Cheerleader Goes to Washington, Free Speech at School

[Modern School]

In a previous post, I talked about a Silsbee, Texas, high school cheerleader who was kicked off her squad for refusing to cheer for the boy who had raped her. The boy eventually pled guilty, but was never disciplined by the school. The cheerleader’s family sued and lost and was required to pay the school district’s legal fees, $45,000. The court’s reasoning: she was the school’s “mouth piece” and could be compelled by the school to do its bidding, whereas the school had no obligation to promote her message of protest.

Her family has taken the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, in hopes that they will reinstate her free-speech suit against the school district.

To read the rest, please go to http://modeducation.blogspot.com/2010/12/cheerleader-goes-to-washington.html

[RandomThoughts]

1. Although that is a far more serious and emptional issue.

And do not trivialize the hardship that girl must have been in.


However that is a common thing people try to do. For instance in grocery stores, many that learned some of the powers of 'spiritual stuff' try to get their employees to chant for their company. I refused to chant for a company in a team huddle to boost employee moral with 'energy' that the company directed people to use on each other, while they cut wages and tried to dumb down all job positions.


They have team cheers for the company, to get employees to chant for an employer that will not care about them, and only treats them as property. Some think of some religious thoughts like that. Some compare a corporation promise of treating people correct, to be marketing, and think concepts of many comments of after life is the same thing. Some think religion is marketing.


Here is the thing, I understand that concept, I overcame it not by having to be sure, instead it makes more sense to support concepts of justice and compassion, because that is what I think is better. Not because of some reward or punishment. And in contrast it seems that in work life that same thought is helpful, it takes away a bosses presumption of control over an employee. Or in that case a school presuming to own the actions of people on a cheer squad. That is so authoritarian, making the 'cheers' not an expression by individuals supporting a team, but an owned role by a school.


But anyways I found the need to get into heaven, or fear of hell can cause some problems, since many sides use promises or threats and some can not be correct since many are contradictory.

On a side note, many of the 'materialist' types believe that if someone cares about you, and has power, then you should have much luxury and wealth. the thing is that assumes that your wealth is more important then someone else situation that might have more hardship.


Also why my claim of beer and travel money is from years ago, since that claim should not be made from actions of last decade. The funny part is no people thought it was better to correct that wrong done years ago.

[toastbutter]

2. A bit misleading

He pled guilt to ASSAULT, not rape. You can refer to him as "the boy who had raped her" but those are allegations. They have not been adjudicated as such.

Her family will lose the case. She IS the school's mouthpiece when in uniform. That's the job of a cheerleader. She can't selectively choose who and who not to cheer for on the team.

They lost and the case was found to be "frivolous" which is why they were required to pay the district's legal fees. As it should be.

[jotsy]

3. I find your discription of students as mouthpieces offensive and disturbing.

Regardless of what they are wearing or when they are wearing it. We're to believe because a bargain was struck that no rape occurred? Have you seen the old Jodie Foster movie, "The Accused".

I didn't hear or see the word frivolous at the link, which you might actually consider taking in. The family was told they didn't have a free speech case. I tend to think of the two differently.

[toastbutter]

4. It;'s a matter of legal record

the case was dismissed under rule 12(B)(6). I can provide cites if you so desire. that's why the complainant was required to pay the school district's court costs.

"A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim is
appropriate when the plaintiff has not alleged enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face, and when the plaintiff fails to plead facts
“enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption
that all the allegations in the complaint are true""

That's why it was dismissed.

I didn't say no rape occurred. I said that there was no legal determination of that. The only legal determination was that he committed misdemeanor assault. Whether he did or didn't actually rape her is not known. But it is inarguable that there was no legal finding of rape.

When in a cheerleader uniform, she represents the school. In that position, her speech is severely limited, as it should be. She should be, for example, allowed to wear a "close guantanamo" pin. But not in uniform. I have read far more than the "link". I read the ACTUAL legal case which I am happy to link for you, not some mediocre article about it.

The case is as simple as this. She is a school mouthpiece when in her cheerleader outfit, and cannot choose who to cheer for and who NOT to cheer for. Her position requires her to be a cheerleader for the entire team. Period.

The article you link to spoonfeeds you a bunch of misleading stuff that you are repeating. Why not read the ACTUAL case and not some biased review of it that misleads by saying "he pled guilty" w.o explaining that he pled guilty to MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT , not rape, as the article implies. The article also refers to him as the boy who raped her, which is not a foregone conclusion at all. Here's an accurate summary from a legal blog... i can link to more if you would like


http://www.illinoislawyerblog.com/cases_in_the_news/
Saw a fascinanting article in the November 8, 2010 Sports Illustrated, written by Selena Roberts. Ms. Roberts details how a Silsbee, Texas high school cheerleader was kicked off the cheerleading squad. Her crime? She didn't cheer for an athlete that she claimed had sexually assaulted her.

In October, 2008, the cheerleader, who is simply identified as H.S. in the article, was at a high school party. Beer was flowing, as it normally does at such parties. H.S. found herself in a room with three young men. Rakheem Bolton, age 17, Christian Rountree, age 18 and another boy, aged 16. The bedroom door was locked and H.S. was sexually assaulted. She screamed, the police were called and charges were filed. A therapist urged H.S. to continue her high school routine. The accused were barred from the campus, so she did so.

Unfortunately, in January, 2009 a grand jury decided there was not enough evidence to pursue criminal charges. So Bolton, a two sport star at the high school, was soon playing basketball again. And at Silsbee High School, whenever a Silsbee player is shooting free throws, the Silsbee cheerleaders shout his name. Bolton was fouled twice in the first half, and when her cheerleadering cohorts shouted his name, H.S. simply stepped back, folded her arms, and remained silent. H.S. was reprimanded at half-time.

The following Monday, H.S. was kicked off the Cheerleading squad. Her father protested the decision and was told H.S. either cheered for her attacker or she was off the squad. H.S. later filed a civil suit but the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that her protest was not protected speech. H.S. graduated and plans on attending college.

Bolton ultimately pled to a lesser offense and is on probation and in anger management. He plans on starting college soon as well.

[jotsy]

5. Minor children are not instruments of PUBLICLY funded academic institutions.

Recipients of abuse are not precisely victims until they seek accountability for their attackers and get told nothing wrong happened. Statistics on this crime are drastically down not because it no longer happens, but because authorities like police and schools can't be put in a position to look bad.

You sound like someone with a personal stake in this.

[toastbutter]

6. i'm not even going to respond to the ad hominem

but the reality is this. She was a cheerleader, and according to her cheerleader contract was required to cheer for the team. She chose not to (again, read the case) and was let go from the cheerleader squad.

You can call the boy a rapist all you want. The grand jury declined to true bill the rape.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/09/09-41075.0.wpd.pdf

He pled to a misdemeanor assault.

If he DID commit the rape, then he's scum. I fucking hate rapists. That's entirely tangential to the legal issues here.

[jotsy]

7. I contend when the spirit of justice is absent in the letter of the law

that neither are being aptly pursued. The word I used was attackers. The legal issues be damned, the political correctness of a courtroom is not what I see as the paramount function of academic institution. It is there for young people to learn, what's been learned here, toastbutter? That all that matters is what a court says? What a school system who doesn't want itself associated with an ugly incident says? Schools exist as models of society on a small scale. What perceptions will students possess going forward, whether they be privy to total truth or just rumored versions of it? Is there a chance that this set of circumstances will find their way to a subsequent group of up and coming adults because the school district refused to acknowledge or act in a flexible manner. How much harm would it have done to provide the young lady an option? Instead, the family is out, the school looks inhumane, (in my eyes, anyway) and should something like this happen here again, which I believe likely, all the same mistakes will be made, but be sure, them legal eagles, they'll be there to charge a mint to sort it all out, huh?

[toastbutter]

8. the school looks fine

the case is simply a non-starter. Schools should teach their students that yes... rule of law matters. I am not saying that all that matters is what a court says. I am saying that rule of law matters. I don't need the 5th circuit court of appeals to tell me this case was frivolous. They just confirmed what was common sense.

[jotsy]

9. I'm afraid you misunderstand.

My point was not to suggest that the rule of law matters as it has been yielded to the rulers of apparent order. That's a conversation I'm happy to have at another location, you and I have monopolized this thread enough, my apologies to the OP.

I'm sure you're good with what you need, I find the human condition an uncommon wonder, deserving of a higher bar.

Lastly, your header on this most recent post, I believe says much. Let's worry about how it looks, underlying contrary realities are urban legend, unprovable in the eyes of the law where a tear wells anyway.

[TheMadMonk]

10. Offensive or disturbing it is also unfortunately correct.

Schools have long enjoyed the "right" to punish students who behave badly off campus but still in the school's uniform, because while identifiably a part of that school, the student "speaks" for that school.

And when in a position that 'formally' speaks for the school, she should say what she is told to say.

And when you think about it, the reasons for this are generally pretty sound.


That said, the school authorities are a bunch of complete dicks for not allowing her to stand mute for the recitation of one name.


The smart thing to do now that this incident has had as much mainstream attention as it is likely to get is to simply walk away. Make the trip to Washington, but make it about WHY she will not be returning to THAT particular school in the Fall.


It's probably not enough, but the school has suffered a fair amount of embarrassmemt and it is likely to still be ongoing. Their football team IS going to be at a considerable "sledging" disadvantage for some time to come on the field. AND the boy in question, he has most certainly been outed locally, and while he might enjoy a certain nororiety amongst the scummier strata, for "getting away with it" he is still going to suffer a fair bit of local hostility. IF he isn't, then my advice to the poor kid at the middle of this mess is, fuck justice, just get the fuck out of that town NOW girl. And leave your family behind if they won't come.


It's most certainly not the best, but sometimes it's what we have to accept. If and entire community is going to throw itself behind the "wrong" side of an argument, any victory will be phyric at best. Far better to simply plant whatever barbs are possible and leave it to stew for a while. A community has to be open to change for a change to truly occur.

[Heywood J]

11. If she's graduated and moved on,

what are they seeking for relief?

[bluestateguy]

12. The school might have a legally sound case but I still think she should have been allowed to abstain

The boy did plead guilty and something did happen, so I think under these unique circumstances she should have been allowed to abstain.

Having said that, I find the school to be on stronger legal ground here.

[FBaggins]

13. Alternatively

It wouldn't be unreasonable for a HS to have a rule that student-athletes can't compete if they're guilty of assault.