This is not directly a Title IX issue, but it's good news during prom season when we seem to only hear stories about how students who are gender non-conforming have their proms marred by administrators, parents, and other students who are apparently very concerned with who gets to wear tuxes and who gets to wear dresses.
This week the first transgender student (MTF) in an American public school was crowned Prom Queen. Andii Viveros was voted Prom Queen at McFatter High School in Florida after beating out 14 other young women for the title. There was a movement to remove Viveros from the ballot, but Viveros, president of the school's GSA, wrote a speech to explain her* position.
* The article refers to Viveros with male pronouns, I chose to use female pronouns because the article mentioned that Viveros has been living as a woman for two years.
Showing posts with label prom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prom. Show all posts
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
It's prom season! Bring on the gender conformity
Prom season causes a certain amount of consternation for administrators worried about, largely, the alcohol consumption and sexual behaviors of prom goers. In recent years we have seen some school officials, though, battle another alleged social ill: girls who want to wear tuxes (and some boys who want to wear gowns). A little over a year ago Erin wrote a post with a very similar title as my own here. And this year is no exception. In Houma, Louisiana senior Monique Verdin is planning on wearing a tux to her prom. Last year she wore a men's suit to a dance--without incident. But school officials have caught wind of her plan--which isn't really a plan; she just wants to wear what she's comfortable in--and said she will not be allowed in if she wears a tuxedo. According to school policy, prom attire must be formal wear which specifically notes gowns for girls and tuxedos for boys (we should also note how this policy is not just gendered but has class implications as well). But other similar cases (and note Verdin has not filed a lawsuit; she seems to be just hoping for the best) have privileged legally protected civil rights over "tradition" (the response from a parish official). The prom is this weekend. And right now it seems school officials are adamant.* In good news, Verdin's family and friends are sticking by her. Her father has contacted a lawyer. And her friends have said they will not go into the prom until they are assured that Verdin can get in too. * Interestingly this story was published this morning and despite my repeated refreshings it seems not to have been updated. But the title of the story that appears on my internet banner in is conflict with the article title and reads: High school relents on prom tux for girl. Not sure if this is wishful thinking or if there is some internet glitch. I certainly hope it's true and that the school does not have something sneaky planned like an alternate prom.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Indiana HS OK's Girl's Tuxedo
An update on the prom story we blogged about last week: Indiana's Lebanon High School has lifted its requirement that girls wear formal dresses to the prom. The ACLU had challenged the policy in court on behalf of a lesbian client who intends to wear a tuxedo in consistency with her sexual orientation and preferred gender presentation.
Monday, March 16, 2009
It's Prom Season Again, Bring on the Lawsuits
Every year around this time it seems we get to post about a student's lawsuit challenging a school district's gender-based prom policies. This year's lawsuit targets Lebanon (Indiana) School District, which has refused to allow a lesbian student to wear a tuxedo to her high school prom. The student, represented by the ACLU, claims that the restriction violates her First Amendment right to freely express her sexual orientation, and is an illegal sex discrimination in violation of Title IX. A legal scholar quoted in the article points out that gender-based dress codes, such as those prohibiting boys from wearing earrings, have been upheld by courts, but that prom-specific dress codes have not received definitive treatment.
The fact that this policy appears to target the student because of her sexual orientation could help the ACLU distinguish it from the typical dress code case and may underscore her free expression claims in a way that a more general gender-based dress-code policy (such as one prohibiting all girls from wearing pants to school?) would not.
Moreover, as a student interviewed in the story pointed out, there is a certain irony in morals-based opposition to girls in tuxedos, which is more "conservative" attire than the often revealing and sexually-suggestive dresses that girls are allowed to wear. On the other hand, she aptly stated, "A tuxedo's not hurting anybody. Why should it matter?"
The fact that this policy appears to target the student because of her sexual orientation could help the ACLU distinguish it from the typical dress code case and may underscore her free expression claims in a way that a more general gender-based dress-code policy (such as one prohibiting all girls from wearing pants to school?) would not.
Moreover, as a student interviewed in the story pointed out, there is a certain irony in morals-based opposition to girls in tuxedos, which is more "conservative" attire than the often revealing and sexually-suggestive dresses that girls are allowed to wear. On the other hand, she aptly stated, "A tuxedo's not hurting anybody. Why should it matter?"
Friday, October 3, 2008
Court Won't Throw Out Transgender Student's Prom Dress Case
Recently a federal district court judge in Indiana refused to dismiss a lawsuit challenging a Gary, Indiana high school's decision to prohibit a male-to-female transgender student from attending the prom in a dress. We blogged about the case here, after it was filed last December. So you may recall that in his senior year at West Side High, the plaintiff, Kevin "K.K." Logan, began wearing women's clothing and accessories to school as a reflection of his gender identity. He maintains, and the school district does not deny, that his manner of dress did not cause disruption to the school and that he was largely accepted and supported by the faculty and peers. Until, that is, he was physically barred from entering the prom by the principal, Diana Rouse. She was apparently invoking School Board Policy #319, which prohibits "Clothing/accessories that advertise sexual orientation, sex, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, profanity, negative social or negative educational statements."
Logan sued the school district claiming that School Board Policy #319 is an invalid restriction on free speech protected by the First Amendment and that the application of the policy to him was discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX. The school district filed a motion to dismiss both claims, which the federal court denied. The nature of the defendant's motion did not require the court to address the legal merits of Logan's case decision, and the court did not do so. Rather, the court simply noted that the standard for dismissal for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)) is a high, and that it would be "premature" to dismiss them at this early stage of the litigation. Notably, however, regarding Logan's First Amendment claim, the court did cite language from appellate court decisions suggesting that courts should not interfere in a school's effort to enforce a disciplinary policy. However, even those cases recognize that the school's policy and its application must be tied in some way to actual discipline -- promoting order and preventing disruption. From the facts of this case, such a purpose is hard to see. After Logan's friends learned that he had been denied entry to the prom, they left the prom to sit with him in the parking lot. This suggests that the policy itself was more disruptive than the ostensible breech.
Decision is: Logan v. Gary Community Sch. Corp., 2008 WL 4411518 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 25, 2008).
Logan sued the school district claiming that School Board Policy #319 is an invalid restriction on free speech protected by the First Amendment and that the application of the policy to him was discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX. The school district filed a motion to dismiss both claims, which the federal court denied. The nature of the defendant's motion did not require the court to address the legal merits of Logan's case decision, and the court did not do so. Rather, the court simply noted that the standard for dismissal for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)) is a high, and that it would be "premature" to dismiss them at this early stage of the litigation. Notably, however, regarding Logan's First Amendment claim, the court did cite language from appellate court decisions suggesting that courts should not interfere in a school's effort to enforce a disciplinary policy. However, even those cases recognize that the school's policy and its application must be tied in some way to actual discipline -- promoting order and preventing disruption. From the facts of this case, such a purpose is hard to see. After Logan's friends learned that he had been denied entry to the prom, they left the prom to sit with him in the parking lot. This suggests that the policy itself was more disruptive than the ostensible breech.
Decision is: Logan v. Gary Community Sch. Corp., 2008 WL 4411518 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 25, 2008).
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Prom Dress Discrimination Draws First Amendment, Title IX Claims
In a recently filed lawsuit against the Gary, Indiana school district, Kevin "K.K." Logan, a high school senior, alleges that his constitutional and statutory rights were violated when his principal refused to let him enter his senior prom because he was wearing a dress.
According to the complaint filed in the Northern District of Indiana by Logan's attorneys at Lambda Legal, Logan is transgender, outwardly manifesting a feminine gender that is consistent with his identity. (The complaint refers to Logan using male pronouns, which is why I do so here.) Fortunately, Logan's teachers and peers have been accepting and supportive of his gender expression. However, on the night of his senior prom, principal Diana Rouse physically barred him from entering the banquet center where the prom was being held. Logan had reviewed high school policies in advance to ensure that there was no policy prohibiting him from wearing a dress. He had also received encouragement from the assistant principal to wear what he felt comfortable in.
Logan's complaint alleges that the principal's conduct violated his freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment. It also relies on the First Amendment to challenge the school board policy the principal was ostensibly enforcing, which prohibits students from wearing "clothing or accessories that advertise sexual orientation, sex, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, profanity, negative social or negative educational statements." Students clearly receive less protection for expressive speech and conduct than adults, as the Supreme Court's recent "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case makes clear, however, schools cannot curtail students' expression arbitrarily; they may do so only to protect the rights and safety of other students or to prevent substantial disruption of educational activities. Given the support that Logan received from his teachers, peers, and administrators other than Rouse, the potential for disruption was arguably absent here.
Logan also asserts that the principal's conduct violates Title IX's prohibition on sex discrimination, which includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes and gender expression. Recently, federal courts have tended to generously construe Title IX in favor of sex stereotyping claims, including most recently in the nearby Southern District of Indiana. Thus, I think Logan's Title IX claim is strong. In light of this, I wonder if the school district will defend the litigation -- which I can't imagine is very popular choice, given the community support for Logan -- or whether it will try to settle.
According to the complaint filed in the Northern District of Indiana by Logan's attorneys at Lambda Legal, Logan is transgender, outwardly manifesting a feminine gender that is consistent with his identity. (The complaint refers to Logan using male pronouns, which is why I do so here.) Fortunately, Logan's teachers and peers have been accepting and supportive of his gender expression. However, on the night of his senior prom, principal Diana Rouse physically barred him from entering the banquet center where the prom was being held. Logan had reviewed high school policies in advance to ensure that there was no policy prohibiting him from wearing a dress. He had also received encouragement from the assistant principal to wear what he felt comfortable in.
Logan's complaint alleges that the principal's conduct violated his freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment. It also relies on the First Amendment to challenge the school board policy the principal was ostensibly enforcing, which prohibits students from wearing "clothing or accessories that advertise sexual orientation, sex, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, profanity, negative social or negative educational statements." Students clearly receive less protection for expressive speech and conduct than adults, as the Supreme Court's recent "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case makes clear, however, schools cannot curtail students' expression arbitrarily; they may do so only to protect the rights and safety of other students or to prevent substantial disruption of educational activities. Given the support that Logan received from his teachers, peers, and administrators other than Rouse, the potential for disruption was arguably absent here.
Logan also asserts that the principal's conduct violates Title IX's prohibition on sex discrimination, which includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes and gender expression. Recently, federal courts have tended to generously construe Title IX in favor of sex stereotyping claims, including most recently in the nearby Southern District of Indiana. Thus, I think Logan's Title IX claim is strong. In light of this, I wonder if the school district will defend the litigation -- which I can't imagine is very popular choice, given the community support for Logan -- or whether it will try to settle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
