Editor’s Note: This is a counter-opinion responding to a recent piece that was published and subsequently removed after it was found not to meet our established editorial and publishing protocols. You can read the revised version of that opinion here.
Lawrence High’s Homecoming and Winter courts are popularity contests, but that doesn’t mean the century-long traditions deserve the attack they recently faced.
An opinion piece recently published in The Budget argues that because they are influenced by social cliques and conventional ideas of popularity, we should do away with the courts altogether. This is the wrong conclusion.
The original article ignored that these traditions exist for a reason. While some LHS events draw widespread attention from the student body, like football games and the music department’s “Showtime”, many other activities are crucially lacking in recognition. The two courts provide a valuable opportunity for students to represent these activities, and to honor students whose leadership often goes unnoticed.
This year, 14 LHS musicians from all three music programs were represented in the courts. Nominees also represented wrestling, swim and dive, scholars’ bowl, cheer, Unified Sports, and other teams and activities.
Thus, the “popularity contest” aspect can actually be beneficial: less recognized activities are given the opportunity to honor their leaders in front of the entire school.
Arguments against the courts characterize court as an exclusive contest amongst a smaller group which separates two perceived social classes: popular and unpopular. The recent Budget opinion read as an attack on the stereotypical homecoming court of a 90s teen movie, split between six football stars and six cheerleaders. This is not the reality of either court.
Because all grades vote, no one is elected simply through popularity among the most exclusive groups of seniors. Nominees must instead be connected with students from multiple groups and ages. and, therefore, the courts are a diverse representation of the student body.
By suggesting to abolish the court, the character of those on court is brought into question. Most contentiously, the article claimed that court members weren’t nominated due to strength of character, but instead through some nebulous concept of social hierarchy.
This so-called “social hierarchy” isn’t real. Not only is it a subjective and immeasurable concept, but it also bears no relation to a person’s character.
In reality, leadership traits are far more important, especially when electing royalty from the list of nominees. Underclassmen are faced with a much less daunting 12 names and naturally choose the seniors who have made the largest impact on them.
I spoke with freshman Sam Emert, and he agreed.
“They’re role models, they’re leaders in the school,” he said. “You could pick out a lot of them that are leaders and role models that you can just follow their lead and be okay.”
The courts give younger students a chance to feel connected to the seniors leading their activities and sports.
“It’s just traditions that bring everyone together,” Emert said.
By giving underclassmen even a minor personal stake in a schoolwide event, the courts incentivize those students to involve themselves further in the Lawrence High community. If we abolished the courts, we would lose this benefit, and school spirit and participation would likely continue to decrease.
The benefits of the courts–especially the recognition of smaller activities and the opportunity to provide role models for younger students–make the traditions worth keeping. The original opinion completely misunderstood the nature of court tradition and relied on an imagined concept of social hierarchy which had no place in respectable journalism.
