(Close Window)
Topic: No Prom...
Message: Posted by: Christopher Lyle (May 11, 2011 10:57AM)
What do you think?

http://shelton.patch.com/articles/shs-senior-banned-from-prom-it-just-seems-a-little-extreme?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk3%7C62184

My thoughts are that the young man needs to be reprimanded but this seems extreme to me.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 11, 2011 11:19AM)
Granted. Furthermore, not a single person in the comments section supports the principal.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 11, 2011 11:24AM)
Two things come to mind.

1. Blanket policies tend to have unwelcome consequences.

2. Remember the asymmetry between what the boy can say to the press and what the school can legally disclose. There may be more going on than we can know.

John
Message: Posted by: Michael Baker (May 11, 2011 11:40AM)
The kid is a senior. Can't wait to see his next sign after graduation. :)
Message: Posted by: abc (May 12, 2011 10:16AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-11 12:24, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Two things come to mind.

1. Blanket policies tend to have unwelcome consequences.

2. Remember the asymmetry between what the boy can say to the press and what the school can legally disclose. There may be more going on than we can know.

John
[/quote]
I agree but don't you think that, even worst case, they should allow the kid to go regardless. The bad publicity for the school is already enough.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 12, 2011 01:53PM)
If the information in the link is all correct, I think he should be permitted to go. If, however, there is more to the story (e.g. he had a concealed weapon at the time) then I have no opinion to offer.

John
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 12, 2011 02:26PM)
The school principle is obviously a racist!
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (May 12, 2011 06:26PM)
Some people REALLY shouldn't be educators. If you want to abuse your power, go join the police force.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (May 12, 2011 10:30PM)
The school evidently has a policy regarding this, at least being on school property after hours, which is trespassing. Playing the "IF" game, what if the kid got seriously hurt on the school property, as litigious, as people can be in these times, it is easy to understand why the school has the policy.

The other side of this is people have gotten lazy. It takes too much time to actually do their jobs, part of which would be taking things like this on a case by case basis, examining all the facts and coming to a just decision. Hanging cut letters on the building is a far cry from spray painting the message on a brick wall.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 12, 2011 10:45PM)
It's interesting that the principal's strict application of an existing policy has been (at least by implication) characterized as "an abuse of power," "lazy," or "leading to unwelcome consequences." The reason things like this happen is that the OPPOSITE framework - using discretion on a case-by-case basis - leads to more lawsuits and liability through an inconsistent (and therefore potentially discriminatory, arbitrary, and/or capricious). "That's the rule, people are aware of the rule, and that's how we enforce it every time" may lead to some seemingly perverse consequences, but it's more easily enforceable in today's CYA society. And to the extent that that society is problematic, the coverers didn't start covering until they were forced to.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 12, 2011 11:41PM)
A picture of the posted invitation on the school should be in the yearbook and right under it should be the picture of the couple at the prom with the caption saying something like, "who can forget this"?

Of course he can be disciplined but not punished to this extent. The only reason I could see this sort of punishemnt is if it was a prank to embarass the girl or he has had an on going discipline problem. Neither of which seems to be the case.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (May 13, 2011 01:08AM)
Well, to be fair, as someone mentioned before, we really don't know everything that happened. There are always three sides to every story, side a, side b and side c (what really happened). As you said, the punishment may actually fit the offense. Then again, it may be excessive.

I use the term lazy, because when zero tolerance or blanket policies are used, it becomes easy to just dole out the punishment without actually having to spend the time gathering the evidence, examining it an make a rational decision.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 13, 2011 09:21AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-13 02:08, Dreadnought wrote:
Well, to be fair, as someone mentioned before, we really don't know everything that happened. There are always three sides to every story, side a, side b and side c (what really happened). As you said, the punishment may actually fit the offense. Then again, it may be excessive.

I use the term lazy, because when zero tolerance or blanket policies are used, it becomes easy to just dole out the punishment without actually having to spend the time gathering the evidence, examining it an make a rational decision.
[/quote]

It's not done because it's lazy; it's done because it reduces exposure to liability.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (May 13, 2011 10:29AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-13 10:21, LobowolfXXX wrote:


It's not done because it's lazy; it's done because it reduces exposure to liability.
[/quote]

That might be but there could be a little extra effort. There is always a risk of a suit. It's the nature of the beast. But fair is fair. Following this line of logic then the police shouldn't arrest anyone or use force or a doctor or hospital shouldn't treat anyone because there maybe a law suit that follows.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 13, 2011 12:07PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-13 11:29, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-13 10:21, LobowolfXXX wrote:


It's not done because it's lazy; it's done because it reduces exposure to liability.
[/quote]

That might be but there could be a little extra effort. There is always a risk of a suit. It's the nature of the beast. But fair is fair. Following this line of logic then the police shouldn't arrest anyone or use force or a doctor or hospital shouldn't treat anyone because there maybe a law suit that follows.
[/quote]

"Extra effort" means not following the letter of the rule consistently. You can put a positive spin on it and call it "fair," or "good judgment," or whatever the opposite of lazy is, but in court, the terms are "arbitrary," "capricious," and possibly "discriminatory." The best defense is "We have a black-letter rule that all students know about, and we enforce it consistently."
Message: Posted by: irossall (May 13, 2011 12:46PM)
If the crime took place before 1:00 am would he be going to the Prom? Time seems to be an important factor here.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 13, 2011 02:36PM)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/malori-wampler-colts-cheerleader-sues_n_860776.html

"The filing claims the team discriminated against Wampler, who is Indonesian, because of her race."

"[Her attorney] said a white cheerleader who was on the squad last season posed in a provocative photo while she was on the team. She said the white cheerleader wasn't disciplined."

Was she fired because she was Indonesian? Maybe...I guess they didn't notice she was Indonesian when the hired her, possibly?!

Or did someone who didn't want to be "lazy" exercise his judgment and determine that in the case of the other cheerleader, it wasn't so bad, and it would be "fair" not to enforce the policy to its fullest extent?
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (May 13, 2011 02:50PM)
Could be. How am I am I supposed to know. I wasn't involved or privy to any information concerning this.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (May 13, 2011 02:54PM)
It's also nice to know that as a detective, I was ' "arbitrary," "capricious," and possibly "discriminatory." ' I could have saved so much time if I hadn't insisted on gathering and examining evidence.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 13, 2011 03:20PM)
"Contingent solely upon one's discretion."

Arbitrary isn't inherently negative; it just gives rise to the argument that such discretion was used improperly.

Unless I badly misread your comments on Arizona's immigration law, this is exactly your concern with it. The law says on its face that it can't be enforced illegally (including through the use of improper blanket racial profiling), yet you suspect that the exercise of the judgment of the officers entrusted with enforcing it will lead to such an abuse of discretion. They'd probably think that was "nice to know," too.

Of course, as police officers have to make life and death snap judgments about public safety issues, we (rightly) defer more to their exercise of discretion than other people's. Colts' management won't be able to say, "I thought someone might be killed, and I only had a split-second to decide whether to fire her or not."

AFAIK, none of us was involved or privy to any inside information about the prom, either. We just know what we read. What I read, without looking for it, in this morning's AOL news highlights, was a story illustrating EXACTLY what I said about the prom story - when discretion is exercised in such a way that a rule is strictly enforced against some, but not others, there is a greater risk of legal liability.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (May 13, 2011 04:40PM)
My problem with the Arizona law and some of the others like it is that it is designed to target Latinos and Latinas. The way it is written is that it can be used to enforce immigration on anyone who is here illegally. Yet, judging from the rethoric coming from both sides it was plain that it was drawn up specifically targeting the Hispanic population. However, the biggest problem was that it violates the dignity of the human being which transcends beyond the secular world view. Correct the violations against human dignity and there is no problem.

The problem with the school's case is that things are rarily just black and white. There are shades of gray. In my original post I brought out both sides of the argument and even stated the school taking the action it did to protect itself from possible litigation. The example I supplied was the child getting hurt on school property, after hours, at night, doint something he had no business doing. I just said that the problem with laws and rules like this is that it allows for laziness on the part of those investigating the matter, because they don't have to look at all the gray stuff.

As a police officer, while serving as a patrol shift supervisor, I once instructed a young officer working a traffic accident with serious injuries. At fault was pretty cut and dry. The person didn't yield at a stop sign. However the witness statements said the other vehicle was moving at an extremely high rate of speed. In absence of skid data, the speed was determined from the last known point the speeding vehicle was observed vs. the distance to the point of impact.

I instructed the young officer to determine the vehicle's speed. He protested. It was cut and dry. Why spend the time to figure out the speed. I simply told him:
1. Because I, as the supervisor, said so.
2. But more importantly because it may have been a contributing factor to the accident. Which should this go to civil court it may be a critical piece of evidence.
3. Because it is your job. Don't get lazy and take he easy way out and simply issue a ticket to a woman near death and on her way to the emergency room.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 13, 2011 04:56PM)
It does allow for laziness, and it leads to results that almost everyone would disagree with (like this one); I'm just saying it's probably not [i]caused by[/i] laziness, at least not in the main. It's caused by the fact that if you let this guy slide because it seems fair, and you enforce the rule strictly against the next guy, because in the next guy's case it's not so benign (but maybe it's close), then the next guy sues you, because the selective enforcement has given rise to a plausible inference that you're discriminating against the second guy for whatever reason. The school knows that this guy isn't a problem; but they also know that they may have to justify in court the position that they're not singling out the next guy.

Take the case of the cheerleader. We don't know what the pictures of the white cheerleader were like, but let's say they were relatively tame. Maybe it seemed perfectly fair and reasonable when they didn't fire her; it might have arguably fallen under the same team rule, but an extremely mild case. So they thought it seemed fair to let her keep her job. Fast-forward to the new case, where the new cheerleader is in Playboy, and the discretion of the team now is that Playboy is over the line, so they fire her. But now their fair and reasonable action with respect to the first cheerleader is being used as evidence against them in a federal lawsuit.
Message: Posted by: Big Jeff (May 13, 2011 07:04PM)
I use the term lazy, because when zero tolerance or blanket policies are used, it becomes easy to just dole out the punishment without actually having to spend the time gathering the evidence, examining it an make a rational decision.
[/quote]

You mean like the TSA searching little old ladies and 7 month old babies because they might highjack a plane?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 13, 2011 07:09PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-13 20:04, Big Jeff wrote:
You mean like the TSA searching little old ladies and 7 month old babies because they might highjack a plane?
[/quote]

That one's a little different...that's the PC Gone Wild.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (May 13, 2011 10:40PM)
Let me reiterate. I support the school and kudos to them for taking the action. I just have a problem with policies like this, because people get lost in the shuffle, people operate with blinders on and things become to easy. Each case should be judged on its own merits.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 13, 2011 11:45PM)
So what is the big deal about a prom?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 14, 2011 12:45PM)
Breaking news...looks like he's going to the prom! School backed down.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 14, 2011 05:55PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-14 00:45, tommy wrote:
So what is the big deal about a prom?
[/quote]

Only tommy could ask this question.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 14, 2011 10:44PM)
I didn't go to mine. I figured the only person I wanted to ask already had a date, turned out she didn't go either.
I tried to make up for it by marrying her.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 14, 2011 11:53PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-14 18:55, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-14 00:45, tommy wrote:
So what is the big deal about a prom?
[/quote]

Only tommy could ask this question.
[/quote]

I think it's a much bigger deal in the U.S. that it is in other countries.

John
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 15, 2011 10:58PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-15 00:53, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-14 18:55, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-14 00:45, tommy wrote:
So what is the big deal about a prom?
[/quote]

Only tommy could ask this question.
[/quote]

I think it's a much bigger deal in the U.S. that it is in other countries.

John
[/quote]


Well this is The United States and to be honest I do not think other countries have "proms" as I think prom is probably a "word" limited to the U.S. Remember we said "prom" which is a distinct word. Not saying some other country's equivliant of a "prom" but a "prom" here in the U.S.

Here in the U.S. whether it be junior or senior, to most High School kids it very important in their high school life. Maybe when looking back after becoming adult and seeing it for what it is they may see it differently.


By the way I think I saw somewhere where he is able to go now.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 15, 2011 11:08PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-15 23:58, acesover wrote:

Well this is The United States and to be honest I do not think other countries have "proms" as I think prom is probably a "word" limited to the U.S. Remember we said "prom" which is a distinct word. Not saying some other country's equivliant of a "prom" but a "prom" here in the U.S.
[/quote]
I don't know what you mean about "prom" being a distinct word. Prom is simply a popular abbreviation used for promenade. Many (most?) countries do have them. They are enormously popular in some countries but, as most of us have a somewhat limited knowledge of what is popular in other cultures, we may not be aware of it. Some examples are given here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prom
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 15, 2011 11:10PM)
Yeah, I was suggesting to Tommy that the Prom is a bigger deal for the guy in the story than most of us non-Americans could appreciate. We don't use the word here, but High School Graduation (is it the same thing) is a big event--bigger than it deserves, IMO. Oh yeah, my daughter's is in a couple of weeks...

John
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 16, 2011 12:29AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-16 00:10, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

We don't use the word here, but High School Graduation (is it the same thing) is a big event--bigger than it deserves, IMO.
[/quote]
Really? In my experience, the word "prom" is widely used in Canada ... at least in Ontario, where I grew up, it was. Though I think "formal" might have been even more popular.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 16, 2011 01:37AM)
For many in the United States, the Senior Prom is almost a rite of passage. Try telling a 17 year old girl that it's not important!

Bob
(two daughters)
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (May 16, 2011 03:05AM)
In Germany there is nothing like a prom. It's more like a couple of weeks of celebration, normally with multiple parties and a class trip. I think they do have a big party of some kind, but it's just part of an extended celebration.

I went to a private Christian school in Hawaii. Dancing was a sin, so of course we had no prom. But on the night of our graduation, we all got leid, multiple times. I still remember the smell quite vividly. Plumeria, mostly.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (May 16, 2011 03:06AM)
Oh, and regarding the topic, I agree with John, as usual.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 16, 2011 08:19AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-16 01:29, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-16 00:10, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

We don't use the word here, but High School Graduation (is it the same thing) is a big event--bigger than it deserves, IMO.
[/quote]
Really? In my experience, the word "prom" is widely used in Canada ... at least in Ontario, where I grew up, it was. Though I think "formal" might have been even more popular.
[/quote]

I've heard Ontarians use it. But in Alberta, it is simply "grad".

John
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 16, 2011 10:21AM)
Apparently, the principal has backed down due to "international interest."

http://shelton.patch.com/articles/lesson-for-high-schoolers-in-prom-ban-reversal
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 16, 2011 11:58AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-14 13:45, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Breaking news...looks like he's going to the prom! School backed down.
[/quote]
Yes. The school decided no longer to be lazy, and will now examine situations like this on a case-by-case basis. :)

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/In-reversal-Conn-school-says-teen-can-go-to-prom-1379675.php

"Under school rules, because Tate was suspended after April 1, he couldn't go to the prom with date Sonali Rodrigues. But on Saturday, headmaster Beth Smith announced a policy change. Now, the school decides prom attendance for suspended students on a "case-by-case" basis. In Tate's case, he can go."
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (May 16, 2011 12:11PM)
But what about the sodomy charge?

(Or am I confusing threads again?)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 16, 2011 12:13PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-16 12:58, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-14 13:45, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Breaking news...looks like he's going to the prom! School backed down.
[/quote]
Yes. The school decided no longer to be lazy, and will now examine situations like this on a case-by-case basis. :)

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/In-reversal-Conn-school-says-teen-can-go-to-prom-1379675.php

"Under school rules, because Tate was suspended after April 1, he couldn't go to the prom with date Sonali Rodrigues. But on Saturday, headmaster Beth Smith announced a policy change. Now, the school decides prom attendance for suspended students on a "case-by-case" basis. In Tate's case, he can go."
[/quote]

Seems more fitting in the case of Tate & Rodriguez, but it may turn out to be an expensive decision in the long run. But maybe increased legal fees and settlements are just the price you pay to increase your chance of doing the right thing.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 16, 2011 12:13PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-16 13:11, stoneunhinged wrote:
But what about the sodomy charge?

(Or am I confusing threads again?)
[/quote]

What happens at prom stays at prom.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 17, 2011 08:14AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-16 13:13, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-16 13:11, stoneunhinged wrote:
But what about the sodomy charge?

(Or am I confusing threads again?)
[/quote]

What happens at prom stays at prom.
[/quote

Referring to the last post. GREAT POST :rotf: