Suspended for going to prom?

[Gatorubet]

While that may be a broad prohibition, it is anything but vague. The succinctness of the statement seems to directly define where "dancing is not allowed"--i.e., everywhere. A student of a school who signs an agreement that says "dancing is not allowed, period" and then goes ahead and dances, well, he really should have expected this kind of response from a school that had him sign a form that says "dancing is not allowed."

That would certainly be an argument. I'd think that they'd have a "no I-pod" rule too. It may be that they meant, like most schools, "no I-pods during class/school" - or the very different "You will not be able to graduate if you ever listen to an I-pod ever - even away from school."

As it is more logical to assume that the I-pod rule was only an at-school prohibition, any similar language talking about dancing could reasonably be assumed to apply only to school time and location as well.

So I hear you, I just don't agree without knowing the rule, and the relation to their other rules that might have casued even a reasonable person to assume that it was only an on-campus thing. Dunno.

 

[jwinslow]

That would certainly be an argument. I'd think that they'd have a "no I-pod" rule too. It may be that they meant, like most schools, "no I-pods during class/school" - or the very different "You will not be able to graduate if you ever listen to an I-pod ever - even away from school."

If you have them, do your kids get to use this line of reasoning with your rules?

 

[BayBuck]

That would certainly be an argument. I'd think that they'd have a "no I-pod" rule too. It may be that they meant, like most schools, "no I-pods during class/school" - or the very different "You will not be able to graduate if you ever listen to an I-pod ever - even away from school."

As it is more logical to assume that the I-pod rule was only an at-school prohibition, any similar language talking about dancing could reasonably be assumed to apply only to school time and location as well.

So I hear you, I just don't agree without knowing the rule, and the relation to their other rules that might have casued even a reasonable person to assume that it was only an on-campus thing. Dunno.

Of course, it could be that their I-Pod rule is just as broad, i.e. "You cannot own or possess an I-Pod". This does not seem to be an institution that would be opposed to absolutes, and I'm guessing if they caught wind of any of their rules being broken by students, on campus or on the other side of the world, they're going to be rapping some knuckles. And frankly, I'm just surprised that a parent that would send his child to school there would then turn around and balk at their methodology. Did you not read the brochure, sir?

 

[Gatorubet]

Of course, it could be that their I-Pod rule is just as broad, i.e. "You cannot own or possess an I-Pod". This does not seem to be an institution that would be opposed to absolutes, and I'm guessing if they caught wind of any of their rules being broken by students, on campus or on the other side of the world, they're going to be rapping some knuckles. And frankly, I'm just surprised that a parent that would send his child to school there would then turn around and balk at their methodology. Did you not read the brochure, sir?

Yep. With me guessing just like everybody else, it could very likely just be a kid who did not want to walk the walk after they signed up. He could have gone to the public HS, but chose a much harder situation. If he did not like the rules after four years, he should not be whining now....unless.....

 

[Gatorubet]

If you have them, do your kids get to use this line of reasoning with your rules?

If we sit down at the dinner table and I tell him not to use his I-pod, I don't think he interprets that to mean he can't listen to it later in his room after his homework is finished.... so, yes

 

[jimotis4heisman]

lets step back from the "contract" and look at the rule. its well kind of surprising to some extent. then again to hear cinci tell the stories of osu pre-nam is well surprising...

 

[Best Buckeye]

If we sit down at the dinner table and I tell him not to use his I-pod, I don't think he interprets that to mean he can't listen to it later in his room after his homework is finished.... so, yes

I would venture that he knows he can do that after his homework is done because dad told him earlier that rule was in effect and not something he figured out on his own.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Forgive me for being less than understanding of this kid's plight. He and his family chose to attend a Christian Madras only to later become shocked (cue: Claude Rains) in discovering that the school is rigid and intolerant of the slightest divergence from their narrow, ignorant worldview. They made a willing decision to roll in the mud with the American Taliban, so I'm not terribly sorry that they've gotten a little dirty.

If there's one good thing that will come out of this, it is perhaps the hope that this kid will now begin to question the rest of the nonsense that the Christian Mullahs indoctrinated him with over the last few years and which sadly passed for an "education."

 

[Jake]

It's a private school. The rules don't violate any laws, and you know what they are going in there. They even spelled it out for him before he made his decision. Are the rules dumb? Sure, but if you choose to go there don't bitch and whine when they apply the rules to you.

If this ends up in a court room, then the parents will simply confirm the stupidity they initially demonstrated by paying money to send their kid there in the first place. As for any attorney who actually takes such a silly ass case...