• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Suspended for going to prom?

jwinslow;1464634; said:
To me, it sounds pretty straightforward. If the school forbids dancing, then they forbid dancing. Considering they probably never hold dances there, I don't think there would be much confusion over where that rule would be applied. I imagine they forbid premarital sex as well, and I doubt that's limited to school grounds.

Nah. Must be the lawyer thing. Again, when the kid agreed to attend the school, there were rules. Whatever they were, they were. It does not matter to me if they warned 17-year-old Tyler Frost that he would be suspended and prohibited from attending graduation if he went to the Saturday dance, if there wasn't a clear prohibition until it came up at the end of the year at prom time.

They can't suddenly let you know the last few weeks of school that the tuition is double what they told him when he signed up. So I would argue that they also can't suddenly make up a "no dance anywhere" rule if it was not clearly stated when he signed up- before the school got wind of his going to the public school prom.

So what I am saying is that using news reports to decide what is essentially a legal issue is a poor decision, as you almost always find several important things being spun or left out.

And I am not saying that the school was not correct. I am saying I don't have all the facts that I need to give an opinion if I were advising a client.
 
Upvote 0
Unless they just started having proms this year, I'm guessing that folks have been upset about this rule before.
They can't suddenly let you know the last few weeks of school that the tuition is double what they told you when you signed up, and I would argue that they also can't suddenly make up a "no dance anywhere" rule if it was not clearly stated when you signed up- before the school got wind of his going to the public school prom.
Unless they made up the rock music and hand-holding rules as covers, this probably wasn't a new development.
So what I am saying is that using news reports to decide what is essentially a legal issue is a poor decision, as you almost always find several important things being spun or left out.
True, but I think the news would be interested in reporting allegations that the school made up a rule all of a sudden... something the parents would certainly be vocally upset about if that were the case.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1464676; said:
Unless they just started having proms this year, I'm guessing that folks have been upset about this rule before.

Its possible that the little lemmings never tried to go to another school's dance, given the no dance rule. This guy decided to check it out.

jwinslow;1464676; said:
Unless they made up the rock music and hand-holding rules as covers, this probably wasn't a new development.

I have no dobut that some form of "no dancing" rule has always been there along with the other two. What does it say exactly?

jwinslow;1464676; said:
True, but I think the news would be interested in reporting allegations that the school made up a rule all of a sudden... something the parents would certainly be vocally upset about if that were the case.

Again, the "made up" thing is usually the school saying that their rule has always been clear. Of course they would say that. All I want is to see what it says. If it does not explicitly address off Heritage campus dancing, then Heritage can say it is covered - but I might claim it is not. :biggrin:
That is how it works.

What about "you are probably right Josh - but my warped mind can see one possible way around it" aren't you getting?:tongue2:
 
Upvote 0
Heritage Christian School

Letter to School Parents

As you probably already know, Heritage has received
a lot of local and regional attention today. If you don’t know
what I am talking about, you can read the article in today’s
courier (www.thecourier.com Read “Don’t go to the prom…”).
My guess is that many of you were bombarded at work with
questions and statements. In fact, I have had e-mails this
morning telling me that great opportunities to give the gospel
have taken place. I believe I ought to address the situation.

First, the article in the Courier is fairly accurate. What the
article leaves out are the principles behind the rules. In the
Old Testament, Joseph was in a place of temptation and he
fled. Unlike this situation, he didn’t put himself in that place.
Proverbs 4:23 says, “Keep your heart with all diligence for
out of it are the issues of life.” II Timothy 2:22 says, “Flee
also youthful lusts but follow after righteousness faith charity
and peace with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.”
When the school committee, many years before I became the
principal, set up the policy regarding dancing,** I am confident
that they had the principle of fleeing lustful situations in mind.
The question as I see it is, should a Christian place themselves
at an event where young ladies will have low cut dresses and
be dancing in them?*** Isn’t it contrary to the example of Joseph
and the verses that I stated?


Second, at the beginning of the school year, every family must
sign a statement of cooperation.* Students in 7th through 12th
grades must also sign it. It doesn’t say that you have to agree
with them, but that we will all abide by them. What kind of a
school would we be if we suspended a policy because it was
convenient to do so? That would not be a Christ-like response.
Jesus did not avoid trouble. He made statements such as, “I am
the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father
but by me” (John 14:6). His statements didn’t make Him popular
with the world. Can we expect anything else? The verses that I
have thought of throughout this day are Matthew 5:11-12,
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute
you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for
my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your
reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which
were before you.” Wow! I can build up a whole lot of rewards
in heaven today, and so can you. ****

Third, when discussing this particular issue with folks in the
community please remember that the servant of the Lord "must
not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently
enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness"
(2 Tim 2:24, 25).

Esther received great counsel from her uncle Mordecai when
he said, “And who knoweth whether thou art come into the
kingdom for such a time as this.” (Esther 4:14). This is a time
for Heritage to shine as a light in this world. It isn’t easy, but
it is right.

*Jwin, they signed something, but they don't say what, so I still can't say. :biggrin:
** It ain't me, and it there is any fallout, I am throwing prior committees under the bus.
*** Sexually repressed much?
**** If it makes them feel so much better, I sort of revile them. :p

Judges 21:21
When you see the young women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to the land of Benjamin to be your wife!

1 Samuel 18:6
When the victorious Israelite army was returning home after David had killed the Philistine, women from all the towns of Israel came out to meet King Saul. They sang and danced for joy with tambourines and cymbals.

1 Samuel 21:11
But the officers of Achish were unhappy about his being there. “Isn’t this David, the king of the land?” they asked. “Isn’t he the one the people honor with dances, singing,‘Saul has killed his thousands,and David his ten thousands’?”

Ecclesiastes 3:4
A time to cry and a time to laugh.A time to grieve and a time to dance.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
In the frame of mind I have to be be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness here is my answer Gator.
The school leaders set up the qualifications as they saw fit and all the students were required to abide by them. One has to believe that they were instructing their student as befitting their standards as anything else would not only open them up to litigation but leave them lacking in their own stead.
For those reason I can only guess that the school is acting in a righteous manner and if junior didn't want to follow those guidelines then he never should have signed.
Also if the kid and his parents didn't fully understand the agreement before they signed then maybe they should have hired a better attorney.
Signed with kindness and enduring patience ,
Best Buckeye.
 
Upvote 0
Best Buckeye;1464726; said:
In the frame of mind I have to be be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness here is my answer Gator.
The school leaders set up the qualifications as they saw fit and all the students were required to abide by them. One has to believe that they were instructing their student as befitting their standards as anything else would not only open them up to litigation but leave them lacking in their own stead.
For those reason I can only guess that the school is acting in a righteous manner and if junior didn't want to follow those guidelines then he never should have signed.
Also if the kid and his parents didn't fully understand the agreement before they signed then maybe they should have hired a better attorney.
Signed with kindness and enduring patience ,
Best Buckeye.

Well, thank you for your kindness and enduring patience BB. We can agree to disagree on whether dancing and/or opposition to the no-dancing policy is an "evil" needing to be ignored - whether patiently or not.

And I agree that we can only guess about the school being right. Which is my point. My initial guess was that the school was likely correct. But I would have thought from what is basically a PR statement by the school that they would have included the actual language disapproving the other prom. As somewhat of a cynic, I would tend to read the lack of giving up the specific language as a sign that they are not on the firmest ground. Who knows? Maybe just not a PR savy principal.

But Best, the issue (IMO) is not that whether they can issue or interpret rules "as they see fit" - whether "befitting their standards" or "in a righteous manner" - but whether the written contract, when originally signed, gave sufficient notice and guidance on the off-school no dance policy.

It is no secret that I think their outlook on religion and life to be wrong headed and silly on this issue. And I absolutely agree that they have every right and obligation to raise their kids as they see fit. And I am not insisting that my theological view is right, but it is mine and I chose to express it, even as they chose to express theirs. Since they can condemn by implication my choice in letting my son go to his ungodly prom, I feel free to state my view as well about what looks to me to be an ignorant policy. I am not a Christian fundamentalist, obviously. They are, and are paying a premium to have their kids raised as they believe. Not saying they can't follow their own religion or their own school rules. Just that they should be clear in the school rules. Maybe they were. Don't know.

And as I've repeatedly said, I will strongly support the school's stance- even though I think it wrong headed and silly - if the contract is sufficiently clear.

Thanks again for the restrained response...I guess.:)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
From here

Findlay High School requires students from other schools attending the prom to get a signature from their principal, which Frost did.

So the principal of this "school" gave his signature, yet in the letter that said principal sent out (in Gator's post) said principal wrote:

I am confident
that they had the principle of fleeing lustful situations in mind.
The question as I see it is, should a Christian place themselves
at an event where young ladies will have low cut dresses and
be dancing in them? Isn?t it contrary to the example of Joseph
and the verses that I stated
?

I wonder if giving a signature, (which to some may imply giving an approval), isn't contrary to the example that the principal is supposed to be upholding for these poor young men who will see these young women dancing?

This whole scenario is exhibit 2,398,765 in how organized religion over the many, many years has been the ruination of spirituality.
 
Upvote 0
That HS in Findlay clearly needs a transfer student.

footloose.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1464745; said:
Well, thank you for your kindness and enduring patience BB. We can agree to disagree on whether dancing and/or opposition to the no-dancing policy is an "evil" needing to be ignored - whether patiently or not.

And I agree that we can only guess about the school being right. Which is my point. My initial guess was that the school was likely correct. But I would have thought from what is basically a PR statement by the school that they would have included the actual language disapproving the other prom. As somewhat of a cynic, I would tend to read the lack of giving up the specific language as a sign that they are not on the firmest ground. Who knows? Maybe just not a PR savy principal.

But Best, the issue (IMO) is not that whether they can issue or interpret rules "as they see fit" - whether "befitting their standards" or "in a righteous manner" - but whether the written contract, when originally signed, gave sufficient notice and guidance on the off-school no dance policy.

It is no secret that I think their outlook on religion and life to be wrong headed and silly on this issue. And I absolutely agree that they have every right and obligation to raise their kids as they see fit. And I am not insisting that my theological view is right, but it is mine and I chose to express it, even as they chose to express theirs. Since they can condemn by implication my choice in letting my son go to his ungodly prom, I feel free to state my view as well about what looks to me to be an ignorant policy. I am not a Christian fundamentalist, obviously. They are, and are paying a premium to have their kids raised as they believe. Not saying they can't follow their own religion or their own school rules. Just that they should be clear in the school rules. Maybe they were. Don't know.

And as I've repeatedly said, I will strongly support the school's stance- even though I think it wrong headed and silly - if the contract is sufficiently clear.

Thanks again for the restrained response...I guess.:)
I have to agree with BB. The parent and student have to make sure they understand the agreement and ask questions until they are satisfied before they sign.
Negligence is not an excuse under the law.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1464903; said:
cute-sad-cat.jpg


Contra Proferentem Cat is sad...

I hate cats and laywers and politicians.

"The rule only applies if, and to the extent that, the clause was included at the unilateral insistence of one party without having been subject to negotiation by the counter-party."

The parent could have negotiated to strike out that portion on the agreement however it doesn't appear that they did.

Follow the agreement. Have some honor.
 
Upvote 0
BucyrusBuckeye;1464905; said:
I hate cats and laywers and politicians.
Take a number... :biggrin:

BucyrusBuckeye;1464905; said:
The parent could have negotiated to strike out that portion on the agreement however it doesn't appear that they did.

Follow the agreement. Have some honor.

You appear to be assuming that the agreement said "You can't go to any dance at any other school while at Heritage" or some such thing. If it just said, "Dancing is not allowed", it is vague. And it's fine to maintain that the kid and his folks have to think of every possible interpretation of that phrase and clarify it prior to signing, but the law does not agree. Both parties have duties, to be sure, but the party with the greatest opportunity to control the document's meaning is the actual drafter of the document, and therefore any ambiguities are held against the party who drafted the language that is unclear.

Honor includes knowing that if your actions helped create a misunderstanding, you accept some blame too. I still have no idea about the facts or the language they agreed to. I am merely saying that there could be another side. If the langauge is reasonably clear, I am with you and I'd expect the kid to abide by his parents' signing the contract.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1464914; said:
If it just said, "Dancing is not allowed", it is vague.

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."
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top