Most Expensive Prom in History

By now, everybody has probably heard about Constance McMillen being sent to a fake prom while the real one was going on elsewhere.

'Everybody', I trust, includes Judge Glen Davidson, who on March 23 denied the preliminary injunction sought by McMillen. Judge Davidson found that McMillen's case met three of the four requirements, but not the fourth--the 'public interest' test:

...the Court is of the opinion that its failure to grant an injunction in this instance does not disserve the public interest. Defendants testified that a parent sponsored prom which is open to all IAHS students has been planned and is scheduled for April 2, 2010. Though the details of the "private" prom are unknown to the Court, Defendants have made representations, upon which this Court reilies, that all IAHS students--including the Plaintiff--are welcome and encouraged to attend....

You know, judges tend to be a little bit sensitive about parties telling outright lies in their courtrooms. It's just one of those quirky judge things.

In the conclusion of Judge Davidson's opinion:

This case remains active and Plaintiff, is [sic] she so desires, will be permitted to amend her Complaint to seek compensatory damages and any other appropriate relief.

I sure hope they got their money's worth.

T-Shirts, Homobigots, and the ACLU

Yesterday's WSJ had a piece by Wendy Kaminer blasting the ACLU for failing to defend the free speech rights of religious bigots. I'm not going to comment on the Kaminer's feud with the ACLU leadership (I don't know enough about it) or the imprudence of airing it on the WSJ editorial pages (which is too obvious for comment).

I will comment on the case she cites, because I wrote about it last year. The lawsuit involved a high school kid, Tyler Chase Harper, who was prohibited from wearing a t-shirt reading "Be ashamed, our school embraced what God has condemned" (on the front) and "Homosexuality is shameful" (on the back). Kaminer sees this (apparently) as a straightforward free speech issue, and faults the ACLU for neither representing the kid nor filing an amicus brief on his behalf. I see it...well, as I saw it last year:

Gay marriage is a 'debatable public question'. Anti-discrimination laws are a 'debatable public question'. Hate crime laws are a 'debatable public question'. Someone's existence is not. Race is not a 'debatable public question (imagine a t-shirt reading "Blackness is shameful"), gender is not a 'debatable public question', and sexual orientation is not a 'debatable public question'....

Now, I'll admit that I do get uneasy in cases where civil rights collide with first amendment rights. This case, though, seems to me to be analogous to 'hostile environment' harassment cases, which recognize that to permit pervasive hostility against women (or racial or ethnic minorities or whatever) is to engage in discrimination. This is a case where words have potentially dire consequences. The sentiment on the t-shirt is so viciously hostile, and (I assume) shared by enough of the school population, that were it given free rein it could make school life impossible for the gay (or gay-friendly) students.

The Chronicle had a story yesterday that sort of clarified it all for me. It's about a girl who was relentlessly bullied in three separate middle schools, and the two girls at another school who were disgusted at her treatment and organized what grew into a mass expression of support. The story is heartwarming and horrifying, full of the extraordinary kindness of strangers and the casual viciousness of 'friends', painful reading for anyone who ever suffered even a fraction of what Olivia went through. And to me, the single most sickening detail was this one:

Students started wearing plastic bracelets declaring their hatred for Olivia, Kathleen Gardner said.

Call me a bad civil libertarian, but I don't think plastic bracelets declaring your hatred for a fellow classmate are protected speech. Bullying is not protected speech.

And those plastic bracelets are, of course, the exact equivalent of the t-shirt Harper wanted to wear. This isn't a free speech issue; it's a bullying issue. It's not about what someone is allowed to say; it's about someone else's right to exist.

And if that's how the ACLU sees it, then I say hooray for them.