On 3/12/10 6:33 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:26:51 -0500, wrote:


wrote in message
...


So, you're the one who gets to define normal? I don't think so.



As an attorney, I would think you would agree that the appropriate way to
have dealt with this situation would have been to petition the district
school committee to revise their policy *before* the prom was scheduled.

so if they'd said only white couples could attend, the way to change
this is 'through channels'?

i dont THINK so...

In a culture based on the rule of laws, it seems that now-a-days adherence
to existing laws or rules is
optional.


how about jim crow laws? should we have obeyed them or protested them
and disobeyed them?


Laws and the social acceptance of them are two different things.
If the laws are outdated, unenforceable or just plain wrong, there is a
legal process
available to change them. Inviting or risking conflict and violence is not
the means.

Eisboch





That's just plain silly, richard. I can think of a number of instances
in which demonstrations, peaceful and otherwise, got unjust laws or
policies changed. I'm aure you can, too. Conflict can speed along the
process.



--


If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3

then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer.