|
On November 12 2010 04:18 FishForThought wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 12 2010 03:39 FishForThought wrote:
... it would be discrimination if they refuse to let her join the formal because of her sexual orientation but it is not discrimination to forbid her to bring guest of the same sex. The formal is hosted by the school, they have all rights to create rules and guidelines for the event. If the event specified that all guests must be males, then there is no discrimination involved.
People need to stop getting all defensive and insecure about these things; sooner or later people will cry sexist for not being able to get into an all female/male school because he or she is not that gender, or cry free speech violation for not being able to enter a restaurant nude. Not in the US. They can't create those rules. Try replacing your word "Males" with "white." Can't discriminate based on the 14th amendment, which includes both race and sex. Which part of the 14th amendment states that? According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Equal_Protection_ClauseIt only mention black and white equality but nothing about male/female equality unless I missed an entire section on it.
The Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment to allow illegal immigrants to attend public high school.
The 14th amendment is written just like the rest of the constitution, vaguely. For example, take this part:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That any person part has been taken as meaning that even non-citizens who are in the United States cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. They also must offer equal protection of the law. Based on how the court has read this section of the 14th amendment I can easily say that had this incident happened in America and had it gone to court the courts would have sided against the school.
I'm sure people are wondering why we haven't had something like this in America though and that's a more complicated issue. There are two main reasons though, for starters going to court is expensive (both emotionally and from a monetary standpoint). Second, local Judges are elected and it's very possible that a Judge in the lower courts would possibly side with a school instead of the individual and very implausible that an individual without appropriate money or stamina would try to appeal the ruling. You also have to remember that there are no real requirements for being a Judge, i.e., you don't even need a law degree.
This is an Australian school though, not an American one and I'm unfamiliar with Australian law. I would also like to point out that there are plenty of things in America that are likely unconstitutional but remain because either no one has challenged them or due to the vagueness of the Constitution that I was referring to earlier.
|
After looking it, Supreme Court decision in 1971 (Reed vs Reed) decided that Equal Protection Clause includes sex. Some sites make it sound like it only deals with sex concerning estates, while others apply it generally to anything.
|
Seems odd how that they attend an all girls school only, yet you can't invite your female partner to the dance? You must invite a male?
''The school kept saying because it is an all-girls school we want to make an event where they can meet boys in a social scenario''
Well christ, obviously boys don't have kooties and aren't all that bad in the first place, why do we have single gender schools only again?
"Ok girls, it's been 15 years, but we think you're finally ready to meet boys in a social situation! yay!"
I just don't understand.
|
On November 12 2010 04:30 FabledIntegral wrote:
After looking it, Supreme Court decision in 1971 (Reed vs Reed) decided that Equal Protection Clause includes sex. Some sites make it sound like it only deals with sex concerning estates, while others apply it generally to anything.
You were right the first time, under the 14th Amendment the State must offer equal protection of the law. Since schools in America are state-run a public school cannot, constitutionally, ban same-sex couples from prom.
|
On November 12 2010 04:15 Chairman Ray wrote:
I actually do agree with the school's decision, but I don't think they carried it out in the right way.
The purpose of this formal is primarily focused towards intimacy or sexuality - it's to familiarize students in an all-girls school with people of the opposite gender. One very important social aspect students of same sex schools lack is interaction with the other gender. Without this social aspect, they don't get very far in life due to them being less comfortable around the other gender. This hinders them from doing any job that requires social interaction, which is most jobs. One of the primary reasons why parents send their children to same sex schools is so that they don't engage in intimacy. Therefore the purpose of this formal was not to get students to engage in intimacy, but to familiarize the students with the opposite gender.
People mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that not allowing same sex couples to participate in the formal meant that they were discriminating against homosexuals. Society has been shifted so anti-homophobia and anti-racism that any suggestion of someone's race or sexual orientation is seen as discrimination. I can say something like "Steve is that black guy over there" and then people will call me racist. These girls will have a difficult time integrating themselves into society after they graduate, and it's all because their parents could not see that a formal is more than just a sexual event.
The subtext of a formal is always going to be sexual, and telling a lesbian girl that she has to bring a guy is very offensive. It communicates this idea: "You're not normal; just pretend to be normal for a night, ok?" It's a very hurtful thing to tell someone.
I understand what you're saying about it going against the purpose of the dance, and that was likely the school's problem - regardless of that, the school's denial of her partner is still offensive and wrong.
Honestly, single-sex education seems so silly to me in the first place. I really don't understand why people still continue such an old-fashioned idea -_-
|
Ray, the girls I knew who went to a girl's only private school had no problems with the opposite sex. I assure you.  I knew quite a few of them too. :/
|
To me, this is similar to the girl being banned from cheerleading, which recently had a topic here at Teamliquid: much ruckus about a simple decision that might be unfortunate, but isn't really up for discussion.
First off, I have to point out that it's somewhat misleading to say that the couple were "banned" from the event. The 15-year old was never invited (and didn't fit the prerequisites for being an attendee) and the 16-year old was free to come - she just decided to sulk instead (not uncommon behaviour for such a young age, I'm sure).
I don't really care to insinuate what motivation the schoo might have for its actions. I think that because many decades have had a great focus on the protection of the individual and the rights of the individual, people have become more focused on themselves and less on the needs or expectations of their environment. If the school have a specific purpose with their event, it's fully within their right to carry out that purpose. Of course, it's unfortunate for the girl, but I'm sure she's fine; after all, if they're a couple, they should have plenty of chances to spend time together. The girl has to respect the decision of the school, which isn't really all that terrible. If she has to, she can make an issue of it, but the way things like these can blow up is quite silly sometimes.
More specifically about the decision, it makes good sense to me. A strictly same-sex environment cannot be very healthy, and I wouldn't be surprised if more girls turned lesbian by attending such schools either. I think it's sensible to insist that such an event has boys to help counter-balance the situation at the school. It's interesting that the parents put their girl in such environment while at the same time being very sensitive to the issues related to gender discrimation and seperation.
Edit: Reading the comments, I see that Flying Duck was banned for his comment. I'm quite convinced that he was making a sarcastic comment to the contrary of what he was banned for 
Double edit: Nevermind, I now read other comments of his :o
|
On November 12 2010 04:33 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:15 Chairman Ray wrote:
I actually do agree with the school's decision, but I don't think they carried it out in the right way.
The purpose of this formal is primarily focused towards intimacy or sexuality - it's to familiarize students in an all-girls school with people of the opposite gender. One very important social aspect students of same sex schools lack is interaction with the other gender. Without this social aspect, they don't get very far in life due to them being less comfortable around the other gender. This hinders them from doing any job that requires social interaction, which is most jobs. One of the primary reasons why parents send their children to same sex schools is so that they don't engage in intimacy. Therefore the purpose of this formal was not to get students to engage in intimacy, but to familiarize the students with the opposite gender.
People mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that not allowing same sex couples to participate in the formal meant that they were discriminating against homosexuals. Society has been shifted so anti-homophobia and anti-racism that any suggestion of someone's race or sexual orientation is seen as discrimination. I can say something like "Steve is that black guy over there" and then people will call me racist. These girls will have a difficult time integrating themselves into society after they graduate, and it's all because their parents could not see that a formal is more than just a sexual event. The subtext of a formal is always going to be sexual, and telling a lesbian girl that she has to bring a guy is very offensive. It communicates this idea: "You're not normal; just pretend to be normal for a night, ok?" It's a very hurtful thing to tell someone. I understand what you're saying about it going against the purpose of the dance, and that was likely the school's problem - regardless of that, the school's denial of her partner is still offensive and wrong. Honestly, single-sex education seems so silly to me in the first place. I really don't understand why people still continue such an old-fashioned idea -_-
I think the better response is that girls (and boys!) will have to deal with homosexuals in the workplace, etc., too. Shouldn't they be given an opportunity to socialize with them? BAM! Next dance is official all-Lesbian!
|
So that IS what's going on in all-girl schools! Ah the pillow fights, i knew it! :D
|
Single-gender schools are sexist and idiotic, and the excuses most commonly made for them ("We want a learning environment in which women aren't intimidated!") are pathetic.
That said, if you're going to have single-gender schools, it makes sense to have social events in which the students are forced to interact with peers of the opposite gender. That way the bizarre isolation from real life that you've imposed on them leaves less of a mark.
|
On November 12 2010 04:50 GeorgeForeman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:33 matjlav wrote:On November 12 2010 04:15 Chairman Ray wrote:
I actually do agree with the school's decision, but I don't think they carried it out in the right way.
The purpose of this formal is primarily focused towards intimacy or sexuality - it's to familiarize students in an all-girls school with people of the opposite gender. One very important social aspect students of same sex schools lack is interaction with the other gender. Without this social aspect, they don't get very far in life due to them being less comfortable around the other gender. This hinders them from doing any job that requires social interaction, which is most jobs. One of the primary reasons why parents send their children to same sex schools is so that they don't engage in intimacy. Therefore the purpose of this formal was not to get students to engage in intimacy, but to familiarize the students with the opposite gender.
People mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that not allowing same sex couples to participate in the formal meant that they were discriminating against homosexuals. Society has been shifted so anti-homophobia and anti-racism that any suggestion of someone's race or sexual orientation is seen as discrimination. I can say something like "Steve is that black guy over there" and then people will call me racist. These girls will have a difficult time integrating themselves into society after they graduate, and it's all because their parents could not see that a formal is more than just a sexual event. The subtext of a formal is always going to be sexual, and telling a lesbian girl that she has to bring a guy is very offensive. It communicates this idea: "You're not normal; just pretend to be normal for a night, ok?" It's a very hurtful thing to tell someone. I understand what you're saying about it going against the purpose of the dance, and that was likely the school's problem - regardless of that, the school's denial of her partner is still offensive and wrong. Honestly, single-sex education seems so silly to me in the first place. I really don't understand why people still continue such an old-fashioned idea -_- I think the better response is that girls (and boys!) will have to deal with homosexuals in the workplace, etc., too. Shouldn't they be given an opportunity to socialize with them? BAM! Next dance is official all-Lesbian!
roflroflrofl
5 star post
|
It's a private school. They can do whatever they want, with the only consequences being lost business due to potential customers thinking that the school is an ass. Plain and simple.
|
On November 12 2010 04:30 FabledIntegral wrote:
After looking it, Supreme Court decision in 1971 (Reed vs Reed) decided that Equal Protection Clause includes sex. Some sites make it sound like it only deals with sex concerning estates, while others apply it generally to anything.
The real question is whether someone can make an all male/female private event, or specify that only male guests can come.
If it is a public event or a government funded institute, then it would be discriminatory to enforce a male/female only event but the fact that this is a private school composed of only females, then I believe they are in power to specify the sex of the guest that they are allow to bring.
|
On November 12 2010 04:33 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:15 Chairman Ray wrote:
I actually do agree with the school's decision, but I don't think they carried it out in the right way.
The purpose of this formal is primarily focused towards intimacy or sexuality - it's to familiarize students in an all-girls school with people of the opposite gender. One very important social aspect students of same sex schools lack is interaction with the other gender. Without this social aspect, they don't get very far in life due to them being less comfortable around the other gender. This hinders them from doing any job that requires social interaction, which is most jobs. One of the primary reasons why parents send their children to same sex schools is so that they don't engage in intimacy. Therefore the purpose of this formal was not to get students to engage in intimacy, but to familiarize the students with the opposite gender.
People mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that not allowing same sex couples to participate in the formal meant that they were discriminating against homosexuals. Society has been shifted so anti-homophobia and anti-racism that any suggestion of someone's race or sexual orientation is seen as discrimination. I can say something like "Steve is that black guy over there" and then people will call me racist. These girls will have a difficult time integrating themselves into society after they graduate, and it's all because their parents could not see that a formal is more than just a sexual event. The subtext of a formal is always going to be sexual, and telling a lesbian girl that she has to bring a guy is very offensive. It communicates this idea: "You're not normal; just pretend to be normal for a night, ok?" It's a very hurtful thing to tell someone.
It's only hurtful because, frankly, it's true. And also, the subtext is socialization, not sex. God forbid those raging hormones be controlled in a semi-sterile enviroment so that the socially-inept members of this private school have a chance to be educated first-hand in intersex socialization. (Which again I will point out, is not 'AMG HOW GET LAID' in the real world.)
I understand what you're saying about it going against the purpose of the dance, and that was likely the school's problem - regardless of that, the school's denial of her partner is still offensive and wrong.
Did you miss the part where it was also stated that the 15 year-old was below the age minimum as well?
Honestly, single-sex education seems so silly to me in the first place. I really don't understand why people still continue such an old-fashioned idea -_-
Because stupid people are allowed to exist.
|
On November 12 2010 04:27 FishForThought wrote:
The special treatment obviously refer to the school wanting all students to bring male guests but require to make an exception for anyone who have a different sexual orientation.
Although, didn't actually happen in the article but it is what some people on the forum wants or opted for.
Ah okay, I was a little confused there reading the article and then your post when no actual special treatment occurred. Honestly I don't think we have enough information from just this article to decide if that would be special treatment or not. The school stated they wanted the girls to bring out-of-school male guests, was this like, one of the rules? Like, if you wanted to buy a ticket to enter it said right on the ticket you must bring a boy?
On November 12 2010 04:52 Severedevil wrote:
Single-gender schools are sexist and idiotic, and the excuses most commonly made for them ("We want a learning environment in which women aren't intimidated!") are pathetic.
That said, if you're going to have single-gender schools, it makes sense to have social events in which the students are forced to interact with peers of the opposite gender. That way the bizarre isolation from real life that you've imposed on them leaves less of a mark.
I want to agree with you bro, but if it turns out these all-girls schools are secret lesbian factories I'm afraid I'm going to have to change my mind very quickly.
|
On November 12 2010 04:57 FishForThought wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:30 FabledIntegral wrote:
After looking it, Supreme Court decision in 1971 (Reed vs Reed) decided that Equal Protection Clause includes sex. Some sites make it sound like it only deals with sex concerning estates, while others apply it generally to anything. The real question is whether someone can make an all male/female private event, or specify that only male guests can come. If it is a public event or a government funded institute, then it would be discriminatory to enforce a male/female only event but the fact that this is a private school composed of only females, then I believe they are in power to specify the sex of the guest that they are allow to bring.
True true. If it is indeed a private event, which I should have looked into before merely glancing over the article, then I would say it's within the rights of the school. If the parents don't like the school's decision, stop sending your child to that school.
Although at the same time I only agree with that statement to an extent. Just as a private business cannot turn away customers for gender/sexual orientation/race reasons, even though they are private, should a private school be able to do such?
|
Public schools = garbage, no money, little incentive to learn and a terrible overall environment..
Private schools = indoctrinated education where truth is not forced by law, fairness is not required by law, prices are insane
Home school = no social interactions
You are basically screwed until university..
Ugh, I hate the education system, but as someone said, this is a private school and they can be assholes if they like. ;/
|
On November 12 2010 05:00 Ympulse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:33 matjlav wrote:On November 12 2010 04:15 Chairman Ray wrote:
I actually do agree with the school's decision, but I don't think they carried it out in the right way.
The purpose of this formal is primarily focused towards intimacy or sexuality - it's to familiarize students in an all-girls school with people of the opposite gender. One very important social aspect students of same sex schools lack is interaction with the other gender. Without this social aspect, they don't get very far in life due to them being less comfortable around the other gender. This hinders them from doing any job that requires social interaction, which is most jobs. One of the primary reasons why parents send their children to same sex schools is so that they don't engage in intimacy. Therefore the purpose of this formal was not to get students to engage in intimacy, but to familiarize the students with the opposite gender.
People mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that not allowing same sex couples to participate in the formal meant that they were discriminating against homosexuals. Society has been shifted so anti-homophobia and anti-racism that any suggestion of someone's race or sexual orientation is seen as discrimination. I can say something like "Steve is that black guy over there" and then people will call me racist. These girls will have a difficult time integrating themselves into society after they graduate, and it's all because their parents could not see that a formal is more than just a sexual event. The subtext of a formal is always going to be sexual, and telling a lesbian girl that she has to bring a guy is very offensive. It communicates this idea: "You're not normal; just pretend to be normal for a night, ok?" It's a very hurtful thing to tell someone. It's only hurtful because, frankly, it's true. And also, the subtext is socialization, not sex. God forbid those raging hormones be controlled in a semi-sterile enviroment so that the socially-inept members of this private school have a chance to be educated first-hand in intersex socialization. (Which again I will point out, is not 'AMG HOW GET LAID' in the real world.)
Do you really think that none of the straight girls in the school were seeing this as a sexual event? Again, I understand the argument that the school's intended purpose of the event is socialization. It's just that going out of your way to make homosexual kids feel excluded is never a good solution to any problem. And it's certainly more of a problem than "oh this girl may not get the full experience of the intended purpose of this event."
Considering she didn't even go in the end as a result of the incident, I would say that she ended up even worse off as far as intersex socialization goes than she would have ended up if she had just gone with her girlfriend, wouldn't you?
On November 12 2010 05:00 Ympulse wrote:Show nested quote +
I understand what you're saying about it going against the purpose of the dance, and that was likely the school's problem - regardless of that, the school's denial of her partner is still offensive and wrong.
Did you miss the part where it was also stated that the 15 year-old was below the age minimum as well?
That was a ridiculously obvious attempt at dodging the point by the school.
|
It's an all girl's school, are they surprised this would happen?
|
There was a same-sex couple at my graduation prom from high school. There was gossip, but no one really cared.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
