the record - that the drape is really silly and NOBODY should have to wear it? Where did that thing originate anyway? How does it stay on the girl's front? What do you do with your shirt, is there a changing room? Like I said, I got my pictures done elsewhere, never had to wear the drape. I think it's a silly invention.

 

[sugaredwalls]

That and the dumb feather boa, they had that choice as well in my day. I went to an all girls school though, so I don't know if every school had the boa thingy.

 

[Etoile]

Came across this. Interesting.

We also found a 2008 Wesson yearbook. Inside are pictures from what Ceara refers to as the 2008 backwards beauty and beau pageant. It was held just last year.

"It's when the girls dress like guys and the guys dress like girls" said Ceara.

And now Ceara wants to know ... If a backwards pageant can be held at the school and a picture of the event placed in last year's yearbook, then why can't her picture in a tuxedo be in this year's book.

 

[Etoile]

Huh, somebody commenting on an LJ post about this said "for our HS graduation ceremony, it was required that girls wear dresses or skirts and if we wore pants, we wouldn't be allowed to participate."

I never heard of such a thing. I was the only girl - the ONLY one - who wore pants to my graduation ceremony. White gowns = white pants and low white heels. Nobody gave a rat's ass.

 

[Recidiva]

Huh, somebody commenting on an LJ post about this said "for our HS graduation ceremony, it was required that girls wear dresses or skirts and if we wore pants, we wouldn't be allowed to participate."

I never heard of such a thing. I was the only girl - the ONLY one - who wore pants to my graduation ceremony. White gowns = white pants and low white heels. Nobody gave a rat's ass.

We all had those ugly ass nylon robes. Bleah.

 

[Etoile]

We did too - practically see-through which was why we had to wear white under it! The boys' robes were green and they could wear whatever they wanted. Don't worry, nobody cried discrimination.

I was pretty cute in my outfit actually. I was one of the performers, and we took off our robes for that...I have a picture somewhere but can't seem to find it online.

 

[John Doe]

Not really, ACLU is for when your rights as an American are violated. It may not fall exactly under a specific constitutional amendment all the time.

The right for a girl to wear a tux in a yearbook photo has been fought and won in other states, which is why the ACLU knows they can win. It's a no brainer but the fact is the school should of never prevented Ceara Sturgis from wearing one in her photo in the first place.

Indecency will not be the argument they use, that's a whole other ball of wax. They will most likely simply state Sturgis has a right to choose whatever she wants to wear from the given choices for yearbook photos. She's not asking to break the rules, she's just wants to have the right to choose a tux instead of the drape.

American civil liberties by definition are in the Constitution. It is the supreme law of the United States.

 

[John Doe]

We all had those ugly ass nylon robes. Bleah.

We did too - practically see-through which was why we had to wear white under it! The boys' robes were green and they could wear whatever they wanted. Don't worry, nobody cried discrimination.

I was pretty cute in my outfit actually. I was one of the performers, and we took off our robes for that...I have a picture somewhere but can't seem to find it online.

Are you talking about robes like the ones worn for college graduation?

 

[Etoile]

Are you talking about robes like the ones worn for college graduation?

Nope, high school - the cheesy ones. I've only been to one college graduation, but the robes for it looked much nicer.

 

[Recidiva]

Are you talking about robes like the ones worn for college graduation?

Yes. *spit*

We got revenge though. Each one of us held a marble in our hands and handed it to the person handing out the diplomas. The staging area was a mess by the end of procession. Marbles everywhere. Sure, 10 or 20 marbles can go in pockets, but 300+ marbles?

 

[John Doe]

Nope, high school - the cheesy ones. I've only been to one college graduation, but the robes for it looked much nicer.

I like the college ones. Everyone should have to wear those.

Yes. *spit*

We got revenge though. Each one of us held a marble in our hands and handed it to the person handing out the diplomas. The staging area was a mess by the end of procession. Marbles everywhere. Sure, 10 or 20 marbles can go in pockets, but 300+ marbles?

That was stupid.

 

[sugaredwalls]

American civil liberties by definition are in the Constitution. It is the supreme law of the United States.

Lol, you would make a poor and ill informed constitutional lawyer. The ACLU defends lots of different cases that don't always fall directly under specific amendments. Sometimes the cases are unprecedented, especially at public schools. The right for Jehovah's Witness students to not salute the flag comes to mind as one of those unprecedented cases. Early ACLU cases mostly involved unions and labor disputes and later would be controversial because of their position on separation of church and state in the public school. Technically, separation of church and state is not part of the constitution but the ACLU fought many cases that were not freedom of religion but freedom to not have it forced upon a person in a public place, such as a Christmas tree or the Ten Commandments displayed.

Never define constitutional law as one specific thing, it's something that's always going to be evolving and changing.

 

[John Doe]

Lol, you would make a poor and ill informed constitutional lawyer.

Why?

The ACLU defends lots of different cases that don't always fall directly under specific amendments. Sometimes the cases are unprecedented, especially at public schools. The right for Jehovah's Witness students to not salute the flag comes to mind as one of those unprecedented cases. Early ACLU cases mostly involved unions and labor disputes and later would be controversial because of their position on separation of church and state in the public school. Technically, separation of church and state is not part of the constitution but the ACLU fought many cases that were not freedom of religion but freedom to not have it forced upon a person in a public place, such as a Christmas tree or the Ten Commandments displayed.

I'm aware of all this. I don't understand what your objection to my post is.

Never define constitutional law as one specific thing, it's something that's always going to be evolving and changing.

I didn't. I described the Constitution. Indeed, it is itself a living document. The Bill of Rights come to mind.

You're jumping to conclusions.

 

[John Doe]

I have no idea. You said they didn't argue the Constitutional rights point, and I saw some amendment-y stuff, so I thought you had missed it. I dunno!

I said they hadn't made a case yet. They've made valid informal arguments on constitutional grounds, but the matter hasn't been considered by a court yet.

 

[ketalia]

deleted because someone else quoted the same article as I did about segregation...

 

[HarlotMinx]

I'm going to take a whack at this even though I'm not anything close to a lawyer.

In the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case involving....

Petitioners, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. They sought nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation that the respondents had promulgated banning the wearing of armbands. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court.

The court held that
1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive, and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506.

2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507.

3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514.

So the constitution DOES in fact protect her according to supreme court interpretation however I guess the argument is whether or not the principal's decision was made to avoid substantial interference with school discipline.

 

[Wolfman1982]

I still say it's sexism and not homophobia.

it is still wrong, it is this or that.

 

[John Doe]

it is still wrong, it is this or that.

I don't think anyone is disputing that.