news
Many school districts have given up sponsorship of proms because of liability concerns. Instead, the students’ parents have stepped in to organize and help fund the event.
“There is an advantage to school districts not hosting a prom, and the advantage is avoiding all of the liability issues,” Baldwyn Superintendent Harvey Brooks said. “Sooner or later, you will have issues involving alcohol.”
At IAHS, the school-sponsored prom set for April 2 was canceled after senior Constance McMillen challenged the district’s ban on same-sex dates. McMillen’s case, which includes a lawsuit on her behalf seeking to overturn the ban, has generated international headlines.
In a statement announcing its decision not to host a prom, the Itawamba County Board of Education said it hoped “that private citizens will organize an event for juniors and seniors.” A group of parents at the school met Thursday night to discuss plans to do just that.
In other districts, parents have been organizing prom for years. They sell tickets, select venues and serve as chaperones.
Monroe County Superintendent Scott Cantrell said that when he attended the Hatley High School prom as a student in 1987, it wasn’t organized by the school.
In the Tupelo Public School District, the Parent-Teacher Organization has sponsored the prom.
“It allows the school to focus on academics as opposed to social aspects,” Superintendent Randy Shaver said. “I think the prom is important and homecoming is important, but those are things that are best handled by parents. It allows us to focus on teaching and learning. That has nothing to do with what is going on in Itawamba County. It has been like this for a long time.”
Itawamba Agricultural High School was actually the only high school in its district that had plans to have a prom that was an official school function. Both Tremont and Mantachie high schools have proms that are sponsored by parents.
A message left with school board attorney Michele Floyd asking whether the district previously had any plans to let parents sponsor the IAHS prom was not returned.
Chandra Randolph, administrative assistant to the superintendent for Lee County Schools, said that district doesn’t sponsor proms for any of its schools because of liability.
“We would have to get the building and hire the security,” Randolph said. “We just don’t do school-sponsored proms.”
Nettleton, Amory, Corinth and Houston are also among the districts that don’t manage their own proms.
“I think the biggest advantage is that parents are not as tied down by budgets, and they can get more community resources and make it bigger and better than we can,” Amory Superintendent Gearl Loden said. “It is nice being in a community where you have a high level of involvement.”
The Booneville School District sponsors a banquet with a short program for the juniors and seniors but not for dates. After that, the students attend an off-campus prom that is sponsored by parents and is not under the jurisdiction of the school district, Superintendent Ricky Neaves said.
Some districts do still host proms as official school events. Among them are Oxford, Lafayette, New Albany, Union County, Prentiss County, North Tippah, Alcorn County and Tishomingo County. Those districts also vary on the policies they set for who is allowed to attend prom.
For instance, Prentiss County has a simple solution for eliminating controversy about dates at the dance.
According to the district’s handbook, no students are allowed to bring dates to the prom, with one exception. Married students can attend with their spouse.
Other districts are split. In South Tippah County, Ripley High School has a parent-sponsored prom, while Pine Grove and Blue Mountain have proms that are organized at the schools with school staff sponsors, Superintendent Frank Campbell said.
Lena Mitchell, Errol Castens and Alisha Wilson contributed to this report. Contact Chris Kieffer at (662) 678-1590 or chris.kieffer@djournal.com.
you've been a TON of amusement for me. Thanks for that!!!
we'll just wait and see what happens on this I guess but I really think you are going to be disappointed in the end.
and so ends my posts, live long and prosper VU
Instead, you showed from the first moment that you were incapable of civil discourse. As such, I will continue to treat you with contempt and in a condescending manner.
But you go on living in your little paranoid fantasyland of "if we let gays do it, then we have to let pedophiles do it, too". You'll have a mental breakdown before you're old enough to qualify for Medicare.
ok, let's use your logic, in order to NOT discriminate (which is EXACTLY what you want) against ANYONE, the school cancelled the prom. Why do you still have an argument?
I guess they could have also said, ok NO DATES period, like ALOT of prom rules state, but then you discriminate against all couples; gay, straight, interracial, etc. don't you? but then again, we should just let EVERYONE do WHATEVER THEY want WHEN THEY want to.
let more name calling follow please. it's amazing how you can JUDGE me based on ONE opinion on ONE topic and you have never met me
but we can fix that......think I've asked a couple of times...coffee? unless you'd want to meet for coffee, I don't see any point in continuing the debate. neither one of us are going to budge.
And you're wrong about attending prom being a privilege. Show me any other legal reasoning other than your opposition to homosexuality that justifies denying this student from attending her prom with the date of her choice.
As long as you continue to make irrational and uncivil claims, I will treat you in an irrational an uncivil manner. It's not very nice, huh? Well, maybe you'll learn to THINK before you speak and spout.
P.S. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" appear nowhere in the Constitution of the United States. This, however, does: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. I don't care if you hold a different set of values, but when those values a contrary to the basic premise of American freedom, I will counter you at every opportunity.
According to your logic, IAHS would have the authority to ban interracial couples or even Roman Catholics and Jews from attending the prom. After all, according to your logic, ANY rule they set (whether legal or unconstitutional) must and should be enforced. I know southerners like you hate to be told that the laws of this nation outweigh your prejudices and paranoias, but it is a fact. The school district is about to find that out, and so are you.
There you go again with the "hate" word. PLEASE, stop putting words in my mouth, telling me I hate someone. NOT ONCE did I say I hated anyone.
Attending prom (or even *having* a prom) is NOT a right or freedom - it's a privilege. Too often people get those confused. That's one of the many problems in this country - people think they have the "right" to do anything. Life, liberty (freedom of choice), and the PURSUIT of happiness (not to be confused with the *guarantee* of happiness) are true rights. This girl made a choice and so did the school; both exercising their liberty.
Vic, it's abundantly clear that no matter what is said or who holds what belief or opinion you CANNOT and WILL NOT rationally and civilly discuss anything unless you agree with the commentary. Very sad.
This whole time I haven't been trying to change your mind on ANYTHING. That has not been my goal at all. I'm just trying to get you to understand that I hold a different set of beliefs, values, and ideals than you. And you may understand that, but you sure don't like it. I'm done with this discussion until you can change your attitude. That said, there may not be another chance to continue this discussion later...oh well.
In fact though, this argument isn't really even about these tow girls being lesbians. She could have said that she wanted to come dressed in a jogging suit and we'd still have the same argument. This poor girl was told that if you can't play by the rules, you can't play. No discrimination was involved. She was given the chance to follow the rules, but she chose to pursue her personal agenda at whatever cost. So here we are, you wanting the ACLU to bankrupt and shut this school down because a prom was cancelled and it offends YOU.
COMMON: sure, you can join...I'll buy!!
So VU what do you say? coffee sometime? no cameras, no computers, no note taking, just couple of people sitting down enjoying a cup of coffee and discussing beliefs and ideals.
any more posts you have, i beg for you to stay on topic as well. I believe I've given answers to ALL of your questions, but you have yet to answer a SINGLE one of mine. instead you call me some name or bash me in some way.
I call you those things because you seek to deny U.S. citizens even BASIC freedoms simply out of hatred.
And, common, rules are rules. Which means when the federal courts decide the school board acted in a punitive, retaliatory, and discriminatory way, people like you can keep your children home instead of sending them to prom. Why should prom be canceled for everyone just because you hate gay people?
Interracial marriage? How about prohibiting a U.S. citizen from marrying a non-citizen?
"But, of course, like a typical fundie pharisee, you assume I know "nothing" about Christ. On the contrary, I know His Gospel. I believe in His Gospel, and I believe that Christianity is found in the Gospel --- not in Leviticus."
Knowing/believing the Gospel and FOLLOWING the Gospel aren't the same. And Leviticus is part of the Gospel, by the way.
"Making sure you are perceived as the most vile, most hateful, and most hypocritical form of Christianity is my goal, and it seems that in many ways, I have succeeded."
Vile, hateful, and hypocritical...you call me these things solely because I don't share your same "anything goes" mentality. Doesn't that, in turn, put you in the same boat as YOU SAY I'm in?
Hoot: I'd love for Vic, you, and I to talk over coffee (forgive me for inviting myself). I think you and I could talk without hatred, name calling, and pointing blame; and in the end we may simply agree to disagree. Vic, however, I'm not so sure. I have a feeling it would be futile. But I'd be willing to give it a try.
In an attempt to get back on subject (i.e. this prom ordeal, in case we have forgotten), I say this:
At the end of the day, the fact remains that the rules are the rules. If one doesn't like the rules, go somewhere else.
and now I'm small minded.
really...coffee...no response?
So, as long as you contend that if same-sex couples are permitted to attend prom, sheepshaggers have to be allowed as well, you will only make yourself look like the desperate fool you are.
The real issue here is GENDER. Unfortunately, your little mind is too obsessed with bestiality to grasp it.
You're logic means Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. I simply offered two more arguments for discrimination and both arguments in your opinion were wrong because there were RULES to prohibit BOTH activities.
I have not fantasized about sex with animals. i do not take part in that lifestyle nor do I agree with it, but under your stature of discrimination, we have to accept and allow those people who do all the same privileges that you are wanting for Ms. McMillen...rules or no rules. if not, tell me why that is not the case and they are different arguments.
so in turn are you not accepting the same rhetoric and form as I when you take "pieces" of what I say and turn them into what YOU want them to say? Take the post as a WHOLE, just as you do the GOSPEL.
so I've answered your call-out.....what about coffee sometime?
but again we are still off topic.....please tell me EXACTLY why you believe this is a case of discrimination and the school should be forced to host the prom and sponsor it.
While you may have not been "Bible thumping", you've adopted their rhetoric and form. So, I will treat you in the same manner you treat others. You still haven't answered as to why you were fantasizing about sex with animals.
But, of course, like a typical fundie pharisee, you assume I know "nothing" about Christ. On the contrary, I know His Gospel. I believe in His Gospel, and I believe that Christianity is found in the Gospel --- not in Leviticus.
Unlike you, I reject anyone who declares a doctrine of exclusion, for such a doctrine is a complete contradiction of the Gospel. I use tough rhetoric in an effort to make you Fundies see exactly what it's like to be on the receiving end of your rancor as well as to elicit your hypocrisy. It doesn't take much of an attempt to accomplish that.
I will always expose those who espouse hatred and do so while claiming Christ. Making sure you are perceived as the most vile, most hateful, and most hypocritical form of Christianity is my goal, and it seems that in many ways, I have succeeded. Unfortunately, it is clear you've learned absolutely nothing, so I will allow you to dole on in your own ignorance. I take great comfort in knowing that nothing you have represented on this message board comes from Christ or His Gospel.
I'll even go on the record to say I AGREE with you on the BIBLE THUMPERS who use "pieces" of the bible for their agenda. But I have NOT done that, yet you put me in the same boat with those folks. I have not condemned this poor girl to Hell or said she CAN'T be a lesbian. All I said is that she has to follow the rules at a PRIVATE function JUST like EVERYONE else.
Yet, you choose to use my posts as those who cite the Bible, just the parts you want to use that you can contort and make say what was not said.
but we digress from the real issue.
again, the offer for coffee still stands.
"Theoretical" or not (I think you meant to say hypothetical), you exposed yourself as fantasizing about sex with animals. That's a way to make Jesus proud!