I'm happy to hear that young man in Connecticut is going to his prom.

[Bradski]

On the other hand, the headmaster should be shunned until the start of the next school year.

[vontar]

On the other hand, the headmaster should be shunned until the start of the next school year.

I am happy you are going to your prom as well. Going Stag?

(forget a link?)

[Bradski]

Mrs Ski would be very happy to get me out of the house Prom or no Prom :-)

Yes, I forgot the link. Y'all DO have this new fangled invention called a TELEVISION there.... don't ya'?

Connecticut teenager James Tate will be go allowed to go to prom after widespread outcry

By Nina Mandell

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Saturday, May 14th 2011, 6:01 PM

Handout

Sonali Rodrigues (right) accepted James Tate's request to be his prom date, but he was banned by the principal.

After being banned for what many considered an adorable gesture to ask a classmate to prom, Connecticut teen James Tate can put on his dancing shoes.

The reversal of the high school senior's ban came after lobbying from students, people across the country – and even from the high school's most famous alumnus, Texans quarterback Dan Orlovsky.

"I've decided to implement alternative consequences on a case by case basis beginning with James Tate and for other students who received suspension after April 1st, which would then permit some to attend prom," Shelton High headmaster, Dr. Beth Smith, said in a statement on Saturday.

The high school senior was banned from the dance after he asked his classmate Sonali Rodrigues to be his date – by sneaking into school grounds late at night to post the message outside of the school's entrance reading "Sonali Rodrigues, Will you go to the prom with me? HMU – Tate."

HMU is shorthand for "hit me up."

As most people – including Rodrigues – found the way he asked to be adorable (she, of course, said yes) school officials were not amused.

They suspended Tate and his two friends – and because school policy is to ban anyone from the prom who was suspended after April 1 – it seemed like he wouldn't be donning a tux.

"I thought they would appreciate my sincerity and creativity," Tate said on the "Today" show. "I thought maybe a reprimand — clean it up — which I was willing to do, and I ended up doing [it] on Sunday night, but instead, there's an investigation."

But the story caught fire and administrators eventually reversed their decision.

More than 197,000 people joined a group on Facebook "Let James Tate Go to the Prom" and in addition to "Today," Tate made an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel's late night show.

In her announcement on Saturday, Dr. Smith, accompanied by other school officials and the town's mayor, said she wanted the focus to be put back on learning.

"I never thought that such a decision would lead to international notoriety as I make tough, unpopular decisions on a daily basis," Smith told reporters.

Read more: Connecticut teenager James Tate will be go allowed to go to prom after widespread outcry

[Caster]

The high school senior was banned from the dance after he asked his classmate Sonali Rodrigues to be his date

Maybe there's more to this than meets the eye. From the looks of her, I'd say the Headmaster was doing the poor sap a favor

[strickj]

Wow. All this media attention to save this kid's prom... when the president's unconstitutional war in Libya hasn't even gotten a whisper of mention on the news since April.

[Bradski]

A homely date to anywhere is a constitutional right. The shunning stands.

[Mike.357]

dude oughta just picked up the phone.

[Capbyrd]

I'm sorry. I think the original decision was the right one. The kid broke the rules. Lay down the law. Its cut and dry. This just sets a bad precedent.

[buck1032]

I'm sorry. I think the original decision was the right one. The kid broke the rules. Lay down the law. Its cut and dry. This just sets a bad precedent.

This

[G27]

This

Yep.

[Seaslug]

I'm sorry. I think the original decision was the right one. The kid broke the rules. Lay down the law. Its cut and dry. This just sets a bad precedent.

This

Yep.

Sorry fellas, but I couldn't disagree with you more on this one. How is this any different than all those stories (which we've all decried) about kids who are suspended/expelled for bringing toy guns, etc. to school? There is a place for common sense when it comes to matters of discipline. Logical consequences and active restitution go a lot farther toward increasing accountability and building character than illogical and blanket punishments.

[Capbyrd]

Sorry fellas, but I couldn't disagree with you more on this one. How is this any different than all those stories (which we've all decried) about kids who are suspended/expelled for bringing toy guns, etc. to school? There is a place for common sense when it comes to matters of discipline. Logical consequences and active restitution go a lot farther toward increasing accountability and building character than illogical and blanket punishments.

I see two different problems here.

First, is whether or not the rule makes sense. Second is punishment.

I'm not arguing that the rule was correct. I am only saying that if the school has a policy and then go back on that policy because of social media, then it sets a bad precedent. If the kid knew the rule, and knew the punishment, then the school did nothing wrong.

If the kid thought that the rule was wrong, he should have spoken out in a different manner.

I believe that if you break the rules, whether you agree with them or not, you deserve whatever the usual course of punishment is.

A good example is the speed limit in Bartlett. Stage Road goes through Bartlett. It is a 5 lane highway and has a 45 mph speed on either side of Bartlett. But the Bartlett part is 40 mph. I think Bartlett does it for monetary reasons. But I don't protest that by speeding through. I do the speed limit.

[Caster]

I'm sorry. I think the original decision was the right one. The kid broke the rules. Lay down the law. Its cut and dry. This just sets a bad precedent.

Yeah, because this just tells the kids; If you're punished for breaking the rules and you cry "it's not fair" loud enough and get enough of your fellow facebook losers to cry with you, then you can have your way despite being in the wrong.

[Seaslug]

I see two different problems here.

First, is whether or not the rule makes sense. Second is punishment.

I'm not arguing that the rule was correct. I am only saying that if the school has a policy and then go back on that policy because of social media, then it sets a bad precedent. If the kid knew the rule, and knew the punishment, then the school did nothing wrong.

If the kid thought that the rule was wrong, he should have spoken out in a different manner.

I believe that if you break the rules, whether you agree with them or not, you deserve whatever the usual course of punishment is.

A good example is the speed limit in Bartlett. Stage Road goes through Bartlett. It is a 5 lane highway and has a 45 mph speed on either side of Bartlett. But the Bartlett part is 40 mph. I think Bartlett does it for monetary reasons. But I don't protest that by speeding through. I do the speed limit.

And the young child who was suspended from school for bringing a Lego gun? By the "letter of the law", he did indeed violate the school's policy on weapons--toys or otherwise. I think we would all agree, however, that the punishment was asinine and needed to be revisited. The problem with what you're espousing is that, if no one ever challenged them, no "stupid" rules or laws would ever be changed.

[Capbyrd]

And the young child who was suspended from school for bringing a Lego gun? By the "letter of the law", he did indeed violate the school's policy on weapons--toys or otherwise. I think we would all agree, however, that the punishment was asinine and needed to be revisited. The problem with what you're espousing is that, if no one ever challenged them, no "stupid" rules or laws would ever be changed.

But there is a right way to challenge and a wrong way. the wrong way is to break the rule and then complain.

And as for a kid with a lego gun, that is bad parenting. The parents know its against the rules even if the kid doesnt. I DO think that kid should be punished. If you can come up with a way to punish the parents instead, I'd be all for that as well.

[buck1032]

He defaced school property and should suffer the punishment.

[Garufa]

The kid didn't deface anything. He taped up a sign. No damage done.

His only crime was doing it after a certain date on the calender.

[Guest mrkirker]

I've slept much better, knowing that he'll be attending the gala event.

[DWARREN123]

Make him clean it up, extra homework and some detention should have been enough.

The young lady in question may not be a beauty queen but how many of us are?

[Caster]

The young lady in question may not be a beauty queen but how many of us are?

Hmph, my mom says I am handsome.

[Seaslug]

Make him clean it up, extra homework and some detention should have been enough.

The young lady in question may not be a beauty queen but how many of us are?

This +1. Active restitution and common sense. Ask the folks in our prison system how well illogical consequences work to reduce recidivism...

[Capbyrd]

Again,

I don't think we are arguing about the same thing here. The punishment was set before he committed the crime, no matter how petty it was. While I may not agree that the punishment was called for, it wasn't a new policy or anything. Change it for future students but this kid committed the crime knowing the punishment. He should have been punished under that rule.

[Seaslug]

Again,

I don't think we are arguing about the same thing here. The punishment was set before he committed the crime, no matter how petty it was. While I may not agree that the punishment was called for, it wasn't a new policy or anything. Change it for future students but this kid committed the crime knowing the punishment. He should have been punished under that rule.

No, it wasn't. I seriously doubt there was a policy in place that stated "Hanging up a sign asking a girl to prom = automatic out-of-school suspension". The decision to suspend the students was a judgment call regarding "defacing school property" made by the headmaster--and a poor one, at that. The only policy in place at the time was that any students suspended after April 1st would be barred from prom, but no reasonable person would have thought that this particular offense would have warranted suspension in the first place, as evidenced by the fact that the student SIGNED HIS NAME TO THE NOTE.

[Capbyrd]

From what I read, he was trespassing as well. Common sense says that you aren't supposed to trespass and post signs on things that don't belong to you.

If you come to my house and try and tape something near my door, you are gonna be met with a shotgun.

He broke the rules. PERIOD.

[Seaslug]

From what I read, he was trespassing as well. Common sense says that you aren't supposed to trespass and post signs on things that don't belong to you.

If you come to my house and try and tape something near my door, you are gonna be met with a shotgun.

He broke the rules. PERIOD.

And there were about a million different ways that he could have been punished that did not include out-of-school suspension and banishment from the prom. Most reasonable, intelligent people understand the concept of progressive discipline. The punishment must fit the crime, as it were. Do you believe that Brian Aiken should still be rotting in a jail cell for having the audacity to transport a gun in the trunk of his car while driving through the great state of New Jersey? After all, he DID break the rules. How about beheadings for minor traffic violations? (Don't answer that one... )

The point of this absurdity is that it is incumbent upon persons of authority to exercise good judgment before meting out punishment. That is what we entrust them to do. Those who simply fall back on blanket "policy" without examining other factors such as harm caused, intent, and likelihood to re-offend are both lazy and irresponsible.