Private Lives
 

And you thought nuns were tough.....


Ohio Christian school tells student to skip prom

Link to school website

This is interesting. Considering how outrageous some proms have gotten and the fact that he signed a contract, I can even understand the school's point. However it does go to the issue of how much control a school or work should have over someone's personal life as far as legal activities are concerned.

Also, since education is required by the state, can a school interfere with someones education over legal activities performed outside the classroom? Did the contract state that the rules applied off-campus? Can an individual sign away his or her rights to a private organization?

Most of the Bill of Rights applies to restrictions on government. This is why homeowners associations can keep people from installing flagpoles on their property and why 'morals clauses' in contracts are enforceable.

However, I believe that there is a point where legal private behavior should be considered private behavior. This is not a boarding school situation, where I'm guessing (I'm not a lawyer) the school shares custodial rights with parents.

I think I could argue both sides of the issue here. I would like to see the contract he (or his legal guardian) signed.

School's response. I cannot find the text of the 'statement of cooperation'. I would also counter that Jesus challenged a lot of authoritarian rules. Heck, King Solomon would have hosted the prom.

Addendum: I went searching for some more info and found this. Apparently, some people are feeling the heat.

stupid. dancing is joy, and joy is a blessing.

I don't think they can enforce the "statement" he signed anyway in a court of law.

Don't blame the school. They are doing it to make God happy.

Yuck. Hey - when I was 15, I had a 17 year old boyfriend who went to a Christian school like the one in the article. His parents didn't like me --I was CATHOLIC, isn't that horrible? Everyone knows they're not REAL Christians, LOL. They lectured me all the time. I went to a Catholic HS and once his father asked me, seriously, if I "even owned a Bible." Yeesh. No idea why I put up with it. I was 15, what can I say.

Anyhow, he took me to his prom. This "prom" consisted of everyone getting dressed up (my dress had to be approved first by his parents, it looked like something Laura Ingalls might have worn) and having dinner (which was horrible). They played Christian music and did a slideshow of photos from the kids' school years and babyhood. And that was it.

After the prom, a teacher caught us in the parking lot kissing.

The school officials agreed not to punish my boyfriend if he agreed not to date me anymore.

We still went out a few times after that, but his parents didn't know about it. Soon thereafter I met someone else who did not have such restrictions upon his life and could actually have some fun. ;)

I would think a policy at a school like that which already has a uniform [(clothing) context for Kingswood] policy could also have one so that the kids wore "appropriate" attire. Specific dress lengths and whatnot.
I find it interesting that they seemed to single out the girls more than the boys.
This one sentence I agree with. If the policy is bad/incorrect/whatever, then change it. If not, then uphold it. It appears that all the parents knew what they were doing when they made the decision to send their children there.

I'm with you Classic.
It's news because it seems such a harmless thing to forbid, but the real story happened when they signed the piece of paper.

If you send your son to a school with rules that strict, you have to expect him to abide by them. Not your personal beliefs? Don't send your kid there. They get the best education results in the local area? Fine - it will teach your kid that sometimes we suffer short term pain for long term gain.

I still want to see if the contract was specific in prohibiting after school behavior.

There are a lot of strange policies at some of these schools. Some rules skirt the edges of being legal, like restrictions on interracial dating (Bob Jones University had that policy until a GWB visit in 2000).

Fools. Haven't they seen Footloose?

Dancing leads to fornication. :rtfm:

that's exactly what I thought. Kevin Bacon rules!

Worse than that, fornication sometimes leads to dancing!

Haven't they seen Robert Webb's Flashdance?
Dance leads to cross-dressing and confusion amongst males when they fancy a pair of legs... without an entrance at the top.

Oh I loved that!

Did you see Paddy and Leigh's entry? They were storming.

A number of religious colleges have significant restrictions as well. I was amazed at what they included.

I just saw on tv that the boy, who goes to this school, took the girl, who does NOT, to HER school dance. This was not about a school function from his school. Hmm need to think a little more about this. At first I am not so sure they should have much say in the matter.

There's something distasteful to me about any organisation having such control over its members outside the bounds of its own function. It suggests they sit above and outside civil law and society, if they can impose beyond their own boundaries.

Right on the money, Dana... whenever we have a safety meeting at work and they start going off about safe driving or safe lawn mowing, I get up and walk the fuck out. :thumb:

It really depends on the contract they signed. Actually, it was called a 'statement of cooperation', so maybe it wasn't any kind of binding contract.

The level of control here seems a tad high. I understand that many people believe public schools to be anarchic pools of violence and debauchery, but I think that resorting to rigid authoritarianism is a high price to pay.

Maybe they could just let him off if he agrees to wear a scarlet 'D' to school every day.:cool:

Yes, He may be a "representative of his school", but I think this goes a bit too far. They are teens going to a teen dance. If they taught him properly (should have for the money they charge) Then they should STFU and not worry about it. They should expect and treat him as some type of ambassador for the "prestigious" school and not treat him like an escaped convict.

That is not the way these religious organizations work. Look at this from Liberty University a well known religious university:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_University

Most school school sports teams will kick out or at least bench a player if he is found to be doing something against the rules off-time, like drinking or drugging. Would you be against that too? Just curious.

We had a recent encounter with that earlier this year - an 8th grade cheerleader was caught shoplifting at the mall, and they removed her from the squad. If I was her mom I would have done it, even if the school didn't.

Absolutely Juni. The problem I have is with the more morally based prohibitions. Dancing? Going to another persons dorm room? What clothes you can and cannot wear off campus?

Under-age drinking, taking drugs and shoplifting are all criminal acts. It is reasonable for an organisation to say they don't want somebody representing them (as in a cheer leader or member of a school sports team) if that person has committed a criminal offence. It's particularly relevant in the case of the benched players, because alcohol and drugs directly impact on their performance.

The rules about not dancing and the like...I wonder how much choice children get over whether or not their parents sign them up to these strict regimes. But they are being expected to adhere to a standard of behaviour which most adults would feel a) that it was an unreasonable infringement on their free time and b) somewhat insulted at what those rules say about how those who have to live by them are perceived by those who write them.

What I don't like, what I really, really don't like, is it suggests at no time are these children 'free'. They don't have 'free time' because it's owned by someone else. Bad enough that parents have such absolute power, to hand it to someone else on their behalf seems wrong to me.

"....and participating in unauthorized petitions":eek:

Wow. What a nice way to trample on 1st Amendment rights.

We are discussing legal behavior here. Dancing and signing petitions are both legal.

BTW, if my parents signed me up for someplace like that I would do everything possible to get thrown out in the first week. If all it took was signing a few petitions, then that would be pretty easy.

Everything that is fun or feels good is a test from God to see if you really love Him. You see, He is very, very insecure, and if you really, really, really, really, really loved him, you wouldn't want to have fun or feel good.

Crap. I almost forgot. This is because He loves you so much.

If a boy can't take a chick to a dance, how is he supposed to cop his first grope? On the bus? With his sister? They really haven't thought about this.

I'm inclined to think I'd do the same...except that I don't have the kind of parents who'd have done in the first place. I'm guessing a parent who'd sign their kids up to that sort of regime is already comfortable with stringent rules and punitive measures. Might be a more frightening propect for their child to rebel than it would have been for me. That said. I recall being terrified and dry-mouthed phoning home for Dad to come get me after we'd staged a mass walkout and student strike at school (they caught the ringleaders, of which I was one, through our own stupidity, but thats another story).

If I, with a dad who'd never hit me or even ground me for more than a week (and then end up relenting on day 3) was terrified of 'being in trouble', wtf does a kid who knows their dad is going to belt them, or ground them for a month, or make their life hell for weeks, do?

I see stuff like these schools and my back is instantly up. Our children are legally powerless. They sit at the centre of a system in which various parties vie for control and power over them. With the new emphasis on child welfare and compulsory education (necessary as a lot of that is) we have exchanged absolute parental power over children's lives, with absolute state power over children's lives. To then add to that powerless by enrolling them in systems which are as dismissive of their individuality as any prison is of their inmates just seems wrong to me. Parents are all that stands between kids and school/state power. To give that upn on their behalf, is a betrayal imo. It may be well meant (in fact I am pretty sure it is most of the time). But that doesn't stop it being grotesquely unfair.

:notworthy

... which will be appearing in a thread in the near future, please? :D

You get used to it. (The latter two, just to clarify.)
Twenty years later, they sadly wonder why you don't trust them.

Don't blame God for this bullshit, none of those rules came on stone tablets.

Elzi wasn't blaming God. He was mocking those who interpret God in such a way. They will tell you until they're blue in the face that God loves you, but you're going to hell, unless you follow these rules (that other people have interpretted for God) and that you live a sinful horrible life.

I thought God forgave the sinners.

Only the good sinners. The bad ones are still headed downstairs.

see ya when I get there then?

Huh.

Old joke:

Why are Baptists against premarital sex?



It leads to dancing.