Culture & Lifestyle

Rant

Grow Up and Take Responsibility: HS Senior Banned from Prom

Posted 12 months ago|23 comments|802 views
Written by
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
Why would anyone want to be involved with high school education these days? Have you heard the latest controversy being fired up by FOXNews Nation? A Connecticut high school senior has been banned from attending prom by the head of school after he trespassed on school property at night and vandalized the school by taping up a giant "will you go to prom with me" message to his girlfriend on the side of the school – granted, there have been no reports that the message made from 12-inch cardboard letters did permanent damage. (source) The student, James Tate, of Shelton High School, is being turned into a cult hero who did nothing wrong and just wanted to impress his girlfriend. Plenty of adults in the community are siding with the young man saying they're not sure the punishment fits the crime. (source)

This scenario is text book when it comes to the inane and idiotic things students are doing today at school and the problems on which teachers and school administrator are having to waste time. When I was a school administrator, I used to ask students a simply question when they weren't sure if something they were going to do was wrong or not, – and honestly, kids and young adults are not always sure – "If you came and asked me for permission, what do you think I would say?" Did Tate ask himself this question? If he thought this was just fine, why not have gone in and asked for permission first. Could it be he didn't think his request would be approved? And why wouldn't the school have authorized a student to tape up giant letters with a private and personal message on the wall? Is it that difficult to figure it out? Supposedly, he is a very intelligent young man who will be attending Syracuse University in the fall. Really? He's so smart he cannot figure out why a school wouldn't want students trespassing at night, in the dark, taping up letters to the side of the building? Wow? It's hard to determine who's at fault in this case. Is the the student or the education he was given?

FOXNews, of course, is running a poll as to whether people thing the punishment of being banned from attending his senior prom fits the crime. Well, they should start by asking what are the fines and penalties in Connecticut for trespassing on and vandalism of public property? Because the head of school decided not to bring in the law and turn this into a criminal matter – James, by the way, is 18 years old and a legal adult who would have to face the full weight and attention of the law. Rather than have him arrested and charged, the head of school chose a different route probably thinking she was doing him a great favor. How did Mr. Tate respond? He and his family responded by allowing themselves to become crusaders for a very bad cause – allowing privileged miscreants to do whatever they please and think it's just fine. Rather, the head of school should have called the police and allow Mr. Tate to be on the front page of the news after being bailed out of jail by his well-to-do parents. That certainly would have been a better solution given the circumstances. It's stunning to see the reaction of people who actually write and work to justify this student's actions. "Oh, it was cute." "He was just trying to make an impression." How about buy an ad in the local paper? How about take her to a Red Sox game and have them flash the invite up on the scoreboard? How about any of 10,000 ways people have thought of that would have involved the committing of several crimes and all this controversy? Worse, rather than simply admitting you did something wrong, dangerous, and illegal, you ignite a national firestorm trying to justify what you did and prove that the school is too harsh for not turning you over red handed to the law and filing charges against you for criminal mischief, vandalism, and trespassing? Rather than being contrite and honest, the kinds of things that make schools, teachers, and administrators proud, you turn around and blame the school for your idiocy. Are these the kinds of young people who will be inheriting America in three generations? Is this the kind of kid who grows up to be the next governor of Connecticut? Sure, maybe in the giant, grand scheme of things, what James Tate did isn't the worst. He may not have done long-term damage. And, guess what, being banned from Prom is a lot less damaging to a student's psyche than graduation which a lot of schools use as the stick to keep high school seniors on the straight and narrow for the last two months of school. James Tate got off easy, and anyone who thinks differently has never worked in a modern public or independent high school. He should take his punishment like an adult and serve it with grace and dignity not by trying to raise a banner of injustice. He's lucky he lives in an age where parents and even administrators believe in the concept of good, old-fashioned fun. In the old days he would have simply been expelled – done and done.
UPDATE - 12 months ago
Follow - Up Posted on 18 May 2011

The principal has changed her mind and decided to allow the boy to attend his prom. Yippee! Now he's learned another bad thing, cry to the press, and you'll get your way even though you're the one in the wrong.

Secondly, a New Hampshire mother is all upset because her 13-year old daughter was suspended for 5 days for making a post on Facebook®. What did she write? Oh nothing, just something like she had hoped that Osama bin Laden would kill her math teacher. How harsh. A 5-day suspension for making a public, posted threat against your teacher. Wow. The mother's defense of her child rests on the idea that it's not the school's business, she posted the note from her home computer. How crazy is this mother. Were I the principal, not only would I have expelled the student for making threats against a teacher's life, I would have turned the matter over to the police. If I were the teacher, I would be filing a lawsuit against the parents and having a restraining order put out on the chilld. Sorry, what bubble does this woman live in that plenty of 13-year olds have come to school with guns and killed teachers and kids? It's time to wake up America.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
12 months ago: Hmmmm. It seems to me that the approach you are suggesting is attempting to reduce following the rules to an autonomic activity without independent thought or a critical approach.

Asking permission for every action is an interesting approach that seems to preclude the possibility that there can be a divergence of opinion on what is reasonable or acceptable. It also seems to preclude the possibility that the person being asked to give permission is capable of making a mistake.

This young man engaged in an activity that harmed no one and damaged nothing. In terms of the safety issue that seems to be in question, I wonder if the school absolutely without exceptions ensures the safety of the students on campus during school hours - I doubt it as it would be impossible to deliver.

It seems that the administration of the school applied a very harsh penalty to an offense that doesn't measure up. Imposing arbitrary and harsh punishment is easy. Imposing punishments that teach (this is a school) and help to enlighten is much harder.

As to the threat of criminal legal repercussions, perhaps it would have been better if the administrator had agreed to do so. I suspect that the local DA would be rather reluctant to clutter the criminal process with a legal proceeding. If that had happened, I believe the administration would have a difficult time imposing punishment for an act the criminal justice system deemed acceptable.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Obviously, a school cannot have students sneaking onto campus as night and posting messages on the walls.

This was not an arbitrary punishment, it was one that fits the crime. Trespass and vandalize a school and you miss out on prom. That actually seems like a very sensible punishment to me. It also sends a strong message to the student body that pranks won't be tolerated – but without long term repercussions such as a criminal record and transcript issues. It's much less harsh that banning the student from graduation ceremonies.

Whether the DA has time to prosecute or not? Wow, so now that's the litmus test for whether to charge someone with a crime? Great!

The point is, this student is not seven years old. If he cannot figure out what's right or wrong, he could ask. I'm sorry, you don't see that as a possibility. I suppose you might prefer the "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission types." Well, too bad.
12 months ago: "This young man engaged in an activity that harmed no one and damaged nothing. In terms of the safety issue that seems to be in question, I wonder if the school absolutely without exceptions ensures the safety of the students on campus during school hours - I doubt it as it would be impossible to deliver."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I admit this particular young man got lucky, However what if he had fallen there in the dark? It is a simple liability issue. Defacing private property? this time it was an easily removable tape up job but next time it may be something much harder to erase. Who pays for that?

And yes I am sure the school strives to ensure the students saftey absolutely and without exception during all hours, simply because the community would blame them if anything were to happen to their precious albeit thoughtless progeny.

When is denying a dance a harsh punishment? maybe 30 days in the clink would have been less harsh.
12 months ago: Defacing private property? this time it was an easily removable tape up job but next time it may be something much harder to erase. Who pays for that?

I think the core issue in the above statement is that there was NO DAMAGE. As for "next time", I don't think it is reasonable under any circumstances to start imposing punishment on people with a view of speculating about what might happen in another instance down the road.

If you are caught speeding, is the punishment designed based on the assumption or expectation that next time you might go much faster and cause someone harm. No. The punishment for doing that is reserved for if/when you actually do it.

12 months ago:
This was not an arbitrary punishment, it was one that fits the crime.

I'm not so certain about that statement. According to the information in the media, he had the assistance of 2 other students. They made no effort to hide their actions and the accomplices willingly admitted their involvement. That does not sound like a group of individuals who truly expected to face this degree of punishment or even the possibility of it.

I classify an arbitrary punishment as one that is not clearly or reasonably defined in advance.

Content Removed by Edward P
12 months ago: While this is a minor infraction, it did move the public to debate what is considered just or unjust punishment by actions committed. Public opinion should be considered when creating and enforcing rules, laws and punishment. If these decisions are left solely with the "Powers that be" then people cease to be citizens and become subjects of imperial rule. America was formed as a nation "of the people, for the people and by the people" therefore the public should be entitled to debate rules, laws and punishment they deem excessive, or conversely, lacking in purpose and intent.

In this instance, a one to three day suspension seems more warranted than attendance denial to the prom. Many high school seniors view this date as important and a milestone event culminating a life-time of education and achievements to that point in their young lives prior to truly stepping into the realm of becoming responsible adults. I was extremely popular in high school, however I didn't find it necessary to attend my prom, but I feel this opportunity should not be denied him which, if allowed, would potentially diminish the one in a lifetime experience for his date as well.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: I have no problem with the kid getting banned from prom. If he actually did that of which he is accused, he committed multiple offenses. At a minimum he committed criminal trespass and vandalism. I would also tend to believe that what he did would be actionable under most states' "criminal mischief" statutes.

This is not a kindergarten-age boy kissing a little girl - which was handled under anti-sexual harassment regulations. Neither was it a 1st grade boy holding a fish stick and making "bang bang" noises - that was punished under the district's zero-tolerance-for-guns policy.

No! This miscreant sneaked onto school grounds after dark and defaced public property. He SHOULD have been suspended AND turned over to the D.A. for prosecution.

Re Edward's inane
"That does not sound like a group of individuals who truly expected to face this degree of punishment or even the possibility of it."
It doesn't matter what the miscreants "expected". They committed multiple prosecutable offences and got off with a minor slap on the wrist. Missing prom beats the heck outta starting a criminal record! How loud do you think they would have screamed about THAT come time to apply to college?

FTB13. Public opinion be damned. This should not be open for debate. All three of them should have been banned from prom, suspended (if not expelled and told to try again next year) and a criminal complaint filed so they could be prosecuted/punished. PERIOD!
12 months ago: Fortunately BadCyborg we live in America where your opinion counts, but cannot squelch the public's legal right to debate laws and issues. These are the principles that empowered our forefathers to break away from the tyranny of such anal rigidity of autocratic rule that would seek to damn public opinion of subjects by small minded dictators who live to impose their will on others.

With what you wrote above, it sounds like you would be on the side of the British in the American War of Independence,instead of the colonists because the colonists broke British laws they found unjust. Thankfully America was born by people who felt they had reasonable intelligence to stand up against tyrannical autocracy that does not permit the people to voice their opinions.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
Content Removed by BadCyborg
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago:
"it sounds like you would be on the side of the British in the American War of Independence"
You could not be more mistaken regarding my beliefs.
There is nothing unjust about the school's regulations. Nor are statutes regarding criminal trespass, vandalism of a school or criminal mischief. All are entirely constitutional and proper. School policy is set by the ELECTED school board. In what way is that "autocratic"?
"Thankfully America was born by people who felt they had reasonable intelligence to stand up against tyrannical autocracy"

Are you truly comparing this to the conditions obtaining in the 1770's?? Read the Declaration of Independence. THEN tell me this is in any wise comparable. If yo still believe that the comparison is apt then you, sir, are a FOOL - both in the common sense and the Biblical sense.
12 months ago: In the 1770s the prevailing conditions were certainly more broadly based than the one referenced in the current situation.

However, the comments made are accurate. Your position is to adhere to the rules specifically, without exception or accept the most severe punishments those rules prescribe without variation.

That is the concept that is being addressed. It would seem that you wish to apply a variable application of laws that is sensitive to context and conditions - ie the Revolutionary War and declare the laws that the revolutionaries technically violated were unjust. However, when, in your opinion, the individuals in the story at hand 'violate the law' then you want them held totally accountable.

Is it possible that you are putting yourself in exactly the position that the 18th Century British put themselves - a position to determine when, how, and upon whom the laws would apply?
12 months ago: School policy is set by the ELECTED school board. In what way is that "autocratic"?

Were the students who are directly affected by the policies established by the board afforded input into the election of the representatives or allowed to elect representatives to sit on the board. Isn't that directly analogous to the situation in 1770? - "no taxation without representation"

Just to let you know, I am simply being excessively churlish at this point. I do in fact respect your position, I simply don't agree with it.
12 months ago: Ok. Badcyborg - my comments about whether or not the individuals expected the type of punishment they received was expected was mad in reference to Coloranter Raver's comments about checking to see if something was permissible.

I have a scenario to present and would like some feedback as I believe this is perhaps more relevant to the situation presented.

As I approached my 40th birthday with some trepidation, I made it clear that I did not want any big deal or any grand gestures. Of course, when I woke up on the morning of my birthday, I glanced out the front window as I made my way to the kitchen to put on coffee and low and behold, 40 pink flamingos adorned my front lawn with a large sign with the balloons attached that proclaimed "Lordy, Lordy, look whose 40!"

Fortunately, I took it in very good humour (yes I spelled humour correctly as I am in Canada), had I not taken it in good humour, would I have been justified in having the company, individuals, and friend who arranged it charged with trespass, damage to my property (lawn), violation of my privacy rights (disclosing my birthday), and whatever else I could think of. Oh and by the way, when I got to work, I found that my colleagues had decorated my office for the occasion as well.

It seems to me that the situation with this teenager is somewhat similar to the one I have described. I am a firm believer in consistency in the application of laws and rules. How do you see a consistent application of laws, rules, or the concept of appropriate behaviour in this regards?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: It was your choice - as home owner - to prosecute or not. You elected not to. It was the Principal's right to apply the rules or not and he chose to do so. As representative of the property owners it was well within the Principal's purview to file a criminal complaint. They chose not to do so.

For the record, I papered my High School band Director's house - TWICE. It was a tradition that if the band won Sweepstakes (a top ranking in marching, concert and sight reading competitions) the band members were INVITED to paper his house - as friendly payback for all the hours of browbeating, cajoling and near emotional abuse we "suffered" on the road to winning. After we finished papering the house, we were invited in for hot chocolate and reading of the judges' comments. The next morning we were all out there before school started cleaning it up.

My senior year someone wrote in to the Newspaper about the "young hooligans" who papered someone's house. The director's wife answered with a scathing reply that totally shut the original writer down.

I would point out two glaring differences between the occurrence in 1969 (yes, I am THAT old) and the recent one.
1) We carried out our little "prank" on PRIVATE PROPERTY not on public property.
2) WE WERE INVITED! The miscreants in Conn. were not.

As I said earlier if you cannot see the difference and you continue to maintain that the Principal's actions were IN ANY WAY COMPARABLE to those of the British Crown in the 1770's then you, sir, are a fool - a world class fool at that - in every sense of the word.

Tell me, are you in ANY capable of critical thinking?
12 months ago: I did not at any time suggest the actions of the principal were comparable to that of the British Crown. that was an inference you made.

Please note, the school in question is an independent school, so technically it is private property - not public.

As to the invitation, there could legitimately be some question as to whether or not the "miscreants" have a de facto invitation as they are students who attend the independent school through tuition that has been paid thereby affording them some access rights -- yes I know that may be something of a stretch, but hey, it does make for interesting debate.

12 months ago: BC, I'm the one who is all for public opinion and debAte, you are the one that wrote "public opinion be damned" which in context means the public should not be able to go against the powers that be.

While you may feel that PTA's don't work to establish guidelines with administrative officials, they do actually participate in this process... if this were too occur only by the administration, it would be an autocratic process. However, it appears that you and I will always be at an impasse on this issue because I'm all in favor of the publics legal right to be part of the governing process.

I will leave you with this thought though:

opinions are like butt-holes, everybody has one... even simpletons who think public opinion doesn't matter, only their opinion should count. Thank you for proving this point all to well.

Please know I don't mean this to sound terribly sarcastic, but, even though we don't agree, somehow I'll pick up the shattered pieces of my life and go on.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago:
" you are the one that wrote "public opinion be damned" which in context means the public should not be able to go against the powers that be."
Not at all. I believe that we have EVERY right to resist the powers that be. But public opinion is irrelevant here. The miscreants broke established policy and received appropriate punishment.

I believe that PTA's do and should have input into school policy. If they believe current policy is too strict, then they are duty bound to attempt to get it changed. BUT they have no business attempting to get the policy changed RETROACTIVELY. That is very much the opinion I said should be damned. Oh, and unlike you I don not "feel" this, I believe it.

Where here did I say that the public has no part in setting public policy? And where in this did I write that I believe that my opinion is the only one that should count?

Coming from a fool of a progressive/statist, your characterizing me as a "simpleton" is high praise indeed. As Kurt Hoffman over at Armed and Safe (armedandsafe.blogspot.com) once wrote
"I believe that being despised by the despicable is as good as being admired by the admirable."
Of course there is on HUGE gap between us, sir. You are a SUBJECT. I am a CITIZEN. My rights were bestowed upon me by my Creator at my birth and cannot be taken away - even if they are violated. The founders of MY country believed that as a FREE MAN - as opposed to a SUBJECT - I have both the RIGHT and the DUTY to resist tyrannical government - with deadly force if needs be. And if even 3% of the gun owners were to rise up, we would have a 30 to 1 numerical advantage over the troops at the pointy end of the spear.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, bub!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Wow a lot of comments. Basically, the school gave the young man a life sentence. They didn't do him any favors. Now he gets to go through his entire life having been banned from his high school prom with his date, a once in a lifetime experience. It would have been better to have prosecuted him through the normal channels, let the boy do restitution fitting the crime, and get on with his life.

I don't see how this "creative" punishment is in any way valid. If they are allowed to "just make it up as they go along", where will it end?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago:
"Basically, the school gave the young man a life sentence. They didn't do him any favors. Now he gets to go through his entire life having been banned from his high school prom with his date, a once in a lifetime experience."
Ah, Box, you ARE being facetious, aren't you? If being banned from prom is the worst thing that ever happens to this youngster, he will have led a charmed life, indeed. As for getting on with his life, he's free to do that now.

Do you REALLY believe that such a penalty is so grave as to scar this young man for life? Really!?!?

I think he should have been turned over to the authorities for the offenses he committed AS WELL AS being banned from prom. But then my wife and daughter disagree with me also.

I am a law and order kind of guy. Rules and orders are to be followed - so long as they do not require me to do anything illegal, immoral or unethical. Life is a lot easier that way. But that is NOT the same as "going along to get along". If I were a committed Christian and the law prohibited me worshipping more than once per week, I would gladly disobey that law. Just as if tomorrow the Congress passed a bill that essentially nullified the 2nd amendment, when they came for my firearms, I would surrender them one round at a time. Since I have around 800 rounds that can penetrate any body armor made under 50 yards, it might take a while for that "surrender" to be effected.

I do not agree with disobeying the law or rebelling against the established government over trivial matters. I remember what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, "when a long chain of abuses . . .". I would do my duty then.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Would anyone here recommend the punishment of people who put "yard sale", "lost dog". etc. signs on private property? I.E. utility poles?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
Content Removed by BadCyborg
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago:
"Would anyone here recommend the punishment of people who put "yard sale", "lost dog". etc. signs on private property? I.E. utility poles?"

{proudly raises hand} Damned skippy I would! It's only a misdemeanor, most likely punishable by fine only. No difference between that and tagging. So, hell yeah! Punish them to the full extent of the law if there are statutes covering on the books proscribing such actions. Anybody who knowingly breaks the law and LEAVES THEIR ADDRESS deserves to be punished - if for nothing else than criminal stupidity.
Crusty old cuss, ain't I? And getting worse by the day. Thinking about having "Nemo me impune lacessit" (nobody messes with me for free) tattooed on my right arm just below the shoulder. Look it up here http://tinyurl.com/ybo6vad
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Well, Mr. Law and Order, how many Saturdays have you spent doing your duty by reporting such vandalism to the authorities and demanding the laws be enforced? It would be a boon to your town's economy to suddenly start arresting the hundreds of garage sale operators and fining them for putting unsightly fliers and even STAPLES on privately and/or publicly owned utility poles.

These people, your neighbors, are common criminals, and should be treated as such. Yes?
amishking
amishking
 Moderator
Auburn, NY
12 months ago: I saw a pic of the girl who was asked to prom. I wouldn't have broken into a school to ask her out. I bet the kid had a phone in his pocket, he could have called her and asked her out. It probably would have worked, too.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: RE: update

Good, glad the youngster gets to go to prom. Now he needs to be prosecuted and punished fitting the crime. I'm thinking 4 weekends of community service should do the trick.

As for the girl who made a lame statement on facebook. She wasn't threatening the teacher's life. To say she hope bin Laden killed her teacher would be akin to saying she hoped a meteor would land on her, or hoped she would get hit by beer truck.
Does that school administration really believe Osama bin Laden is actually reading children's facebook pages and granting them wishes, like some sort of macabre Santa Clause? Apparently they do.

I guess now telling someone to "go to Hell" or "go jump off a cliff" will be illegal, because Hell means the grave and jumping off a cliff is dangerous. That's a death threat, yes?
"The thought police, they live inside of my head,
"The thought police, they're painting everything red,
"The thought police they're coming to arrest me, oh no."

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.