From Yahoo News:

A student at a fundamentalist Baptist school that forbids dancing, rock music, hand-holding and kissing will be suspended if he takes his girlfriend to her public high school prom, his principal said. Despite the warning, 17-year-old Tyler Frost, who has never been to a dance before, said he plans to attend Findlay High School's prom Saturday. Frost, a senior at Heritage Christian School in northwest Ohio, agreed to the school's rules when he signed a statement of cooperation at the beginning of the year, principal Tim England said. The teen, who is scheduled to receive his diploma May 24, would be suspended from classes and receive an "incomplete" on remaining assignments, England said.

Comments

Search

wezlo  - ugh..   |2009-05-10 17:09:54 Quote: England acknowledged signing the form but warned Frost there would be consequences if he attended the dance. England then took the issue to a school committee made up of church members, who decided to threaten Frost with suspension. Umm, I don't encourage Christians suing each other - but the principal has got to know that in signing that permission slip he's opened up a can of legal worms if he does anything to this student. Quote: The handbook for the 84-student Christian school says rock music "is part of the counterculture which seeks to implant seeds of rebellion in young people's hearts and minds." As opposed to setting up insanely restrict rules, granting permission to do go to an event that is clearly out of the school's jurisdiction, and then turning around and rescind that permission with the threat of ruining this kid's senior year (and perhaps) his college plans. Yah, they aren't sowing the seeds of rebellion at all.

Entity   |2009-05-11 09:59:08 That permission slip is a problem for the school. The principal never should have signed if he wanted to stop the kid from going to the prom. However, perhaps the permission slip is supposed to be signed unless the kid is already suspended, is a known troublemaker, or some other criteria that would not have applied. As for the school's rules, I don't have a problem with them. Yes, they are restrictive by my views, but most of the parents who sent their children there probably believe otherwise. They weren't forced to send their children there, so agreement with the rules are voluntary. Many people think the celibacy requirement for priests is restrictive, but these guys were not forced to become priests. To become a priest, they voluntarily took this vow. To attend this school, they voluntarily signed this agreement. Failure to live up to the agreement is grounds for dismissal. If the principal lets the student out of the agreement, then it becomes the principal's problem.

laika   |2009-05-11 10:25:40 Entity wrote: Yes, they are restrictive by my views, but most of the parents who sent their children there probably believe otherwise. They weren't forced to send their children there, so agreement with the rules are voluntary. yup. presumably, the family wasn't forced at gun point to enter in to agreement with the school's rules. if going to the prom is really that important to the student, i say go, accept the consequences of your choice, take your GED and go on about your life.

Entity   |2009-05-11 10:51:06 I believe the gunpoint thing only comes into play should he get her pregnant at prom.

PerpetualAgnostic   |2009-05-12 23:37:56 To be fair, if he can get her pregnant at the prom, then his school probably is right about the dancing thing.

CoffeeZombie   |2009-05-12 09:37:20 Yeah, I wonder what signing the form was about. Regardless, this was a school the parents' chose, and the kid had signed a form agreeing to the rules beforehand. Besides, if prom is anything like I remember in high school, he wouldn't be missing much. It's really not worth going through this; he'll just be bored most of the night.

wezlo   |2009-05-12 14:41:04 I have no problem with the school making rules that have to be followed at the school. Heck, I went to a Mennonite High School, we didn't have a prom, we had a banquet. What concerns me is that these are rules that are being enforced FAR beyond the boundaries of the School - which makes no sense whatsoever...

Entity   |2009-05-12 14:50:38 At my university, they implemented a "Code of Student Conduct" where one could be suspended or expelled for offenses that happened off-campus. Minor offenses were restricted to a radius of 10 or so miles. Major offenses had no geographic restriction. This was a public university and there was no document we signed to agree to the new rules. My Catholic high school prevented about a number of kids from going to their graduation ceremony because they had attended a house party where underage drinking led to about $30,000 worth of damage. Both schools expected their students to be good ambassadors of the school even off school grounds. Attending school, particularly a private or parochial school, is a privilege and schools should be allowed to cut ties with students they feel do not represent the school properly, whether it be on or off campus.

CoffeeZombie  - re:   |2009-05-12 15:28:41 wezlo wrote: What concerns me is that these are rules that are being enforced FAR beyond the boundaries of the School - which makes no sense whatsoever... I don't see anything wrong with the school having rules that extend beyond the school boundaries. If it were a public school, where you're legally required to attend, then, yeah, that would be crack. In this case, though, it's a private school; the parents chose to put the kid there, everyone knew the rules. You know, it's kind of like an employer including as a condition of your employment that you can't take a side job working for a competitor. If they're clear about this up front, I really have no argument if I get caught doing it; I agreed to that condition. Honestly, the only thing that even makes this story interesting is that the principle did sign the permission form for the kid to go to the prom, then turned around and said "you can't go."

Entity  - re: re:   |2009-05-12 15:50:48 CoffeeZombie wrote: You know, it's kind of like an employer including as a condition of your employment that you can't take a side job working for a competitor. If they're clear about this up front, I really have no argument if I get caught doing it; I agreed to that condition. I believe EDS under Ross Perot had numerous restrictions on employees, including not going to bars.

metallurge  - re: re:   |2009-05-12 18:03:44 CoffeeZombie wrote: I don't see anything wrong with the school having rules that extend beyond the school boundaries. If it were a public school, where you're legally required to attend, then, yeah, that would be crack. In this case, though, it's a private school; the parents chose to put the kid there, everyone knew the rules. Actually, there is another angle to this. At 17, the student is not exactly a minor, and has his own rights regardless of whatever contract his parent entered into with the school. For example, at 17, he could legally move out, drop out, and reenroll at a school near wherever he moves to. Without his parents' permission. I happen to know, having helped navigate the system on behalf of an "unaccompanied" 17-year-old whom we opened our home to a couple years back. This set of laws was originally designed to protect kids in an abusive home situation, but is not limited to that scenario. So, it is not quite so cut-and-dried as it might first appear.

CoffeeZombie   |2009-05-13 11:07:50 I'm going off of this bit: Quote: Frost, a senior at Heritage Christian School in northwest Ohio, agreed to the school's rules when he signed a statement of cooperation at the beginning of the year, principal Tim England said. Now, unless he wasn't 17 when he signed this, it seems to me he made an agreement he doesn't want to keep. Honestly, if what you're saying is true in this situation (is this a state or federal law?), assuming Mr. Frost was 17 at the beginning of the year, then that only strengthens my argument, IMO. Regardless, again, since this is a private school, I think the school is fully within their rights. And yes, if he doesn't like it, he can drop out and find a different school. I doubt he'd want to do that anyway. Of course, frankly, if their prom is anything like what people my age had as a "prom" (at least, from every story I've heard, and from my own prom), it's just not worth any of this trouble. He'd be better off going bowling that night, anyway.

emperorbma   |2009-05-13 11:26:16 Quote: (at least, from every story I've heard, and from my own prom), it's just not worth any of this trouble. He'd be better off going bowling that night, anyway. You poor soul. I eschewed the prom entirely. (Of course, being an introvert helped with that, I guess... some people just like socializing or something)

CoffeeZombie   |2009-05-13 13:55:03 Yes, I'm an introvert, too, which is probably part of why I never enjoyed school dances. That's probably also partly why, when my sis-in-law turned 21 and asked me where some good bars were, I responded, "well, you see, my idea of a good time is sitting on my front porch with a glass of whiskey". Anyway, as I recall, the reason I went to prom was that there was this girl I liked...

wezlo   |2009-05-13 09:27:26 You forgot to add, "And if you go [after I signed the form] then you'll be suspended and given incompletes for your final semester in HS and won't graduate..."

SteveGus   |2009-05-14 11:17:37 "Rules are RULES!!!, and any exception just opens the floodgates of Anarchy!" The fact that young people are still figuring out where they are coming from, or that life sometimes takes unexpected twists, must never be taken into account. They made a commitment, damn it! If this kind of thinking applied on a larger scale, there'd be no hope for any of us. Christians ought not to operate this way; we should treat our neighbors with the same grace that we have been given. I gather that taking a social or political stand against the excesses of the larger culture is more important in the school administration's eyes. Even so, the best thing they could have done is to have pretended not to know about any of this.

PinocchiosFurniture  - Right Decision   |2009-05-10 20:43:49 The young MR. Frost is making the right decision and exposing the school's cult-like behavior and hypocrisy in the process. I applaud young Mr. Frost and can only counter by encouraging him to attend the college of his choice by way of a GED. He'll be glad he did.

PerpetualAgnostic   |2009-05-12 23:39:43 What about it is cultish?

wezlo   |2009-05-13 09:26:13 The "don't associate with outside culture" part...

emperorbma   |2009-05-13 11:31:03 Well, to a certain extent all of Christianity espouses this sentiment, more or less, considering we're to be "in the world but not of the world." I'm sure the Romans imagined Emperor worship to be the "cultural norms," and Christians had no qualms risking their own lives to reject that. Of course, there's the extremes of anti-culturalism as we see with this school and even the early Church Fathers didn't eschew culture entirely...

wezlo   |2009-05-13 13:34:26 "In the world" actually states that association is happening...

Entity   |2009-05-13 13:45:18 I don't see anything saying that the students can't hang out with kids from other schools. He isn't being threatened with suspension for having a girlfriend from another school. But just because my 5yo daughter's friends dress like teens and play with Bratz dolls doesn't mean that I have to let her. Which reminds me, that gauzy babydoll Barbie nightee that grandma thought was appropriate for my little girls has to go.

CoffeeZombie   |2009-05-13 13:46:20 So what about monks? Hermits? How are they "in the world but not of the world" by that definition?

holmegm  - re:   |2009-05-13 15:53:47 CoffeeZombie wrote: So what about monks? Hermits? How are they "in the world but not of the world" by that definition? And let it be noted, this school is not a remote monastery. It most definitely is in the world, and is remaining visibly different from the world (which it couldn't do if it were truly hiding from the world) by refusing to share the world's values. I'm not saying that they are or aren't doing that well, just that this is what they are trying to do. Which sounds a lot more scriptural to me than what most people seem to mean by "in but not of the world".

CoffeeZombie  - re: re:   |2009-05-13 17:21:43 holmegm wrote: And let it be noted, this school is not a remote monastery. It most definitely is in the world, and is remaining visibly different from the world (which it couldn't do if it were truly hiding from the world) by refusing to share the world's values. I'm not so sure that I would say monasteries are really "out of the world," myself, which is part of why I specifically used that example in my question.

wezlo   |2009-05-13 20:11:46 A monastery out of the world doesn't make sense...

emperorbma   |2009-05-13 21:46:44 Great, now I just imagined space monks...

CoffeeZombie   |2009-05-13 22:13:56 Right, which is kinda my point...how would a monastery fit into what you said, ""In the world" actually states that association is happening..."?

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-05-14 00:34:15 I'm just hearing a resounding "Captain Simeon and the Space Monks....." it's catchy...

bigbenaugust   |2009-05-14 16:55:16 Do we have a new buyer in the Church for the ISS when NASA can't keep it going anymore? hmmm... space monastery...

holmegm   |2009-05-14 12:00:29 Sigh ... forget the monastery. Or remember it. Or focus on it to ignore the rest of what I typed.  Whatever :) Bad comparison on my part. The point is, the school is in the world, and trying to remain visibly different from it. It's not withdrawing from it in some cultish fashion. Which is a problem to you guys, because ... why? That's what I'm tying to figure out.

CoffeeZombie   |2009-05-14 12:10:43 Well, I was just objecting to the implication that a monastery is not in the world. Aside from that, yes, I agree with you. I don't see what's cultish here.

holmegm  - re:   |2009-05-14 13:36:18 CoffeeZombie wrote: Well, I was just objecting to the implication that a monastery is not in the world. Yeah; nevermind that. That was dumb of me. I'm not sure where it came from :p

Only registered users can write comments!

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."