Student at religious school willing to accept suspension to attend prom

Source: Associated Press - Cleveland Plain Dealer

Monday May 11, 2009, 4:08 AM

FINDLAY, Ohio -- A Findlay teenager says he expects to be suspended from a Christian school for attending a public school prom with his girlfriend.

Officials at Heritage Christian School in Findlay had warned 17-year-old Tyler Frost that he would be suspended and prohibited from attending graduation if he went to the Saturday dance. The fundamentalist Baptist school in Northwest Ohio forbids dancing, rock music and hand holding.

Frost says he went to the dance because he wanted to experience the prom and didn't think it was wrong.

School officials say he could complete his final exams separately to receive a diploma.

Frost's stepfather says the rules shouldn't apply outside of school and he may take legal action if Frost is suspended.


Read more: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/05/student_at_religious_school_wi.html

---

Well done, Tyler!

...if it inevitably becomes necessary.

private schools can and do set codes of conduct and that includes off campus behavior

as long as they advised him/his parents of the rules, the school has done nothing wrong.

it's a stupid policy imo, but it's their school and their policy and they have the right to forbid such behavior.

nothing to sue for.

If they're going to hold up his diploma because they want to regulate his life off-campus then I really hope the family can take this to court and get a judge to smack them down. That school needs to be told to go to their own proverbial hell.

:grr:

How far are they thinking of going in controlling his life outside of their school. Would they refuse to send his transcripts/records to colleges they disapprove of if he applies to secular colleges?

the school's rules can and do apply off campus.

whether they "should" in your or my opinion is irrelevant to their authority.

this is not a public school. it's a private school . they have the right to set codes of conduct, and that includes off campus conduct.

You're right it is a private school, headed by religious fanatics who are so afraid of their own inability to control their own urges that they come up with twisted rules. Not so that they can teach, but so that they can maintain control over the lives of their students.

Maybe they should move the school to Iran, or Afghanistan, they seem to have so much more in common.

novel concept that. give it a try.

do i think the school's policies are stupid? yes

do i think they have the absolute right to set such policies regarding off and on duty conduct?

absolutely.

do i believe that if they were upfront about such policies, that the student has no claim if he willingly violates said policies?

yes

i went to a quaker private school. quakers are liberal and pacifist. and yes, they had policies regarding off and on campus conduct.

just because i disagree with their policy does NOT mean i don't fully support their right to have such a policy and enforce it.

there is full choice here. don't like the school's policies? don't send your kid there.

and if you choose to go there, you agree to abide by their rules.

and people have the right to CHOOSE which kind of school they want to go to

i went to a quaker school. quakers are pacifists, and quite liberal.

my school had the right to set a code of conduct. so do baptists, and anybody else.

don't like it? don't attend the school.

period

They a basically signing a contract to educate a child, and choosing to violate that contract due to some irrelevant external event. At the very least I hope they are suing for breach of contract.

If they are paying for a service, and that service is now being denied for some irrelevant reason then then the school is wrong. No business should be allowed to get away with operating this way.

In the absence of a copy of the contract, you are simply making up a fact here.

Many private schools - as a material condition of the contract - require adherence to a code of conduct governing on and off campus behavior.

I don't see how you can claim there was a breach of contract, when you do not know what the contract actually says.

Here is a typical Code of Conduct for one of these nutjob schools:

http://www.heritagechristianschool.info/Student%20Handbook.htm

No student will be retained at Heritage Christian School who is involved in any of the following activities.

1. Attendance at a rock or country/western concert, dance, lounge, disco, or public school prom

2. Bringing firearms to school

3. Active participation in the vandalism or destruction of school or private property

4. Possession or use of any alcoholic beverage

5. Possession or use of illegal narcotics

6. Pregnancy or marriage


"No student will be retained at Heritage Christian School who is involved in any of the following activities."

How much clearer can they make that? It is in black and white in the contract.

and the idea of dancing as verboten may be "irrelevant" the previous poster, but he's inserting his values into the argument.

the issue isn't do you or i think dancing is ok?

the issue is do fundamentalist baptists?

apparently, they don't

and if it's in their code of conduct, as you note, then it's ok to punish the kid.

for fuck's sake, they are giving the kid ample PRE-warning even.

people here are often such kneejerks.

even the rights of fundamentalist baptists matter. if they set a code of conduct at their private school, that's THEIR RIGHT.

no matter how stupid that code is.

The first amendment protects those who say and do things we don't like as well as the things and people we do.

Foreign concept to some.

Stupid rule, but if they signed the contract, they're bound to it. Whine about how unfair it is all day long- doesn't change a thing.

...which makes them think that "liberals are trying to take our rights away".

They can retreat into their academies of snake-handling and speaking in tongues all they want. If they satisfy the state minimum educational requirements, then they can run their own high schools.

and liberals (or anybody else) who thinks that these schools should NOT be able to proscribe such behavior ARE trying to take their rights away. it seems some people in this thread are perfectly happy to take other's rights away, as long as they are weird right wing snake handlin' baptists.

i believe in protecting people's rights, even those that i disagree with.

for some, on the left and the right, that's a novel concept.

stricter codes of conduct necessarily aren't going to appeal to a lot of people.

i have no problem with that.

i think their rules are stupid, but i 100% support their right to set those rules and to enforce them for their members.

period.

don't like it? don't attend the fundamentalist baptist school.

if you attend their school, you abide by their rules.

it's a private school, not a public school.

Private college and all....

The point here is about the right to contract.

Can one contract for "no dancing", sure?

There is certainly subject matter which is out of bounds for a contract. For example, I can fire an at-will employee for any reason or no reason, but not for an impermissible reason such as racial discrimination.

Was the dating rule at Bob Jones discriminatory? Apparently, they decided to duck the question when a controversy arose, and got rid of the rule. Clearly, they had students of various races admitted to the school (otherwise, why bother with the rule), and like the Mormon church when the NCAA became interested in BYU's racial rules, Bob Jones decided it wasn't an issue they wanted to go to the mat on.

Is the right to contract absolute? No. Is a "no prom" rule within the range of lawful subject matter? Sure it is.

What if it was a "mixed religion" rule?

...and they ditched it when it became an issue.

They do not have a "mixed religion" dating rule, because all of their students are required to be born-again Christians. They do not admit students of other religions.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, it is illegal for people to set requirements that treat people different do to Race, Age, National Origin, Disability, Familial Status (If you have children or not) and Religion. Some states (But NOT the Federal Government AND most states) extend this to sexual orientation. In such cases the Civil Rights Law of 1964 can be used to declare the act illegal.

The courts have had a problem with this for years (And the Supreme Court declared in the 1880s that the 1875 Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional for it expanded anti-discrimination laws to far). Under the First Amendment's right of Assembly, you have the right to get together with people who think like you, even if what you think is that the Government is bad. Furthermore even racist have the right to get together in an Assembly under the First amendment.

Thus what you are discussing is a First Amendment right vs a Civil Rights Act Right. Which right should have priority? One of the right clearly set forth in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the equal right to accommodation, both the right to buy housing anywhere your want, and the right to enter into any "Public" accommodations, even if the Accommodation is privately owned (Such as Motels and Hotels). What about the owner of a Motel who does not want to rent to someone in a protected class? Does such a person have the right to use his property as he sees fit? If that is true, then it is clear he can exclude anybody he wants from his establishment, even if it is the only one within miles. People siting the First Amendment said such a person had the right to exclude anyone from his property, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said no, the Courts upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds what was protected was a public accommodation, and as such has always been open to everyone (It was state law that permitted people to exclude people do to race NOT the Common Law, which required such public accommodations, i.e. Inns, Hotels and Motels to be open to EVERYONE on the public roads).

The court also rules (Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) that it was improper for any court to enforce any contract that forbade property from being sold to a member of a protected class. The court rules such rules could be made, but just not enforced by the Courts.

The problem here is this is NOT a "Public Accommodation" as that terms is used in the Civil Rights Act. It is also NOT a sale of property, it is the right to go to that school under its rules. This is more a right of Assembly (which includes the right to get together with people like oneself) NOT discrimination based on someone being a member of a "Protected Class". The Student knew the rules and fully accepted them when he, and his parents, signed him up for this school.

Now, if it can be shown that no other school existed for him to go to, then the issue of Public Accommodation raises its ugly head, but as long as the public school is viewed roughly equal to this school as to education, then the School is NOT a Public Accommodation and as such can enforce the rules it made.

Now, rules affect a member of a protected class can come into play, if he was a member of a protected class, but he is a Baptist who just happen to want to go to a Prom. Thus this is NOT discrimination against him do to his religion, but the religion telling its members where it stands on this issue.

Now as to "Mixed Religion" Rule, that is a separate headache. Someone wound have had to decide what religion this child is to be brought up in. That is viewed as the choice of his parents, if they can NOT agree then a Court will make that decision, but only between the choices of the parents, NOT what the Court wants (And what the parents agreed to prior to the Marriage and during the Marriage is an important Factor). If the parents did NOT agree to the rules set by the School, then you have no agreement as to where the child should go to school. Again the Court till have to make the Decision, but restricted to what options the parent's want. If that was the case here and the non-baptist parent lost (And that does NOT appear to be the case here, the parents appear to be together) then the Baptist parent's choice is viewed as the choice the school must accept and the rules being clear must be followed.

As to Mixed Racial dating and Mixed Religion dating, I have my questions under the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it comes to being a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Court have a long history of ruling any racial discrimination as violating the Civil Rights Acts, thus forbidding inter-racial dating was unenforceable in the courts (I.e. if the School kicked out a student for inter-racing dating, the school would lose any subsequent lawsuit), but inter-religious dating is more iffy, simply because Religion is a protected class in the Civil Rights Act AND it is a protected group under the First Amendment. I foresee the courts forbidding such bans (i.e. The Courts ruling a school bans on Inter-religious dating is unconstitutional) for permitting inter-religious dating is not an attack on any one's religion and therefore a ban on such dating serves no legitimate purpose and thus unconstitutional. I compare inter-religious bans with Sex Discrimination bans, the Courts have ruled the rules that treat the sexes different violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but if a good reasons exists for such different treatment then the rule does NOT violate the Civil Rights Act (i.e. A rule the forbids men from searching women is technically handling women different from men, and under strict analysis of the Civil Rights Act would be unconstitutional, i.e. men could NOT be banned from searching women, if they had the right to search men, but the Court have long rules that when it comes to Sex Discrimination the rule is more permissive i.e. men can be banned from searching women do to the known differences in how women feel when being manhandled by a man, thus you can require women to be searched by Women, men by men).

The same lower standard of liability would be the rule when it comes to inter-religious dating, the burden will still be on the group banning such dating to show how it harms the group, but if a good enough reason can be found (and I can NOT think of one right now so this all may be moot) then the rule will be upheld.

Thus, while I think a ban as to inter-religious dating will rarely, if ever, be constitutional, it is possible for a very narrow exception, but the exception will be no more then the one adopted decades ago when it came to Sex Discrimination.

Hey, go find the women who want to get into Catholic seminary or whatever, but the point is that, yes Bob Jones had that policy, and no, nobody ever brought a lawsuit over it before Bob Jones got rid of that policy.

A private religious school's "no dancing anywhere" policy is no more discriminatory that the local country/western honky-tonk's refusal to put Frank Zappa on their jukebox. You want to dance to Frank, you go somewhere else - even if it IS a tavern that is a public accommodation.

private schools are just that- private.

wrong schools rules :/

If you allow these young people to start doing filthy, dirty things like "Holding Hands", the
next thing you know they could be recruited as Terrorists or (worse) voting for a Black Man.

If he and his parents were concerned about trivial things such as "freedom" and "rights" they should have stayed the hell away from a private religious school.

I have zero sympathy for him. He agreed to live by their dumb-ass rules until they were no longer convenient for him personally. Boo fucking hoo.

Because you've gotta be fucking kidding me if you're holding a child accountable for where he attends high school, as though he has any choice.

I won't be forgetting my smiley--------------> :eyes:

Do I think it's a stupid rule? Absolutely!

But I'd be willing to bet that there were many stupid rules that the student and his parents agreed to when they enrolled in "Heritage Christian" school.

Now that one of these rules has a negative impact on his own life, he wants to cry about it.

This is just another manifestation of religious hypocrisy.

You want freedom, stick with the public schools.

I have no sympathy for these people.

to private schools - we're not all religious nuts. Sometimes you have little choice if you want your kid to have a good education.

If this was a rule they agreed to when he enrolled and it is being applied fairly to all students, then he should obey the rule or face the consequences.

See how that works, everybody?

The decision to go to a Talibornagain school was voluntary on the part of these people.

Yes, one of the "American" rules is that people can form private groups and make their own rules about membership.

DU is one such group.

If this kid has a gripe, it is with his parents for putting him in the dumbass school in the first place.

Or are we in more of a fascist state than I thought? :scared:

There is nothing "fascist" about a private school having a code of conduct that applies both on or off campus. Nobody is forced to send their children to such a school.

If I want to start a private school in which nobody is allowed to say the word "pumpernickel", then I can start such a school. If parents want to send their kids there, that's fine. But if anyone says "pumpernickel", I'm kicking them out.

Can that be done in a public school? No.

i went to a quaker school. did i agree with quakerism (pacifism, for example)? no.

but it was my duty to obey their codes of conduct. and yes, a private school has the right to set codes of conduct OFF campus, and during non school hours.

if you don't frigging like it, attend another school. period.

i think the school's rules are ridiculous, but that's not the point.

and I broke one of their rules - to which they held my last paycheck. I sued them and won. Just because an institution makes a rule, doesn't mean it will hold up in court.

and we could get into that if you like.

i'm not sure what the rule you broke WAS, fwiw.

the judge said that since they can fire you at any notice (as stated in their policy book), then the employee has the right to leave when they want. The judge just stated that it wasn't fair, and ruled in my favor. He didn't state any employment laws, just the fact that it wasn't fair (or reasonable). I'm not saying that a judge would rule in favor of the student, it's just that you never know. This (horrible) company thought their policy book was golden, but it wasn't. Maybe the schools policies aren't "golden" either.

Uh, yeah, he did. There is a world of law relating to terms and conditions that attach to "at will" employment. No, a judge is not going to cite any specific law or case, because it is employment law 101.

Under the 13th Amendment, you have a right to wages for your work.

There is no right to attend a private school, and suing to stay in one after violation of a non-discriminatory rule that is based on their religious beliefs is a non-starter.

fwiw, there would (may be) issues regarding tuition.

iow, the school has the right to expel you for viol;ating the rules, but to what extent they would have to refund tuition already paid is another matter.

If I had the money I would be at ours tomorrow because I know for a fact they have the cream of the crop when it comes to teachers and their curriculum is much better than our local school. Add that to the fact that there is every kind of kid in our public school including drug dealers, a group of thugs that beat all the turtles in the pond next to the school to death with a hammer last week, girls pregnant in 8th grade, kids that have such low self-esteem that they started having sex at 12 and the general plastics that are just hateful to anyone interested in something besides cheerleading and football. I would love to send my kids to the local Catholic school even though I'm agnostic but they specifically say they accept agnostics... My point is that we shouldn't slam the kid just because he goes to a religious school by choice, sometimes it's a matter of getting the best education in the safest environment.
Also, I went to the schools home page to look at this "statement of cooperation" they say they have all the students sign and it wasn't available to look at. Maybe it didn't spell out exactly what is allowed and what isn't, we don't know what it actually said. Maybe it was so vague as to not be clear that no hand holding was allowed outside school either. It sounds like a basic compact we sign at our public school that covers expecting good behavior and honesty as far as your schoolwork goes. The principals statement on the website seemed to me that he was explaining WHY this decision was made and I would think if it was already in the rules there would've been no need for the statement. Who knows, but the kid has went there since kindergarten and there's only 84 kids in the entire school. You would think if 1 kid misses graduation they might not even have one lol!

Not gonna debate anyone on DU who opens with a line like that.

Cheers!

Keep in mind I live in red-state hell Alabama with no tax base to support the local schools and our public school system ranks 101 out of 130 as far as taxes for schools. We get notes sent home asking for toilet paper and tissue...

They've gotten the best teachers out of the public system by offering more money and benefits. I happen to know what great reputations some of their teachers have from being in the system and seeing our award winning teachers being lured away. Not trying to start an argument here, I was just sharing what it's like in my town.

don't apply to private schools. So, you could have creme-de-la-creme teachers, or you could have complete Neanderthals (because they don't have to be accredited, or even educated).

That's what worries me about Oklahoma here. The Repuke legislation just passed a bill that would potentially have turned all Oklahoma public schools into charter schools. Therefore, the school districts could hire anyone off the street to staff as teachers, and pay them minimum wage. They wouldn't have to have school nurses, or school lunch programs...etc., etc.... :scared:

Thank God the governor vetoed the bill. But if a repug governor replaces him in 2010, then that bill will become law.

Hope it works out. Right now we've been trying to pass a half cent sales tax to help the county schools since the city system did that years ago and they have laptops for every student now while we have to bring our own potty paper.. People won't go for it :/ I've pointed out over and over that a half cent isn't really much and it's already being collected since you can't pay the city half cent without giving the other half to someone else...

episcopalian and quaker private schools.

they were MUCH better than the public schools.

not even close.

they did not require teaching certifications, yet my private school teachers were WAY more knowledgeable. my friggin track coach was also the latin teacher and had a PhD. in the classics, not "education" or some such gut crap.

the quaker school did not pay particularly well iirc. i doubt it paid better than the public school.

when i went to the quaker school, i abided by their code of conduct. quakers are pacifists. i think pacifism is stupid, but so what?

I suppose that includes those schools that teach that evolution is an athistic lie and that the earth is only about 6,000 years old.

Low tax base and over crowded public schools... Other places are different but you never know till you live in a place how their schools are.

because their teachers aren't required to have the degrees and accreditations that public school teachers have. They can hire anyone and put them in front of a classroom.

There is also a real incentive to do so when budgets get tight because they can pay someone much less who doesn't have the certifications and degrees. Private schools that hit tough economic times are almost certain to face very, very tough pressure to cut costs and less qualified teachers.

This idea that private schools are better than public schools is mostly Marketing. It may be true of some schools, but it's not true of others. It is believed to be true of most/all private schools because people automatically assume that private schools must be good just because they are private schools. "After all, why would all these other people pay to send their kids there if it wasn't good?"

Apparently good marketing is everything.

There are some who are quite good, but in the main these people are hired primarily on the basis of criteria that are not correlative with educational ability.

When you consider that in order to teach biology in one of these schools, you actually have to teach something other than the actual science of biology, it's pretty much a no-brainer that a teacher hired for the purpose of making sure the students have the wrong answers is not going to be the sharpest marble in the chandelier.

PUBLIC high school in WI. Virtually zero dropout rate, virtually every graduate went on to university.

I'm JUST talking about my county and here the Catholic Prep school is the best, doesn't mean it's so everywhere. They have a HUGE fundraiser in the spring at the Monastery to raise money for the school and that helps out with some of the costs, but there's still tuition.
The thing is in my county we have 6 county high schools and 1 city high school that's funded under a different school system. When we get the school report cards that show how good the school is doing, they have D's on them for our county schools. Our particular school had a 75% participation in the free lunch program the last time I noticed that and at one time the high school had a 30% drop-out rate. They're trying to change that by making it illegal to drop out before 18 but it's still a bad situation.
My point was that you don't know till you live in an area what the schools are really like and JUST IN MY CASE, the private school would be the best choice. We don't know what public school is like where this kid goes and maybe the parents had reasons for sending him where they did other than religious beliefs.

You'd think I said that aliens were running the country the way some responded, lol!

This may be a case where one fundie is finally seeing the light, and is weaning himself off the Kool-Aid. And that's a good thing.

It could have a domino effect, where others in the school start re-examining their hardline positions on other things.

Big difference. Now he's starting to think for himself, and stand up for himself. Good for him I say, the sooner he rids himself of these barbarians and their barbaric precepts, the happier he'll be.

.

run, kid! run like the wind from that crap! Dance and be happy and reject stupidity, bigotry, small-mindedness, and irrational joylessness.

I feel a remake coming on!

The movie might lose some edge.

Let's hear it for the boy!

Forgive me--for all I know, it might actually be on every website from here to Kalamazoo, but I haven't seen it.

I ask because if the policy specifically addresses off-campus activities, and if Mr. Frost accepted the policy, then I don't see how he has much basis for a lawsuit. However, the school invoke generic "morals clause," and I suppose that such a nebulous catch-all could be subject to litigation.

On the other hand, if the policy does not address off-campus activities at all, then I don't see how the school has any standing, either.

The schools website doesn't have it but has an explanation from the principal to the other parents as to why this decision was mad. It seems like the agreement might be one of those vague "cooperation agreements" to me. Look at the school site and see if you see anything.

http://www.heritagefindlay.org/index.cfm?i=6416

thought I found it but I was wrong.

Thanks for the link, though!

It gives you an idea of how vague a "statement of cooperation" can be and this is VERY similiar to what we sign in public school. I think if the school in question ever had their forms online, they've taken them off now with possible pending litigation.

http://68347.netministry.com/images/StudentApplication-Preschool.pdf

Heritage Christian School
225 Newton Street, Bridgeport, WV 26330 (304) 842-1740 FAX: (304) 842-1750
1. I understand that, as parent or guardian, I am ultimately responsible before God to
provide an education for my child(ren). Yet, another may be authorized to help me carry
out that task. I understand that Heritage Christian School is agreeing to aid in that task of
education by accepting my child(ren) for enrollment. I do commit myself to being active
in the process of education for my child(ren) and will show great interest and
involvement in the life of my child(ren) during this period of enrollment. I will be
faithful to this task.
2. I understand that spiritual growth and development is important to the education of
children. To aid my child(ren), I shall be faithful in my own life and in the activities of
my family to honor this commitment. I shall work to support the spiritual growth and
development goal of the school.
3. I understand that academic growth and development of children is vital to a suitable
education. Therefore, I will support my child(ren) by maintaining a sensitivity to their
academic progress; by providing the support, materials, and supplies needed; by engaging
directly in this task through helping with, but not doing, homework assignments; and by
working to produce the self-discipline in my child(ren) that is so vital to “being
educated.”
4. I understand that the HCS family, composed of staff, students and parents, needs my
active support and involvement during the course of this enrollment period. I understand
that my child(ren) need to be involved in the activities of the school, sometimes off the
campus, and I shall work to involve them to every extent possible.
5. I understand that it is my responsibility to be faithful to the payment schedules for tuition,
lunch, before and after school care, etc. as a means of supporting the staff, the school, and
the ministry of Christian education carried out by the school.
6. I understand that the Matthew 18 principle is mandated by scripture as the means of
restoring relationship when problems or difficulties arise. I understand that my child(ren)
will learn this process when I am faithful to model it before them. Out of obedience and
love for the Lord and my child(ren), I therefore, commit myself to the Matthew 18
process and will speak directly with the person(s) involved rather than gossiping,
complaining or grumbling about them to others.
7. I understand that prayer is essential to any work of the Lord and I will commit myself to
prayer for my child)ren, the staff, administration and Board of Heritage Christian School.
I have read the Heritage Christina School Statement of Cooperation above, and, by voluntarily
signing below, I express my agreement with its content and spirit.
________________________________________________________________________________ ________________
Parent/Guardian Signature Date
________________________________________________________________________________ ________________
Parent/Guardian Signature

Having the student take his exams separately from other students means using the resources of other teachers or administrative personnel that would normally performing other functions needed for operations.

Yes, definitely grounds for a lawsuit. :eyes:

Maybe he didn't want to be there to begin with.

I thought the subject line said porn instead of prom for a sec. :P

is governed by the contract between the school and the student and his parents/guardians. If the agreement prohibited certain behaviors then the school is within their rights to suspend him. And it may be completely irrelevant that those behavior were outside school hours and off school property - in much the same manner as employers fire employees who test positive for drug use even though said employees did not use drugs on the job.

Not defending the school here because they clearly have a stupid rule that has nothing to do with Biblical theology IMHO. Just explaining the legal context of the private school agreement.....

If you select a school based on its religious "principles" and one of those principles is that dancing and consorting with members of the opposite sex, or whatever, is immoral, then why object to living by the religion's rules outside of school hours? Is the student "principled" or not, and if not, what is he doing going to that particular school?

It is endlessly surprising how followers of organized religion become offended when they are expected to live by their own rules, while they cheerfully try to force the non-religious among them to do the same. Shut up already, find a different school, get a life. Don't bother the rest of us with this nonsense.

Better to learn about "reading the fine print" now than after finding his ass dodging IED's in Afghanistan when the recruiter told him he'd stay stateside.

Fundies suck.

Private schools can and do enforce their own rules, that's one of the things that makes them private.

Public schools make stupid rules as well but they can be appealed, challenged and eventually overturned by the courts.

A private school is a private contract entered into by choice.

If you don't like the rules, don't enter into the contract.

Somebody must have have snitched him out. I am thinking grandma.

Congratulations to young Tyler. Religion is all fine and good until it collides with real life. A lot of the time, people of faith are faced with real life dilemmas that put them at odds with their faith. Tyler could have gone along with his school's policy, and I would have respected that decision. OR, he could have sneaked away and gone to the prom, while hypocritically giving lip service to his fundamentalist education. In this situation, he publicly made a break from the school.

The "stepfather", however, doesn't get my admiration. The story is silent as to how Tyler's parent or legal guardian feels about his rebellion. Unless he's a legal guardian, I don't think Tyler's "stepfather" should have anything to say about any of this. It's really none of his business. (I don't know anything about his family life, so I can't say for sure what's going on). The parent or guardian chose to put Tyler in the school. If they don't like the rules, they can move him. You could reasonably foresee that a fundamentalist Christian school is going to have a strict policy when it comes to the mixing or the sexes (or especially of non-mixed couples). They could have mitigated their damages by sending Tyler to another school more in line with their values.

potnetial employers more than the diploma from the private school. He can get his GED if necessary. He should be able to attend a function as innocent of his girlfriend's school prom.

This kind of nonsense is a great argument against freedom of religion. Unfortunately, most people are afraid to offend these religious nut jobs.

and it's not allowed. If the student smokes off campus should he/she be suspended from school?


I say sue.

Homework is an example.

an attorney. Do you do pro bono? I've got a winner of a case.




You might have to do some homework though, and I hope your not a smoker. :smoke:

I doubt they'd win that suit. Next time, they should actually read the contract.

I've found lots of examples of these things and none of them specifically spelled out that you couldn't go to a place where girls dance in skimpy clothing as the principal stated on the school website was at issue in this case. I think it all depends on what the "statement of cooperation" says.

since a lot of the above is talking about the legal aspects of all of it.

The contract is between the parent/guardian and the school. It is not between the 17 year old and the school.

It enforces as part of the contract a good number of items that are "out of the ordinary" and religiously oriented behavior rules as well as several common items.

The item he violated is one of the "out of the ordinary" and religiously oriented ones. He stated that he "didn't think that it was wrong" indicating a disagreement with the tenets of the religious aspects of at least some part of the school and it's charter.

He has no option but to attend the school as a minor and his parent/guardian has enrolled him there.

The activity does not occur on school grounds or during school hours and does not directly impact the school in any way.

Would this not therefore then be against the 17YOs first amendment rights?

No government agent is saying he can't dance.

sounded like a fair trade to me.