|
On October 28 2010 06:00 Robstickle wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yea but you need to realize that high school sports is a huge part of American culture. If the guy was really good at the sport, the school probably fought to get him back on the team as soon as possible. Sports is a huge source of money, recognition, and pride for high schools in America.
|
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!
I hate ops like this. Of course what happened to the girl is wrong and the school system really screwed up big time by letting the sex offender back to school and back on the basketball team, but seriously, WTF is up with this "only in Texas" business? This can kind of thing can happen anywhere and it DOES happen everywhere. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't say anything. Seriously.
|
On October 27 2010 17:22 MadJack wrote:
Situation its pretty nonsense. First of all, what is that guy doing in the same school? If the principal its so concerned about this whole thing, instead of trying to make the girl avoid cafeteria and stuff, shouldnt they be first not allow that kind of person in the school?
Second of all, If she is so damage by the molesting experience (as i imagine it would be) then why is she even trying to hurt herself more and puts herself in that possition. Simply put, quit cheerleaders if you know that you have to cheer the team that includes the guy who raped you, period.
I dont get this whole situation, its just so dumb the action ppl involve in this are taking, a big LOL at this decisions.
It would be difficult to go back to the same school. But as I can imagine, there are some people who would rather choose to "stand up and fight back" after being in a situation like this. Getting raped is getting violated in a very cruel and disgusting way. Allowing yourself to be shamed is like re-living that moment even after it's happened to some people.
On October 28 2010 06:21 Mortality wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 16:44 Phaint wrote: 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! I hate ops like this. Of course what happened to the girl is wrong and the school system really screwed up big time by letting the sex offender back to school and back on the basketball team, but seriously, WTF is up with this "only in Texas" business? This can kind of thing can happen anywhere and it DOES happen everywhere. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't say anything. Seriously.
You live in the United States, so I'm sure you know. But if you don't, Texas is known for how seriously it takes sports. That joke is a reference to saying Texas puts sports over other things. If you did know that, it's just a partial joke IMO. May be a bad one, but still kinda applicable. After all, it really is true in a lot of other situations, even if it isn't in this one.
|
On October 28 2010 06:15 Asjo wrote:
[*] 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.
[/list]
Cheerleading IS an athletic activity with a professional wing, like gymnastics or baseball. To deny her the right to cheerlead is to limit her opportunities. To limit her opportunities over issues stemming from her self-expression is fascistic.
|
On October 28 2010 06:42 ev8 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 06:15 Asjo wrote:
[*] 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.
Cheerleading IS an athletic activity with a professional wing, like gymnastics or baseball. To deny her the right to cheerlead is to limit her opportunities. To limit her opportunities over issues stemming from her self-expression is fascistic.
No doubt that it's ahtletic activity, but when it comes to athletic education it's not exactly high school material, and I'm sure that they don't do it to educate the half-time entertainers from American football, but rather as a social activity. If she's really doing it for a career, maybe gymnastics would be a better alternative.
Many things in life limit us - nothing crimial about that. Things happen and the situations changes. Now, to say that it's "over issues stemming from her self-expression" is quite a twist of words. It's pedagogical issue with some kids who have an unhealthy relation to each other which is creating problems in a social environment.
|
On October 28 2010 05:53 Krigwin wrote:
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).
Thank you, this is what I drew in my head when reading the thread and the article. I have no idea why the OP asserts A) that the player was convicted prior to the game in question and B) that he was a rapist. Neither of those find any support in the facts presented.
It's still a tragedy, and I expect a few firings at the school to result even though the lawsuit obviously went nowhere.
|
On October 28 2010 02:19 PandaBlunt wrote:
Ill probably get at least a warning for this.
User was warned for this post
lol. But seriously normally I would be the one to say the lawsuit is totally correct. But I think some of you might have been missing a quote.
"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."
Even in the wording in the response to the law suit, they say she did not cheer for the team. But she did cheer for them, just not a guy who sexually assaulted her. I think I'm gonna have to disagree here and say that's not right. As long as she's not sitting there flipping the guy off or something, remaining silent during his freethrows or if people are chanting his name is pretty minor really. As much as I hate cheerleading... she doesn't deserve to get kicked off the team.
|
On October 28 2010 06:54 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 06:42 ev8 wrote:On October 28 2010 06:15 Asjo wrote:
[*] 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.
Cheerleading IS an athletic activity with a professional wing, like gymnastics or baseball. To deny her the right to cheerlead is to limit her opportunities. To limit her opportunities over issues stemming from her self-expression is fascistic. No doubt that it's ahtletic activity, but when it comes to athletic education it's not exactly high school material, and I'm sure that they don't do it to educate the half-time entertainers from American football, but rather as a social activity. If she's really doing it for a career, maybe gymnastics would be a better alternative. Many things in life limit us - nothing crimial about that. Things happen and the situations changes. Now, to say that it's "over issues stemming from her self-expression" is quite a twist of words. It's pedagogical issue with some kids who have an unhealthy relation to each other which is creating problems in a social environment.
How is cheerleading not exactly high school material? You state that it's primarily a social activity. It is. You state that gymnastics would be a better alternative. It is. But you don't have a point.
How is saying that she was removed over issues stemming from her self-expression a twist of words? You state that it's an educational issue. It is. You state that it involves two kids. It does. You state that it creates problems. It does. But you don't have a point.
|
On October 27 2010 16:47 Disarray wrote:
technically its correct, however I fail to see how the fuck a felon would be allowed back at the same school
lol they kick her off the team for not cheering for just one guy. but they let the guy who nearly got a year in jail for sex assault stay on the basketball team. I would say that is fucked up.
|
On October 27 2010 17:12 Mooncat wrote:
What distinguishes "sexual assault" from rape in the American law? Can someone clarify please? I mean, what exactly did these guys do so it wasn't considered rape but "sexual assault" instead? Did they just touch her or beat her and then touched her or what?
Not that it changes anything, I'm just curious.
Well.... sexual assault is any assault of a sexual nature. "I like your tits" is sexual assault. Touching her breasts is sexual assault. Battery of sexual nature is sexual assault. Rape requires forced or coerced penetration.
|
What the heck, you'd think that sexual assault would have more serious consequences...
|
On October 28 2010 06:21 Mortality wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 16:44 Phaint wrote: 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! I hate ops like this. Of course what happened to the girl is wrong and the school system really screwed up big time by letting the sex offender back to school and back on the basketball team, but seriously, WTF is up with this "only in Texas" business? This can kind of thing can happen anywhere and it DOES happen everywhere. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't say anything. Seriously.
U should really take your own advice.
I'm not sure if u live in the states , but if u do , you should pretty much know it is more or less true about how much of a big deal Texas makes sports out to be.
Anyways , that's not the point.
And such fucked up stuff doesn't only happen in Texas.
Seriously when a sexual assault convict gets such a minor sentence AND is allowed to return to the same school as the victim AND basically favoured by the school itself.
Things are really really really really fucked up , even by the most fucked up standards.
|
On October 28 2010 07:22 Crushgroove wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 17:12 Mooncat wrote:
What distinguishes "sexual assault" from rape in the American law? Can someone clarify please? I mean, what exactly did these guys do so it wasn't considered rape but "sexual assault" instead? Did they just touch her or beat her and then touched her or what?
Not that it changes anything, I'm just curious.
Well.... sexual assault is any assault of a sexual nature. "I like your tits" is sexual assault. Touching her breasts is sexual assault. Battery of sexual nature is sexual assault. Rape requires forced or coerced penetration.
Absolutely not. There has to be contact for sexual assault, sexual harassment like the bolded section is not sexual assault.
|
On October 28 2010 04:46 Krigwin wrote:
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.
No, I believe that you're the one who's mis-characterizing the issue here. This has nothing to do with the school's onus in terms of protecting the victim. The issue here is her REMOVAL from the cheerleading squad. Nobody is saying that the school isn't being irresponsible in their dealing with the victim; all I'm saying is that by doing so they are staying within the confines of the law, and that the law is actually grounded in good sense.
The fact that you raise the point of it being an extracurricular activity actually emphasizes my point more. If she is that gung-ho about staying on the squad, then I think logic would dictate that she play the role as required. Nobody is forcing her into this position, and nobody signs up to these things so they can say or not say whatever they want. If she finds her role too mentally distressing, then shouldn't she simply resign from the squad? As you said, it's merely an extracurricular activity that one opts into voluntarily: there is certainly no freedom of speech issue here because participation in school activities is not a function of speech in that regard. It's always been within the school's discretion to let you participate or not. It's certainly not putting bread on her table.
That being said, the burden to the school is substantial. Should schools be required to retain participants in activities that willfully don't go along with the program? Should the school be required to bear that burden given that they had no hand in what happened to the victim? Should they do that when the person at issue has not been convicted of a crime? Should they automatically defer to the girl's side of the story in these types of situations? Remember also that at the time the incident occurred, the accused was not a "rapist" yet by any stretch. You CANNOT view these things in hindsight--you have to take the situation as it was viewed at the time. The school did no wrong by treating the guy as innocent at the time--that is the way America works and the way you and I should have viewed the situation as well. If he had been convicted at the time of the incident then perhaps it might change the situation to some degree. It certainly wouldn't merit a 1st amendment claim, though; that is just ridiculous and out of nowhere.
The bottom line is, I certainly don't support her termination from the squad on moral grounds, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that it's justified as a matter of law. A 1st amendment claim is seriously out of place here.
|
On October 27 2010 17:12 Mooncat wrote:
What distinguishes "sexual assault" from rape in the American law? Can someone clarify please? I mean, what exactly did these guys do so it wasn't considered rape but "sexual assault" instead? Did they just touch her or beat her and then touched her or what?
Not that it changes anything, I'm just curious.
I believe it's intercourse. If you force her to do other things but there's no penetration, it's not rape. NOT POSITIVE.
|
On October 28 2010 07:34 j2choe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 04:46 Krigwin wrote:
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. No, I believe that you're the one who's mis-characterizing the issue here. This has nothing to do with the school's onus in terms of protecting the victim. The issue here is her REMOVAL from the cheerleading squad. Nobody is saying that the school isn't being irresponsible in their dealing with the victim; all I'm saying is that by doing so they are staying within the confines of the law, and that the law is actually grounded in good sense. The fact that you raise the point of it being an extracurricular activity actually emphasizes my point more. If she is that gung-ho about staying on the squad, then I think logic would dictate that she play the role as required. Nobody is forcing her into this position, and nobody signs up to these things so they can say or not say whatever they want. If she finds her role too mentally distressing, then shouldn't she simply resign from the squad? As you said, it's merely an extracurricular activity that one opts into voluntarily: there is certainly no freedom of speech issue here because participation in school activities is not a function of speech in that regard. It's always been within the school's discretion to let you participate or not. It's certainly not putting bread on her table. That being said, the burden to the school is substantial. Should schools be required to retain participants in activities that willfully don't go along with the program? Should the school be required to bear that burden given that they had no hand in what happened to the victim? Should they do that when the person at issue has not been convicted of a crime? Should they automatically defer to the girl's side of the story in these types of situations? Remember also that at the time the incident occurred, the accused was not a "rapist" yet by any stretch. You CANNOT view these things in hindsight--you have to take the situation as it was viewed at the time. The school did no wrong by treating the guy as innocent at the time--that is the way America works and the way you and I should have viewed the situation as well. If he had been convicted at the time of the incident then perhaps it might change the situation to some degree. It certainly wouldn't merit a 1st amendment claim, though; that is just ridiculous and out of nowhere. The bottom line is, I certainly don't support her termination from the squad on moral grounds, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that it's justified as a matter of law. A 1st amendment claim is seriously out of place here.
I suppose I totally agree with your views.
But doesn't that make everything just worse?
I mean , seriously , it's so blatantly obvious that this situation is so so so so fucked up in so many different ways.
But in the eyes of the law ... It's Right?
That's ... just plain scary
|
That's your baby girl. The daughter that runs up to hug you as you came through the door everyday after work. The bottom line: somebody takes your little girl into a room and holds her down and does what he wants to her; rape or assault does not matter which. You go find the guy and beat him near death with a baseball bat. The world is better off without this piece of human trash.
|
On October 28 2010 07:34 j2choe wrote:
No, I believe that you're the one who's mis-characterizing the issue here. This has nothing to do with the school's onus in terms of protecting the victim. The issue here is her REMOVAL from the cheerleading squad. Nobody is saying that the school isn't being irresponsible in their dealing with the victim; all I'm saying is that by doing so they are staying within the confines of the law, and that the law is actually grounded in good sense.
Hardly. I'm looking at the situation as a whole, like you're supposed to do, while you're oversimplifying the entire situation down into a single legal issue. When you look at it through a vacuum like that, nothing becomes justifiable. Should it be legal for a guy to shout fire in a crowded theater? No. What about if the theater and the guy himself is actually on fire when he shouts it? Should it be legal for some radio broadcaster to issue a call to arms to overthrow the government on the airwaves? No. What if at the time he's saying it the American Gestapo has broken into his station and have him at gunpoint while Stalin rises from the dead and has himself installed as Emperor of New America? This is why we have courts and trials, to judge entire situations instead of purely following the letter of the law.
Also, staying within the confines of the law? Really? Kindly point out to me all the laws specifically concerning high school cheerleading squads in Texas, please.
The fact that you raise the point of it being an extracurricular activity actually emphasizes my point more. If she is that gung-ho about staying on the squad, then I think logic would dictate that she play the role as required. Nobody is forcing her into this position, and nobody signs up to these things so they can say or not say whatever they want. If she finds her role too mentally distressing, then shouldn't she simply resign from the squad? As you said, it's merely an extracurricular activity that one opts into voluntarily: there is certainly no freedom of speech issue here because participation in school activities is not a function of speech in that regard. It's always been within the school's discretion to let you participate or not. It's certainly not putting bread on her table.
No, it doesn't emphasize your point, it deconstructs your point. If it was an actual job with actual legal guidelines that she agreed to before she took the position, then yes it would be legally justifiable to remove her on grounds of not performing her job to reasonable expectations. But since it's not, it's all up to interpretation and the higher judgment of reasonable adults, and unfortunately in this case the adults at the school happened to be either idiots or scumbags.
That being said, the burden to the school is substantial. Should schools be required to retain participants in activities that willfully don't go along with the program?
Yes, if they have outstandingly good reason for it.
Should the school be required to bear that burden given that they had no hand in what happened to the victim?
No, but the school should be required to bear the responsibility of a victim's safety when said victim is actually at the school.
Should they do that when the person at issue has not been convicted of a crime?
Yes, if said person has been charged of a crime and there is sufficient circumstantial evidence.
Should they automatically defer to the girl's side of the story in these types of situations?
Yes, if the girl's side of the story is corroborated.
Remember also that at the time the incident occurred, the accused was not a "rapist" yet by any stretch. You CANNOT view these things in hindsight--you have to take the situation as it was viewed at the time. The school did no wrong by treating the guy as innocent at the time--that is the way America works and the way you and I should have viewed the situation as well. If he had been convicted at the time of the incident then perhaps it might change the situation to some degree. It certainly wouldn't merit a 1st amendment claim, though; that is just ridiculous and out of nowhere.
You don't seem to have a full grasp of the situation as it was at the time. He had been charged - those charges were temporarily withdrawn. They had evidence like the clothes he left at the house (and later threatened the homeowner to return). They had testimony not just from the girl but from other party-goers.
With a legal resolution not yet reached, the situation at the time must be interpreted and judged by reasonable adults. And if you were to interpret the above situation, what exactly would you determine?
The bottom line is, I certainly don't support her termination from the squad on moral grounds, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that it's justified as a matter of law. A 1st amendment claim is seriously out of place here.
Seriously out of place? What are you now, Lady Justice? Chief Justice of the United States? Who are you to decide that so conclusively?
Whether or not it is out of place is up to the judiciary to decide. Laws are not carved from stone by lightning bolts from gods, they are created and interpreted by mortal men. If some citizens like this girl's parents think it was a 1st Amendment violation, it is entirely their right to bring the matter up to the attention of the court. No one, not you, not I, may restrict their freedom to do so.
|
On October 27 2010 16:44 Phaint wrote:
Only in Texas I suppose.
Educated opinion you've got there.
|
On October 28 2010 06:38 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +I hate ops like this. Of course what happened to the girl is wrong and the school system really screwed up big time by letting the sex offender back to school and back on the basketball team, but seriously, WTF is up with this "only in Texas" business? This can kind of thing can happen anywhere and it DOES happen everywhere. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't say anything. Seriously. You live in the United States, so I'm sure you know. But if you don't, Texas is known for how seriously it takes sports. That joke is a reference to saying Texas puts sports over other things. If you did know that, it's just a partial joke IMO. May be a bad one, but still kinda applicable. After all, it really is true in a lot of other situations, even if it isn't in this one.
I'm well aware of how seriously Texas takes sports. Too seriously, yes.
So? I don't think the Op is joking (it doesn't read like a joke), and even if he were, it's a tasteless joke.
Furthermore, this kind of incident -- where the victim is made to suffer by the system -- is not limited to athletics, nor is it limited to sexual assault. And for that matter, it most certainly is not limited to Texas or the United States.
On October 28 2010 07:31 john0507 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 06:21 Mortality wrote:On October 27 2010 16:44 Phaint wrote: 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! I hate ops like this. Of course what happened to the girl is wrong and the school system really screwed up big time by letting the sex offender back to school and back on the basketball team, but seriously, WTF is up with this "only in Texas" business? This can kind of thing can happen anywhere and it DOES happen everywhere. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't say anything. Seriously. U should really take your own advice. I'm not sure if u live in the states , but if u do , you should pretty much know it is more or less true about how much of a big deal Texas makes sports out to be. Anyways , that's not the point. And such fucked up stuff doesn't only happen in Texas.Seriously when a sexual assault convict gets such a minor sentence AND is allowed to return to the same school as the victim AND basically favoured by the school itself. Things are really really really really fucked up , even by the most fucked up standards.
Why are you saying that my post was stupid and then agreeing with what I just said? It's not "only in Texas" that this kind of thing happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
