FanDuel - WFBC

May 04, 2011

The Supreme Court Don't Wanna Hear It: if you're a cheerleader, you must cheer: even for the kid with pimples. And the kid who only made the team because he's the coach's son. And, uhm, that kid who raped you.

posted by yerfatma to culture at 08:16 PM - 14 comments

From the story: The subsequent legal challenge against Mr Bain's decision perhaps highlights the seriousness with which Texans take cheerleading and high school sports, which can attract crowds in the tens of thousands.

Not all of us.

So, we have a country in which bigots can disrupt military funerals and a girl must praise her attacker. When did rights become so wrong?

posted by graymatters at 09:04 PM on May 04

Honestly.....I can see the courts point of view. I don't like it, as I think most would agree, but to throw it into the category of a frivolous lawsuit? I think I would fight THAT ruling.

posted by scuubie at 09:15 PM on May 04

I'm with scuubie on this...why is that lawsuit frivolous? I think the girl had a valid reason to sit out the cheer for the rapist. (Actually, I think the manager of the cheer squad should have been able to develop some sort of compromise).

While I suppose the school district won't do it on principle, I would hope they'd waive the requirement to pay back the legal fees.

posted by dviking at 10:53 PM on May 04

Interesting. So a cheerleader is speaking (or not) as an instrument of a school, rather than as an individual. Finding this frivolous, as the Court had previously held that students can't be compelled to salute the flag, is kind of shocking. Way to add insult to horrible, scarring, injury.

posted by tahoemoj at 11:35 PM on May 04

"This act constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, HS was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily."

Substantial interference would be actively cheering against the player. Simply not cheering his name is not substantial I think.

posted by jmd82 at 11:50 PM on May 04

Screw the legalities, what was the district Superintendent doing when he pursued this? Isn't he supposed to support all the district's students including a girl of 16 who was raped? What is the message he is sending?

Some times, common sense and compromise should prevail over the law.

posted by JohnnyGunn at 12:50 AM on May 05

Some times, common sense and compromise should prevail over the law.

Agree. Perhaps the lawsuit was frivolous, but you would think that the school would have figured out some compromise in this situation given the facts as stated. However, the story does say that her parents instructed their lawyer to pursue a "compensation claim" and the amount of the demand is not indicated, so perhaps compromise was not possible because the parents or lawyer were looking for a big pay day. What is also troubling to me is why a student convicted of assaulting another student (even if only a misdemeanor) is allowed to continue to play on the basketball team. Shows Texas high school sports mania is not limited to football, though perhaps he was allowed to play basketball because they had already let him play on the football team so kicking him off basketball would have been a double standard.

posted by graymatters at 09:13 AM on May 05

The thing that gets to me about this story is the awfulness of the school officials. They could have chosen to simply ignore the fact that she was not joining in the cheer for her alleged rapist. Instead, they demanded she do it and punished her. How do they sleep at night?

posted by rcade at 09:17 AM on May 05

(Actually, I think the manager of the cheer squad should have been able to develop some sort of compromise)

That. It sure doesn't sound like the cheerleader went after the school district with blood in her eye and litigation in her heart. I think standing silently while her assailant was honored shows quite a bit of restraint on her part. Couldn't they have shown equal restraint?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:29 AM on May 05

2-4-6-8, who do we appreciate?

...

posted by yerfatma at 09:44 AM on May 05

The compensation required just seems punitive, as in 'don't challenge authority, especially when it comes to sports.' That's not justice, that's travesty.

posted by kokaku at 09:56 AM on May 05

When did rights become so wrong?

A+... so true.

What is also troubling to me is why a student convicted of assaulting another student (even if only a misdemeanor) is allowed to continue to play on the basketball team.

As much as I disrespect the crime... The court gave him his punishment, the school can not be held accountable for further judgment. It may not add up... but then this becomes a Michael Vick story.

posted by MJgigs at 09:59 AM on May 05

Looking at some of the earlier stories on this matter, it seems the player had not been convicted and in fact might have not been facing any active charges at the time of the cheerleader protest. So, in retrospect, I might give the school a pass on allowing the player to continue on the team. No change to my opinion re school's action in punishing the cheerleader though.

posted by graymatters at 10:38 AM on May 05

I think standing silently while her assailant was honored shows quite a bit of restraint on her part.

Yep. I don't know that I could stand by and watch someone who had wronged me so terribly bask in the adoration of my peers. Even at 40 years old, I would head for the exit.

posted by tahoemoj at 01:35 PM on May 05

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.