|
This is a disgusting, overgeneralizing trainwreck of a thread. Comments like this are absolutely inane:
On October 27 2010 16:54 Dooba wrote:
While i completely agree with the girl and her reasoning, i fail to see why the fuck this should get any attention at all. Alright, you got kicked out of the cheer leading team. The school is an asshole. Nothing really bad happened to you this time, nothing life changing (like rape definitely is). So just go on with your life... Not like cheer leading is going to make you a living.
No reason for the media to blow this thing out of proportion. My 2 cents.
I don't think you understand cheerleading in Texas. It Is a sport, it's a sport as hardcore as football in Texas, but for women. Plenty of women make a living (and more) doing cheerleading, look at the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders. It's the same thing as saying "Starcraft isn't a real sport, you can't make a living playing Starcraft, so just quit doing it." These girls enjoy cheerleading, and they're hoping that they'll be able to make a living off of it in the future. At the very least, it might get them into a great school, and at the very most, they'll earn a spot cheering for a pro team, making big bucks. Hell I'd say cheerleading is far more promising than a career in Starcraft is.
Kicking her off her school's team basically means she NEEDS to go to another school if she has any hope to utilize her skills to get into a good college, or do something with it. Her school closed many potential doors for her, just by doing that. At best, she will move to another school district, where she'll have to relearn an entire routine, make new friends, etc, and depending where she is in her academic career, this could be impossible.
A school closing all of these doors because she was a sexual assault VICTIM is definitely news worthy. What should have happened is this: the assaulter gets the 1 yr of prison, loses his basketball career because of his poor decision, probably loses any chance of going into academia, and once he gets out, he's forced to go to another school. Instead, THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE HAPPENED. The victim got kicked out of her squad, probably lost her best chance to get into academia, and now SHE'S forced to go to another school if she wants to continue doing what she likes doing.
But because this guy plays basketball, he's an exception to the law. Give me a break. I hope she sues the shit out of both the local courthouse and the school.
|
On October 28 2010 03:56 BlackJack wrote:
Yeah, a month ago. A lot of people that posted wanted him expelled as soon as the accusations surfaced. In other words, guilty until proven innocent.
And if he is later proven innocent in a court of law then the order of expulsion can be lifted and the girl brought up on filing false report charges (not to mention opening the door to massive lawsuits against the city as in the case of the Duke lacrosse case). But the protection of the victim is the first priority here, that's why teachers accused of molesting students aren't allowed to just continue teaching elementary school after being accused. Look, I get the point you're trying to make and the system isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got and we should keep continuing to improve it.
On October 27 2010 17:00 Qzy wrote:
Of course she has to cheer for the team, if it's her job - else she should get another. Case closed?
I might have misunderstood the article, but I can't see the problem that she gets thrown off the cheerleader team.
It's like a singer wont sing at a concert, cos a former rapist is in the crowd. Just ignore the bastard? You are singing for the crowd, not single individuals.
On October 28 2010 04:25 j2choe wrote:
Probably been said before, but I actually agree with the Court of Appeals here...
First, let's stop with these ridiculous "it's her jerb!" arguments. It's an extracurricular activity at a high school, not a professional career. She didn't exactly sign a 12-page contract when she received her pom poms or something, so let's end the downright comical comparisons.
Also, these preposterous situations you guys are envisioning don't even exist because an employer has an even bigger responsibility than ensuring their employees perform their jobs - ensuring undue stress or even actual physical harm is not imposed on their employees during the course of the job.
In the laughable singer analogy for instance, that would never happen because if a rapist that formerly raped the singer actually shows up at her concert, he would be thrown out by security and probably arrested. If you run a pizza store and one of your delivery guy ends up getting robbed and beaten almost to death upon arriving at some customer's location, and then those guys order delivery again, are you going to send the same guy? Are you going to send any guys period? And if your delivery guy refuses, are you saying it's okay to fire him?
The fact that the debate is even "should she be forced to shout her possible would-be rapist's name" is downright absurd, the debate should be "should a possible would-be rapist even be allowed anywhere near his victim", and that debate should be over very quickly. The priority of the high school should've been to protect this girl, but instead she was punished because an athlete is a more valuable asset to a school than some random student.
|
Its bewildering that people would suggest that the girl change her life. why the fuck should she change anything? I didn't realize the girl was at fault here.
|
On October 28 2010 04:46 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 03:56 BlackJack wrote:
Yeah, a month ago. A lot of people that posted wanted him expelled as soon as the accusations surfaced. In other words, guilty until proven innocent. And if he is later proven innocent in a court of law then the order of expulsion can be lifted and the girl brought up on filing false report charges (not to mention opening the door to massive lawsuits against the city as in the case of the Duke lacrosse case). But the protection of the victim is the first priority here, that's why teachers accused of molesting students aren't allowed to just continue teaching elementary school after being accused. Look, I get the point you're trying to make and the system isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got and we should keep continuing to improve it. Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 17:00 Qzy wrote:
Of course she has to cheer for the team, if it's her job - else she should get another. Case closed?
I might have misunderstood the article, but I can't see the problem that she gets thrown off the cheerleader team.
It's like a singer wont sing at a concert, cos a former rapist is in the crowd. Just ignore the bastard? You are singing for the crowd, not single individuals. Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 04:25 j2choe wrote:
Probably been said before, but I actually agree with the Court of Appeals here... First, let's stop with these ridiculous "it's her jerb!" arguments. It's an extracurricular activity at a high school, not a professional career. She didn't exactly sign a 12-page contract when she received her pom poms or something, so let's end the downright comical comparisons. Also, these preposterous situations you guys are envisioning don't even exist because an employer has an even bigger responsibility than ensuring their employees perform their jobs - ensuring undue stress or even actual physical harm is not imposed on their employees during the course of the job. In the laughable singer analogy for instance, that would never happen because if a rapist that formerly raped the singer actually shows up at her concert, he would be thrown out by security and probably arrested. If you run a pizza store and one of your delivery guy ends up getting robbed and beaten almost to death upon arriving at some customer's location, and then those guys order delivery again, are you going to send the same guy? Are you going to send any guys period? And if your delivery guy refuses, are you saying it's okay to fire him? The fact that the debate is even "should she be forced to shout her possible would-be rapist's name" is downright absurd, the debate should be "should a possible would-be rapist even be allowed anywhere near his victim", and that debate should be over very quickly. The priority of the high school should've been to protect this girl, but instead she was punished because an athlete is a more valuable asset to a school than some random student.
This pretty much hits the mark in everything.
Most girls would take a huge blow and change their life completely after such an incident , even changing names or even moving out of the country trying to avoid any form of memory/contact with what's happened to her.
However , in such a rare and great occasion that a girl is strong enough to not run away, and instead try to carry on life like normal , even continuing cheerleading and basically just live like normal.
And such as she was treated. It's just plain wrong in so so so many ways.
If this incident doesn't get justified , america might as well make Assault/Rape legal.
|
The law is clearly in the right with regards to the lawsuit but obviously this is pretty attrocious on moral grounds.
|
No offense to the many Americans I know personally and am friends with / practice video games with, but, what are you guys thinking down there in Texas? Lol. I'm actually stunned they would put a 16 year old through such an experience as if the assault was not traumatizing enough. Also props to Krigwin, couldn't have said it better myself. Why is there even a debate over whether it was unfair of them to kick or off the team or not, not only was it unfair, but it should never have been an issue because the suspected rapist should not have even been allowed on the court / near her.
|
Why was the basketball player even allowed back into the school?
|
every school official involved should be forced to act as a mouthpiece for the girl while at the school or any school-related activities, forced to say whatever she thinks they should say. if they refuse, they should be fired.
|
On October 27 2010 17:04 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 17:02 Disarray wrote:On October 27 2010 16:54 Dooba wrote:
While i completely agree with the girl and her reasoning, i fail to see why the fuck this should get any attention at all. Alright, you got kicked out of the cheer leading team. The school is an asshole. Nothing really bad happened to you this time, nothing life changing (like rape definitely is). So just go on with your life... Not like cheer leading is going to make you a living.
No reason for the media to blow this thing out of proportion. My 2 cents. yeah, to be honest, I'm surprised the media isn't more focused on how the dude was allowed to return to the same school, especially when the victim attends the same school. thats the only thing worth attention imo Yeah, exactly.
nevermind
|
I'm amazed that they let him continue on the team, let alone force the girl to cheer for him after it was proven in court that he was a violent criminal.
Is this characterization in the OP correct, that he was convicted BEFORE the game?
|
On October 28 2010 05:20 tryummm wrote:
Why was the basketball player even allowed back into the school?
Because winning a sports game is what's truly important.
|
Edit: I didn't fully understand the story. Poor girl 
|
Oh god I HATE this article. It is angry about how she got kicked off the cheerleading team! What about the rapist? Why was he allowed to return to the same school after doing that and threatening the homeowner?
Getting kicked off the cheerleading team is nothing compared to that.
|
Read the thread before posting please, as always. It's not hard, people.
The correct timeline is as follows:
1. Incident occurs.
2. The case is put on pause briefly when the grand jury withdrew the charges.
3. During this time the suspect is allowed back at the school and even on the team, while the girl is warned by the school.
4. The game in question commences, the girl cheers everyone except for the suspect. For this she is removed from the cheerleading squad.
5. The charges are reinstated and the suspect goes to trial. He pleads guilty and ends up getting probation.
6. The girl's parents file suit against the school for kicking her off the cheer squad, but the case is summarily dismissed on the baffling reasoning that her cheerleading was some kind of job that she refused to perform as per reasonable expectations (nevermind the obvious question of why the hell was the suspect even at the game in question).
|
criminals returning to society is an everyday story. the usurpation of individual free speech rights by institutions of public education is not.
|
On October 27 2010 16:44 Phaint wrote:Show nested quote + Cheerleader Required to Cheer for Man Who Assaulted Her
If someone assaulted you, would you want to then cheer for his performance on a basketball court? A 16-year-old Texas high school student sure didn’t.
High school football star Rakheem Bolton and two others were indicted for sexual assault of a child–identified only as H.S.–at a post-game party in 2008. According to H.S.–a fellow student and cheerleader at Silsbee High–Bolton, football player Christian Rountree and another juvenile male forced her into a room, locked the door, held her down and sexually assaulted her. When other party-goers tried to get into the room, two of the men fled through an open window, including Bolton, who left clothing behind. Bolton allegedly threatened to shoot the occupants of the house when the homeowner refused to return his clothes.
In September 2010, Bolton pled guilty to a lesser charge of Class A Assault and was sentenced to one year in prison, a sentence that was suspended by the judge in lieu of two years probation, a $2,500 fine, community service and an anger management course.
Silsbee school officials had two responses to the incident. First, they urged H.S. to keep a low profile, such as avoiding the school cafeteria and not taking part in homecoming activities. With the support of her family, she refused to do so, rejecting the notion that she had anything to be ashamed of. Secondly, school officials kicked her off the cheerleading squad for refusing to cheer for Bolton. No kidding.
Bolton had been allowed back on campus during a brief period when one grand jury withdrew the charges before another grand jury reinstated them. During a basketball game, H.S. cheered for the entire team but refused to cheer “Rakheem” during his free-throws, so she was off the squad.
H.S.’s parents sued the school for violating her right to free speech, but an appeals court dismissed her case earlier this month. The bizarre reasoning: “In her capacity as cheerleader, [she] served as a mouthpiece through which the school could disseminate speech–namely, support for its athletic teams.” Not cheering for Bolton “constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, [she] was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily.” In other words, the “work of the school” is basketball, and H.S. was obligated to put on a robotic smile and cheer for the man who had assaulted her.
Silsbee High School officials should be held accountable for their actions. Richard Bain, Jr., the superintendent of schools, allegedly ordered H.S. to cheer for her attacker. Why don’t you tell him what you think? You can join this petition I made, to Bain and the school’s new principal, Eldon Franco:
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/10/15/cheerleader-required-to-cheer-for-man-who-assaulted-her/Gross miscarriage of justice in so many ways I don't even know where to begin on this one. Only in Texas I suppose. I understand that, somehow, in the eyes of the law he is not a rapist. For all we know the girl may have cried rape or what have you. That aside, they actually told the victim to stay away from events and remain low key. Bewildering. He was convicted of assault. Only in Texas is the varsity basketball team this important. I'm amazed that they let him continue on the team, let alone force the girl to cheer for him after it was proven in court that he was a violent criminal. I refuse to believe this is real. Hopefully it is just media sensationalism or something!
As a Texan, I can tell you it has nothing to do with it being Texas, and more to do with this being America, where school administrations are all fucking stupid.
|
On October 28 2010 05:42 Beef Noodles wrote:
3) I feel for this girl, but in the eyes of the law the guy deserves to be on the team since he served his prison time. You can't just force him off the team because you don't like him. If she won't cheer with him on the team, then how can she be a cheerleader?
I'm pretty sure the school is allowed to discriminate when it comes to this sort of thing. Especially if letting him onto the team will mean asking his victim to cheer for him.
|
On October 27 2010 16:48 Catch]22 wrote:
Someone who isnt convicted of rape is a rapist?
Yes, but someone who's convicted of sexual assault is not automatically a rapist. Rape is a more serious sub-category of sexual assault.
Edit:
Clearly, I can't read. The guy actually got convicted of assault though, so yeah, he isn't a rapist, but still a violent criminal,
|
The title of this thread is grossly misleading. Basically, the OP replaced the word sexual assault with rape in order to further his own agenda. That being said, I still feel sorry for the girl and what happened to her is still terrible. But she really has no argument against being removed from the team. She volunteered to be a cheerleader. Cheerleading is competitive and their are tryouts. If she isn't being the best possible cheerleader, she will be replaced with someone who can do it better. That is how all teams work. Sure, she has a right to not cheer. Just like a progamer has the right to play terribly. But the team can kick him or her whenever they want for poor performance.
|
Gee, these people make a fuss of this situation. This young girl obviously doesn't feel confortable around the Bolton-guy, who in some way assaulted her. Having those two in the same environment was proving unhealthy. Obviously, the point of basketball is to play basketball, so if the two cannot feel confortable in the same environment, the basketball player stays, the superflous activity of cheerleading being just that. Sounds like the girl was kind of ruining the chemistry among cheerleaders by not refusing to cheer, thus insinuating conflict and creating a bad atmosphere.
Of course, the girl has done nothing wrong, but it doesn't seem unsensible for the school to remove her from the cheerleading squad as the situation kind of dictated, by the sound of it. That the parents are suing for violation of free speech shows that they don't really understand what that is. Either the school suspended her because they are not sympathetic to her phlight and would rather support their star athlete (their decision to make, of course) or for pedagogical reasons such as the ones mentioned above. To make it about something else seems downright silly.
Not said that this doesn't put the young girl in an uncomfortable situation. But really, in perspective, the assault is a much more serious issue and much worse than the exclusion from cheerleading. I'm sure most people would argue that she's better off, despite what it might do to her social status (if that has any influence in this case).
Edit: Just started reading up on the comments (was too tired to do it before posting, I'm afraid), and felt I needed to address two points not to sound too ignorant or offensive:
- Even if cheerleading is, strangely, a possible career choice in Texas, it's hardly something to educate young kids to do. There are much more important things to educate young kids to do - if necessary, they could make seperate cheerleader academies for the few who end up doing this). Doing athletics or something the like would rather be the direction that the girl could take, and she is fully able to do this after finishing the important basic stuff in her current education (keep in mind, she's only still in high school). I doubt it's impossible for her to learn these things in other ways if she's really determined about athletics.
- Whether or not the guy was banned from the school for the sake of the girl (who has to be in the same school as him) is a completely other decision, and doesn't relate to the matter at hand. The situation discussed is after the decision has been made to let the guy stay at the school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
