If you haven't yet heard of the uproar surrounding the demise of the father-daughter school dance and mother-son ballgame in Cranston, you must not be an avid reader of the Providence Journal. While Brown is renowned for a student body committed to social justice and active in causes for the greater good, we do not think this particular "injustice" demands much student focus. In fact, this issue has been blown up to such a degree that Rhode Island has - unnecessarily - managed to land itself in national headlines. While the controversy over the ban brings up legitimate issues within gender politics, we believe this particular case is an outdated, sensationalized triviality.
Over the past two weeks, we have watched in amusement as the debate over the ban on father-daughter dances has unfolded. The uproar was sparked when Sean Gately, the Republican candidate for the Rhode Island Senate, promised to introduce state legislation that would allow such gender specific events to occur. Title IX, the 1972 federal law against gender discrimination, would allow an exemption for events such as a father-daughter dance, but Rhode Island state law does not allow for such exemptions. School attorneys quickly worked to introduce the ban after a concerned single mother expressed concerns because her daughter could not attend the dance. The American Civil Liberties Union also mounted pressure on school officials to ban such events.
Though this ban was enacted over four months ago, only recently has it garnered significant attention. Critics of the ban, including Cranston Mayor Allan Fung, say it is an example of a "time-honored tradition under attack." Many in Cranston have protested the ban, including the radio station Cat Country 98.1, which managed to rope American Idol winner Scotty McCreery into headlining the station's own father-daughter dance in opposition to the ban. Girls who participate in the station's dance will have the option of bringing any adult family member - not just their fathers.
We'd like to make two points about this controversy. The first is that the idea of specific father-daughter dances does strongly imply gender categories with which not everyone is comfortable. What does a child who is not able to bring a father do? Or how about a child with two fathers? Or if a boy wants to attend, and a girl does not? The situation implies prescribed, institutionalized gender roles, particularly the somewhat insulting implication that girls prefer dances and boys prefer ballgames. Additionally, the fact that the media has highlighted the "attack" on the dances far more than the similar ban on mother-son ball games seems like a deliberate attempt to politicize certain gender norms. The entire existence of these events is somewhat suspect and outdated, and we are proud that Rhode Island state law firmly upholds the spirit of Title IX.
Second, and more bluntly - the fact that this minor controversy has the power to make national news, divide an entire community and somehow attract reality show winners is patently ridiculous. Though we welcome a break from the nonstop electoral coverage of the color of Mitt Romney's tie on any given day, the simple truth is that there are a staggering number of issues, events and problems that if covered by the media could add something meaningful to society. In our opinion, this "issue" is not one of them. Pick anything: the Rhode Island public school system, slashes to the University of Rhode Island research budget or the upcoming vote on gay marriage in 2013 - all of these will have a long-lasting impact on life in Rhode Island, yet somehow none of these issues have gained widespread state or national attention. Sensationalism has become an endemic problem in the media and the public mindset, and this practice of ignoring big issues in favor of inflating trivial controversies is going to lead us down a path upon which we, as a society, do not need to tread.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
