On Mar. 8, CHS was supposed to host a spring dance. While this event was initially advertised as ‘After Dark,’ on Feb. 21, the day after tickets went on sale, the name was changed to ‘Glow,’ only to be canceled on Mar. 5 due to low ticket sales. The question then remains, why? As it turns out, the story changes based on who you ask.
“The spring dance used to always be called Vice,” said Kelly Ortiz, CHS’ ASB advisor. “But years ago, we had to change the title because it seemed too gender-specific and needed to be more flexible and inclusive so we scrapped the name ‘Vice.’ This year, we were trying to come up with a theme for the dance. [ASB] wanted it to be more of a club scene or a club vibe than a formal. […] [The name ‘After Dark’] is a little suggestive in nature and I kind of said that to [ASB] but it didn’t seem like that big of a deal.”
The Courier reached out to LVUSD Superintendent Dr. Dan Stepenosky on Feb. 20th in an attempt to ask him about the rumors of CHS attempting to host a dance entitled ‘Vice’. The Courier asked about rumors regarding the district’s involvement in changing the name to ‘After Dark’.
Subsequently, CHS admin began discussing the implications of the name ‘After Dark’.
“Everyone started to say ‘Oh, maybe it is too suggestive,’ and so admin actually made the suggestion to change it and then I was like ‘well, the idea behind our after-hours was to do a glow-in-the-dark themed party or dance’ and so that’s where we came up with ‘Glow’ to sort of emphasize that it’s glow in the dark,” said Ortiz.
When asked to clarify if the name change was a suggestion or a mandate, Ortiz said, “Oh no: admin told us we had to change. It was not a suggestion.” However, she added that this decision was likely out of the admin’s hands.
“[There was] probably a little bit of pressure in that [higher ups] were questioning our title, which is sort of a passive way of saying ‘change the title’ and I think [CHS admin] sort of sensed that.”
In an interview with the Courier, CHS Assistant Principal of Student Services Miriam Worth stated that the CHS admin was only aware of the name once the dance was advertised, being told at the same time as the general student body. She explained that, typically, names are approved through the admin, but the move to bring back the spring dance was rather rushed, so ‘After Dark’ was never approved. Ortiz, however, presented a slightly different story.
“I don’t know on timing,” said Ortiz. “We talk about things in ASB and they’re always in the minutes. Admin has access to those minutes. Admin sees the fliers before we put it out there so if someone wasn’t paying close attention to that, then that’s not really on me. There’s only so much I can do to keep everyone in the loop on things and so I do my best to keep Mrs. Worth informed and up to date but sometimes we have to move quickly so if that was missed somehow, then it was missed.”
According to Worth, CHS principal Bennett Wutkee expressed that the name ‘After Dark’ was somewhat suggestive, but that he simply asked if there were any other names considered, not that it needed to be changed. Wutkee was not available for comment.
Worth then asked Ortiz and ASB this question, to which they said ‘Glow’ was also up for consideration, which the admin indicated was less suggestive, so ASB changed the name. This account directly contrasts with Ortiz’s statement, with Worth stating that it was simply a suggestion and that the name did not truly matter since it was still the spring dance—emphasis on was.
“[Glow’s cancellation is] frustrating because we actually, as an ASB, took a poll of the students asking ‘would you want a spring dance?’ to which I think like 500-600 kids said ‘yes,’” said Ortiz. “That’s why we did it—we were trying to do something that the students wanted and yet, when we did it and planned it, and put all this time and energy into it, only 10 kids got tickets, five of whom were from ASB.” That being said, Ortiz did not believe there was a correlation between the dance’s name change and cancellation.
“The Spring Dance notoriously has not, in years past, been a dance that had the numbers of Homecoming,” said Ortiz. “We kind of knew going into it that it wasn’t going to be a dance that had 600 kids. Our goal was to get 100 and we would have been fine with that. I don’t think [Glow’s cancellation] has to do with the name change, I think the reality is kids just didn’t really see the importance of going to a dance in the Spring. We did our best but it’s super frustrating—there’s a lot of apathy on this campus right now. We’re doing what we can to help with school spirit but there’s only so much we can do.”
However, some CHS students presented a different opinion.
“I think the [name] ‘Glow dance’ made it seem like it was for little kids,” said CHS sophomore Eliya Dustar. When asked if she thought the cancellation was due to the name change, she said, “100%. I think that’s why they didn’t sell many tickets but I think ‘After Dark’ was a lot cooler to people.”
“I think CHS after dark sounds kind of cool,” said CHS Junior Max Madnick. “Definitely better than ‘CHS Glow.’ […] That’s why people pull up [to events]. Because the title is cool.”
“I would definitely come if it was called ‘CHS After Dark.’ It’s more engaging,” said Senior Finn Froley. “I think the name ‘Glow Dance’ is very childish and I feel like not a lot of people would go to that.”
Regardless of why, the fact of the matter is the Spring Dance was canceled. Going back to where this all began, there is some truth to be found in the initial rumors about ‘Vice,’ as well as an indication that spring dance name controversy pre-dates ‘After Dark.’
“The students always ask to call it ‘Vice,’ and, honestly, I don’t have a problem with the name,” said Ortiz. “I think when it was changed years ago we were trying to be sensitive to people who weren’t male-female-orientated couples and we were trying to be respectful of that and inclusive. I think the reality of it is that even if you say ‘Vice,’ no one is saying it’s gender-specific—you can ask who you want, it would just be the opposite person asking.”
That being said, it is important to note the differences between what students and staff think about dance names.
“I think sometimes adults get very caught up in what is appropriate and what is potentially offensive to people and they worry about that backlash while students don’t necessarily worry about that,” said Ortiz. I think this is probably where the disconnect is coming from. The students asked, I always pitch what the students want if I feel like it’s something not harmful, but there was pushback so we went with a different name and there was pushback so we changed it again. We try, we do our best to do what’s right by students but sometimes it backfires.”
Keeping all of this in mind, it is reasonable to wonder if CHS’ 2024 prom theme, ‘Casino Royale,’ will be deemed unfit for high school even though it has already been advertised and approved as such since that did not stop changes happening to ‘After Dark.’ Ortiz said that ‘Casino Royale’ has been approved before but, just as with ‘Vice,’ opinions change.
While it is unclear what actually happened with ‘Vice,’ ‘After Dark’ and ‘Glow,’ it is fair for students to question if this chaos was ever warranted in the first place—after all, as Worth told the Courier, it was just a name.
“I personally don’t think saying something is ‘after dark’ is totally suggestive,” said Ortiz. “I think there’s a hint of it but we all know you’re high school kids […] you know the parameters: I think it’s fine. But, I respect admin’s decision.”
EDITORS’ NOTE: This article was updated on Mar. 14 to reflect a clarification of the facts. Originally, the piece stated “The Courier reached out to LVUSD Superintendent Dr. Dan Stepenosky in an attempt to ask him about the rumors of CHS’ attempt to host a 2024 Vice dance on Feb. 20th. This apparently led to Stepenosky learning of the then-current name, “After Dark,” which Ortiz and CHS Assistant Principal of Student Services Miriam Worth said was something he considered suggestive and not fitting for high school.” This was inaccurate. Additionally, the article originally stated that Stepenosky expressed “hat the name ‘After Dark’ was somewhat suggestive, but that he simply asked if there were any other names considered, not that it needed to be changed.” Stepenosky was not apart of this conversation. As stated above, Wutkee, not Stepenosky, expressed that the term was suggestive.
