Well, well, well. I am impressed. Apparently, same sex couples attending a school dance proposes such a challenge to the school's moral fiber that they had the county sheriff keep one such couple away.
CNN.com - Student challenges same-sex dance rule - Nov. 23, 2003: A straight teenager is challenging a school district policy that bars students from bringing same-sex dates to school dances. In September, Amanda Blair tried to defy the rule by taking another young woman to the homecoming dance at Big Piney High School. They were kept out by sheriff's deputies at the request of school officials. Blair, a senior at Big Piney, has now enlisted the help of the American Civil Liberties in formally calling on Sublette County School District No. 9 to lift the same-sex date ban.
Now, mind, it's rather clear that Ms Blair is what they might call a "shit stirrer". I can't imagine that things reached the stage where they sent in an armed trooper to keep her out without her having served notice -- after all, how would they have known to do so?
Of course, the other issue is that she is right. Mostly.
Ken Choe, of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, said the ban violates students' constitutional rights to freedom of expression and equal treatment.
While that may be technically true, one notes that the current Supreme Court has gleefully and with malice aforethought restricted students' rights to control even their own bodies, allowing school districts to force those involved in extracurricular activities to undergo drug tests even absent any suspicion of drug use, with Scalia implying that he wouldn't find it unreasonable to test all students all the time for no reason whatsoever. Now if they're willing to allow that sort of invasion of privacy on the slimmest of pretexts, one would not think that this Court would give much credence to the concept that students are allowed much in the way of free speech or expression at school sponsored and/or sanctioned activities. To be sure, nothing has gone that far yet; first the policy must be actively challenged in court. Given that Ms Blair is a senior, one wonders if perhaps the Wyoming courts might simply delay deciding until the issue is technically mooted by Ms Blair's graduation, and then dismiss the case. It's certainly easier than getting involved in the mess.
I wonder if Lawrence v Texas can actually be extended to cover this. After all, it is, quite clearly, discrimination of the type envisioned by the decision, although sexual conduct as such isn't involved.
Posted by iain at November 24, 2003 11:10 AM
