Recently, in Fulton, Miss., Constance McMillan filed a lawsuit against the Itawamba County School District, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union; for cancelling the senior prom. The suit alleges that the school board has violated McMillan’s First Amendment rights by not allowing her to bring her girlfriend to the prom as her date and prohibiting her from wearing a tuxedo. Rather than accepting the school’s position, McMillan demanded that the school renounce their current stance and support her expression of sexuality. In a letter released to the press, the school board announced they were cancelling their sponsorship of the prom, stating the situation was becoming a distraction to the educational process.
I’m just like every other American with an affinity for my constitutional rights. Perhaps McMillan’s civil rights have been violated by the school’s actions. However, a lawsuit that takes school administrators’ time away from their educational duties and spends thousands of dollars in taxpayers’ money over a prom is completely unnecessary.
There is no reason for the ACLU to be involved in this matter. They have no grounds to demand that the school pay for the students prom. It seems that every time there is a disagreement these days, in comes the ACLU filing a lawsuit. The ACLU wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money every year grinding the wheels of the legal system. Last year an ACLU lawsuit in Denver regarding police brutality cost the taxpayers over $570,000 in court fees. Over the last five years the ACLU has collected over $10 million in damages from American taxpayers.
If the school is footing the bill for the prom, they should determine the perimeters of conduct that guests will conduct themselves with on their dime. I recall my senior prom; there were lots of rules. Students couldn’t bring alcohol or drugs, there were enforced dress codes, and dates couldn’t dance too closely or act promiscuously. Any students not adhering to these rules were removed or banned from the prom. I don’t recall any students filing law suits against our school because we couldn’t invoke our First Amendment rights to freely express our sexuality. I’m certain nobody filed lawsuits because there was a dress code and they couldn’t dress however they pleased, regardless of how distasteful. Yet here is an 18-year-old girl demanding an educational institution accept her lifestyle and make concessions to her, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes anyone else involved.
Meanwhile, a couple hundred other high school kids who are willing to follow the rules set forth by the institution funding their night of privilege are denied their prom because one girl disagrees with the policies of the school board.
I’m confused as to why this girl couldn’t simply follow a dress code. As a young person, McMillan could use this situation to affirm the fact that life is not fair. Sometimes people are not going to accept your lifestyle decisions; that’s just part of life.
This isn’t really a case of intolerance at all. The school issued a list of criteria for prom dates, none of which are being attacked by any other students. Yet McMillan and the ACLU take issue with one requirement: dates be of opposite sex. The fact is the school board can’t cater to the lifestyle of every student.
Teens often go to the prom in groups of same-sex friends or even by themselves. This was not prohibited by the school. McMillan and her girlfriend could have gone to the prom as “friends,” and adhered to the dress code. They would have been able to enjoy the prom and the rest of her classmates would not have been affected. But instead of making a conservative decision, McMillan and the ACLU have elected to blow the situation out of proportion and make it national media frenzy, even if it’s at the expense of every other student in the school.
Ryan Haskell • Mar 26, 2010 at 12:49 am
I find John Mercer’s article, how should I put it, illogical nonsense. If his goal was to upset and confuse people as well as make himself look bad than he has indeed succeeded on a grand scale. His main argument seems to be she should simply accept what others have decided for her and not to fight or argue with anyone. This is simply nonsense there is no reason for her to lie back and take abuse this logic permits an abuse as long as it maintains the status quo and would create a disturbing trend if it were applied to more situations. This is who were are as not only as Americans but human beings when we feel we are being treated poorly we fight back and refuse to just accept our position in life. The idea that because others don’t complain so she shouldn’t also doesn’t make any sense why should she follow the example of others . Also the most disturbing part of this article is when he suggests she should have just went as “friends” why should she hide who she really is this is not a requirement for anyone else to hide their sexuality so why should she? Why shouldn’t she demand people accept who she is I don’t understand what is so frightening about that.
Marty Hayes • Mar 25, 2010 at 5:20 pm
I think it’s awesome when people have the guts to call people bigots and call them ignorant, but then don’t have the guts to even put a name on the post.
Disgusted • Mar 25, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Dear Northwind and Mr. Mercer,
I am not going to bother pointing all the errors in this seriously flawed article; FarmerTom and Chuck already thoroughly tore it apart. I am ashamed that this article was even printed. This is not an article of opinion. This is bigotry masked by seriously flawed logic. If people had the same mind set as you, Mr. Mercer, we would be living in a very different America; a place where blacks are segregated, a country where women could not vote, where our government could create internment camps for specific races or religions, and a place where interracial marriages would not exist. People, like you Mr. Mercer, keep our society in a cesspool of ignorance. Shame on you for telling her to just deal with it, because life is not fair. A courageous 18 year old who stands up for her rights, and refuses to be a second class citizen should be applauded, not condemned. Shame on you. This isn’t about a prom, it’s about the unfairness and discrimination plaguing the school board. It is about standing up for the underrepresented and unfairly treated in our society. Open up your mind and see the bigger picture.
Chuck Anziulewicz • Mar 25, 2010 at 12:12 pm
DEAR MR. MERCER:
I’ll give you credit for begrudgingly admitting that Constance McMillen’s civil rights may have been violated. But then you insist that the ACLU should’nt have gotten involved. What exactly is the ACLU for, anyway, if not defending the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority? I don’t care if it costs thousands of dollars or ruffles some feathers at the Itawamba school board. If Gay and Straight students are not being treated equally in the public school environment, it is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
You write, “I recall my senior prom; there were lots of rules. Students couldn’t bring alcohol or drugs, there were enforced dress codes, and dates couldn’t dance too closely or act promiscuously.” Such rules are fine, IF they apply to all students equally. And as far as the dress code at YOUR prom goes, I’m sure it had more to do with necklines and cleavage rather than whether a Lesbian should be allowed to wear a tux. But the Itawamba school board apparently has a double standard for Gay and Straight students: If you are Straight, you get to bring a date to the prom, but if you are Gay, you DON’T.
Would you like to explain to me how this is justifiable?
If we were talking about a private school or a parochial school, it would be a different story. But Constance McMillen’s school is supported by taxpayer funds, and in case you weren’t aware, Gay Americans are taxpayers too. Would you want YOUR hard-earned tax dollars funding an institution that discriminated against Straight people or Christians? Probably not.
Yes, Constance McMillen’s simple wish to bring a date to the prom rocked the boat. It made people uncomfortable. Worst of all for her, it caused fellow students and the community at large to vilify her, much to the satisfaction, I’m sure, of the Itawamba school board. A private prom is being held at a furniture warehouse in Tupelo, and Constance is pointedly NOT being invited to attend.
But civil rights issues are not popularity contests. Rather than criticizing Ms. McMillen for taking the school board to court, you should admire her for her courage. Civil rights often come with a struggle. In the 1950s and 1960s, Black Americans stood up against racial segregation. Rosa Parks was NOT content to sit at the back of the bus. Likewise, Constance McMillen and her date should not be expected to simply accept second-class status rather than make a few people uncomfortable.
malcolm kyle • Mar 25, 2010 at 11:52 am
Sometimes somebody has to make a stand to get rid of oppression!
Is this the land of the free or the land of slaves?
FarmerTom • Mar 25, 2010 at 11:02 am
Mercer is wrong in oh so many ways… But no name calling, let’s just look at the mistakes.
ERROR NUMBER ONE: Mercer writes: “Rather than accepting the school’s position, McMillan demanded that the school renounce their current stance and support her expression of sexuality.” Incorrect. The ACLU sued, on behalf of McMillan, to have the school board rescind its decision to cancel the previously scheduled prom.
ERROR NUMBER TWO: Mercer writes: ” Perhaps McMillan’s civil rights have been violated by the school’s actions. However, a lawsuit that takes school administrators’ time away from their educational duties and spends thousands of dollars in taxpayers’ money over a prom is completely unnecessary.” The suit would have been avoided, could and should have been avoided, had the school district refrained from violating McMillan’s rights in the first place– which a judge has already indicated was done– and by having the forethought to consider that canceling the prom would create a disruption in school– which it did. What makes Mercer think that the suit is unnecessary? Does he suggest a better way to force the errant school district to make amends, to correct its wrongs?
ERROR THREE: “There is no reason for the ACLU to be involved in this matter. They have no grounds to demand that the school pay for the students prom.” says Mercer. I don’t believe that the ACLU or McMillan asked the school board to pay for the prom: usually proms are supported (paid for) by the students attending. What was requested was the school board’s sponsorship of the event– sponsorship heretofore routinely provided.
ERROR FOUR: “The ACLU wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money every year grinding the wheels of the legal system. Last year an ACLU lawsuit in Denver regarding police brutality cost the taxpayers over $570,000 in court fees. Over the last five years the ACLU has collected over $10 million in damages from American taxpayers.” We can stipulate that Mercer is correct in his figures, but DAMAGES awarded by courts indicate that people working for taxpayers in their official capacity VIOLATED people’s civil rights. Police brutality is not something to be tolerated. Bad cops, bad police departments SHOULD be made to account for their actions, otherwise whose civil rights are secure?
ERROR FIVE: “If the school is footing the bill for the prom, they should determine the perimeters of conduct that guests will conduct themselves with on their dime.” 1) it’s parameters not perimeters. 2) Even if the school board were paying for the prom, it wouldn’t be on the school board’s dime– it would be on the TAXPAYER dime– We’re talking public school board, public school prom. The school board HAS NO LEEWAY but to follow the law, which includes substantial protections for the civil rights of the students affected by its actions. A private school has considerably more leeway.
ERROR SIX:”Meanwhile, a couple hundred other high school kids who are willing to follow the rules set forth by the institution funding their night of privilege are denied their prom because one girl disagrees with the policies of the school board.” Incorrect: the kids have their school board’s prom canceled because the school board refused to follow the law.
POINT OF CONFUSION NUMBER ONE: Mercer says: “I’m confused as to why this girl couldn’t simply follow a dress code. As a young person, McMillan could use this situation to affirm the fact that life is not fair. Sometimes people are not going to accept your lifestyle decisions; that’s just part of life.” Sometimes, Mercer, a dress code is an illegal expression of intolerance and discrimination. In a PRIVATE setting, say an office, workers have fewer constitutional rights than they do in a PUBLIC setting, say a school sponsored event. Life may not be fair, but school boards MUST be fair. It’s the law.
ERROR SEVEN: “This isn’t really a case of intolerance at all. The school issued a list of criteria for prom dates, none of which are being attacked by any other students. Yet McMillan and the ACLU take issue with one requirement: dates be of opposite sex. The fact is the school board can’t cater to the lifestyle of every student.” writes Mercer. This isn’t about catering to every student’s lifestyle– this is about illegal discrimination. A school board policy which stated that mixed race couples couldn’t dance together because it might make some people uncomfortable would be clearly illegal– how is the school board’s current rule set any different from that?
FINAL SET OF ERRORS:”Teens often go to the prom in groups of same-sex friends or even by themselves. This was not prohibited by the school. McMillan and her girlfriend could have gone to the prom as “friends,” and adhered to the dress code. They would have been able to enjoy the prom and the rest of her classmates would not have been affected. But instead of making a conservative decision, McMillan and the ACLU have elected to blow the situation out of proportion and make it national media frenzy, even if it’s at the expense of every other student in the school.” 1)McMillan was explicitly told she would not be allowed to dance with her date. 2) The school board, not McMillan or the ACLU prompted the problem by canceling the prom in the first place. 3) The situation is of interest nationwide because it’s a real story, a genuine problem. No one is suggesting that this is as important as the war in Iraq or national health care issues, but that doesn’t mean it’s of no consequence. Until and unless students assert their rights in the face of discrimination, how will civil rights be protected?