And The Good News Just Keeps Coming...

Posted by SaltyDog 10 years, 11 months ago to Culture
42 comments | Share | Flag

I'm curious...how does the fact that she studied hard and made honors class benefit the school? I should think that it's the other way around. Further, how does that fact that she prospered scholastically translate to permission to violate the school dress code?

I guess I'm just getting old...

All Comments

  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Once he gets rights then responsibilities will come with them."

    Precisely. This young lady has no rights - either to demand service or otherwise.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "The notion that juveniles deserve all these freedoms they don't have to pay for or earn is by definition a looter mentality, is it not?"

    No. A juvenile is entitled to "mooch" off his parents until he has the legal ability to pay his own way, because his parents created him dependent on them. Once he gets rights then responsibilities will come with them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So a couple of points you bring up here. #1. Juveniles don't have all the rights of adults: those rights are still subjugated by the parents. And why is that? Because the juveniles aren't paying for their own rent, food, etc. The notion that juveniles deserve all these freedoms they don't have to pay for or earn is by definition a looter mentality, is it not?

    #2. "She wouldn't be able to throw her own party." I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion at all. Teenagers do it all the time. Now because she is a minor she might not be able to rent a facility without a parent or guardian to co-sign, but I don't see that as an unconditional prohibition or exclusion, simply a cost. The fact is that she's unwilling to pay that cost. She wants everyone else to pay those costs for her, yet cede to her the "right" to policy-making! She's got everything she needs to be a politician, that's for sure, but to me, she's nothing more than a looter.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They buy tickets for attendance. But that in no way makes it "their" party. They aren't hosting or paying for the facilities. Thus my contention is that if she wants to go find a venue and do all the prep work, sell tickets, organize committees for decorations, refreshments, photography, etc., she is welcome to throw her own party and establish her own standards. Until that happens, this situation is absolutely no different than attending a sporting event or entertainment event like a concert: your ticket allows you entrance to the event but places constraints on attendance based on rules set up by the host. The attendees don't get to make their own rules or demand accommodations.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, in retrospect. it was a typical anti-objectivist move by the school administration. If Atlas Shrugged had been in the curriculum they would never have gotten away with it. The battle has been ongoing for a long time.
    People at that age in that era were fighting other political battles with more immediate consequences: the draft and the Viet Nam War. Kids were being called cowards for taking college deferments from the draft. A few others were leaving for Canada to avoid the draft. I'm guessing he decided to fight the battles that meant more at the time, and everyone in the school knew Hank Rearden from Jim Taggart.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ah, blarman, aren't most proms paid for BY the students, other than maybe some booster club subsidies or whatever? She IS paying for the prom.
    It IS HER prom... What's your point?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "and there SHOULD be a girl giving a speech... AND he already had ENBOUGH Honors."????

    WWARS.. What Would Ayn Rand Say about that?
    Jeez! This IS the Gulch, still, isn't it?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, it's not a red herring. Juveniles are prevented by the system from creating or using other options (such as throwing her own party) without permission; this gives the persons who control those limits a greater duty of fairness than someone throwing a party for adults would owe anyone.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 11 months ago
    When the schools start educating instead of programming and are known as the schools not as the local drug store and quit acting as shills for a government that is nothing but immoral they can speak up. Until then it's no on the budget votes

    The sad part is every part of our society has failed and todays twerkers are yesterdays gangbangers -which used to have the same meaning and worse are tomorrows teachers., Little wonder the military is having a hard time finding recruits as among other reasons I would find the constitution worth fighting for but can't say the same for the citizens Next time let them pick up a rifle and go to the front. I'll be the won working to reinstate a government and all that goes with it.

    As for dress code I see it doing great things in other countries where the emphasis is on education. It's hard to tell who is from an affluent family and who not. All else aside it's excelling in the classroom that separates wheat from chaff. Sports are after school elsewhere and the level of education is far higher, far earlier. Without being militaristic.

    I did have kids and all GED'd out of the public school system as soon as possible and started JC at age 15 and 16. Not owning any land in the county and other than the part added to rent I also didn't waste much money on the school system until tuition at JC and above began. Same with most of the neighbors to one degree or another. By then the offspring had qualified for academic scholarships and the boys never did sign that volunteer for the draft card at 18, Not until he, the neighbor's kid joined USMC.Good thing otherwise he wouldn't have been allowed a government job ha ha ha.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If she wants to go throw her own party, she's welcome to wear whatever she likes, invite whomever she likes, provide security, drinks, party favors, decorations, and hire her own photographers. Since she's not the one paying for the party, she's not the one who gets a say in the matter.

    And changing the age of adulthood is a red herring. The issue is whether or not the school has the right - by hosting and paying for the event - to determine who can go and under what conditions. If you say that they have to accommodate her petty demands for attention, you are saying that no business or other institution has the right to freedom of association: that no business has the right like Hank Reardon when approached by the Science Institute to say "Sorry, I'm not selling to you." I can't support the tyranny that forces someone else's values on me, and I'm surprised anyone on this forum would either.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh, that is the issue. Except that the faculty members are the one (well, few) people making the petty demand.

    The age of adulthood should be lowered so that nobody old enough to think for themselves has to put up with this kind of tyranny.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IronMan 10 years, 11 months ago
    I agree - mostly. I sense hostility towards Christianity in your comments jdg. Yes I recognize that Objectivism and religion are at odds, but my faith is strong.

    Where I agree is the impact that the religious zealots of my faith is so counter-productive.

    I have two teenage boys that have chosen to be non-believers. Their teachers, popular culture and many other factors reinforce that choice. Then the ineptitude of those who believe drive it home.

    If I have misjudged your predisposition jdg, sorry.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    One of the biggest reasons today's young people won't listen about morals is that they're always being lectured at by out-of-touch Christians who tell them that modern, accepted sexual (and related) behavior is shameful. All that accomplishes is to throw away the lecturer's credibility.

    This is why the states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy are the ones that insist on "abstinence only" sex "education".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IronMan 10 years, 11 months ago
    Ludicrous! There are so many more important things for the school Nazis to get their panties all in a bunch over.

    Back in 1981, my girlfriend and I were "cross dressers" for the Halloween dance. I went as a cheerleader and she as a football player - with each of us using the official uniforms (although I did have to trade up for a larger size that the cheer coach provided). Nice humor and my hairy legs were quite the hit.

    Granted everyone understood we were just kidding. However, I was dressed much more inappropriately than this young person will be in a tux.

    On a more serious note, all the school has achieved is giving these kids a chance to jump up on the platform and make their position sympathetic. Mission Not Accomplished.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 11 months ago
    Subtract morals, values, ethics, and standards. What's left is what it is.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 11 months ago
    In my area, they actually have given the kids a choice: either wear dress appropriate for the event, or we'll shut down the event entirely. The school is hosting the party, so like it or not, they DO get to impose a dress policy that conforms to community standards.

    The problem began when they had a small group of students who wore extremely provocative clothing and began forming "twerking" circles. If you're not familiar with this, it's basically where a group forms a circle around a couple in order to watch them have sex there on the dance floor. The administrators cancelled the rest of that year's dances and the next year students who wanted to attend a dance had to sign a statement when they paid for their tickets that said they would abide by the rules of conduct and dress standards - just like they would for any concert or similar event - or they would not only get forcibly removed from the event but face school disciplinary proceedings.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is if the student is the reason they are refusing.

    The issue as I see it is if one person's petty demand for attention gets to ruin a major life event for hundreds of others. I say no.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 100inputs 10 years, 11 months ago
    Their school, their rules, written, unwritten, or even made up as they go along. Their school, their 'public property'. They are left in charge of it. Responsibility of school management is in their hands. But there are two fronts here. One is to fight public school policies, complain to the public school boards, and the other is to fight for the end of the public school system altogether. Fighting for the latter allows your money to talk and allows your money to walk, once again. Unlike the former, where your money is tide up, gagged, and told what to wear and when, and totally out of your control. Government run schools- it's an endless battle for control over you, in every which way. Someone always looking for a way to use government force over you, WHILE YOU JUST PAY AND PAY AND PAY. A private school system allows you to cancel your support; cancel your subscription, and your money fights for your rights, and speaks your mind. You and your money are equal and your money is your power. It is the power of money. Where money talks and money walks. The opposite of which is Government power- it is the power of the gun. Government threatens your not with more money but with a gun(whenever it deals with you). It's like this, where ever the government is, it comes gun in hand. Where ever you go, you go money in hand. I hope it is clear now why governments should not and cannot run schools, an economy, and many other things besides. But government does have it's rightful place in a free society.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Non sequitur. If the faculty is refusing to chaperone, that fact is not the student's responsibility. Let the administration deal with it or cancel the event.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 11 months ago
    Too uptight about clothing. A tux on a girl if she was Uma Thurman would look great, otherwise it's amusement value. So long as the attire is not overly revealing, what's the problem?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by cjferraris 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I totally agree. I mean fashion statements made today can be with you when you're a totally different person in 30 years.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 10 years, 11 months ago
    Salty: very much agree on the disconnect between whatever her accomplishments were and whether she's "earned" some kind of exceptional treatment.

    But once again I think the point of confusion that occurs again and again and will continue to occur is that this is a public school. So let the politics begin.

    If this were a private school, I don't think anyone would disagree that if the school were private, it can set the dress code, and far beyond the prom.

    I can give two examples of private schools of different "persuasions": a local Catholic "boys" high school where the daily dress code was what we now would call "business casual": dress shirt, dress pants, no jeans allowed. Not too fascist. (For our nearby arch-rival: full suit and tie.) For the prom: boys in tuxes, girls in formal dresses. Another example, which I only observed as a local resident, was a "Steiner Method" school in the Berkshires of MA. (Steiner I think I can conservatively say "leans Left"). As far as I could tell, there was no dress code at all. I don't think dreds were required, but they were the dominant hairstyle, both male and female. I couldn't really say if they had a prom, but I highly doubt it. If they did, I'm sure a female tux would be unusual, but allowed.

    Is there a right or wrong between those two examples? I don't think so.

    As far as the school of topic, let the "public" fight it out...

    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo