८ मे, २०११
About that cheerleader who wouldn't cheer for the player she'd accused of rape...
Let's talk about the free speech and other legal issues, but you've got to get the timeline right.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१७ टिप्पण्या:
Gimme an "R," gimme an "A" . . .
Refusing to cheer is defamation? Public schools are doomed.
The timeline is important, but doesn't change my opinion. Without regard to whether he was found guilty, this girl should not have to cheer for the cad. Even if the grand jury declined to indict. Failure to indict isn't a statement that she wasn't assaulted.
And yes, the public schools are doomed, and this is but a symptom.
These days the usual remedy applied in public schools when A attacks B is to expel both A and B for....causing discipline headaches for the "Professional Educators". I bet that same attitude is what is underneath the hard to understand series of events here.
Serve the cheerleaders drinks before they go out, is my suggestion.
All she did is not cheer for him. The school should not have intervened.
They are lucky her dad did not shoot him.
Hair, meet split.
Nit, meet pick.
Anyone who would expect her to cheer for the sake of giving the school a CYA is on good drugs.
Mark O said...
Gimme an "R," gimme an "A" . . .
Refusing to cheer is defamation? Public schools are doomed.
As long as there are union teachers. The guy should have been suspended pending legal procedures.
At the very least.
PS What Fred said.
We are talking TX, after all.
"First, we kill all the lawyers!"
//Dick, the butcher.
Anyone who can read of this case and not make invidious comparisons to the Duke case deserves some kind of NAACP award.....I can understand the reasoning but not the conclusion. If the races were reversed, perhaps the same conclusion would have been reached, but the response to that ruling would not be so muted.
If you accept the premise that the purpose of public education is to produce compliant citizens, then this makes sense.
She should have shot him instead.
Silly school.
Its not a free speech issue. Cheerleaders have no free speech in cheering.
Seriously, is a cheerleader free to root for the other team?
This was a dumb case. I'm not saying she wasn't treated unjustly, but not every injustice is a legal cause of action.
For someone not to cheer an athlete who had been accused of rape is one thing.
For the victim, who has personal knowledge of the facts, to do so is another. Completely appropriate action for her.
BTW, I remember when the Duke Women's LAX team was criticized for supporting their male counterparts, who were innocent until proven guilty (& eventually proved innocent).
It was the only class act in the whole affair, IMHO.
If your family is going to get charged $45,000, doesn't that give you the cheerleader an incentive to, say, kill the guy you're mad at? I mean, that's a couple of years' salary at least. No way your family is going to be able to pay that off, unless they're rich.
Say it wasn't even a rape case, and it had just been a girl refusing to cheer for an ex-boyfriend with whom she was angry, does the school need to get involved? Why wouldn't adults just ignore that unless it became a chronic problem on the squad?
The fact that it was over an alleged rape makes the school's insistence totally unreasonable.
"Save the cheerleader, save the world"... or not.
Yeah. My first reaction was "this is just nuts!". But after reading the details, I don't have much of a problem with it. It would have been better to either talk to the cheer coach and get the night off, or simply call in sick. I mean, if your going to not cheer for every rapist, racist, or criminal in sports, then you wouldn't have cheer leaders.... Hmmmm...
PS. I'm a musician (I use that word in the loosest of terms), and one of my favorite all-time band names that I've never had a chance to use is Cheerleader Deathsquad!
I still don't see how the school officials let it go to the point of expelling the cheerleader from the squad. All they had to do is let it be. Seems like they were determined to make her comply.
This reminds me, for whatever reason, of a spy case from WWII. British intelligence was running a very complex--and successful--deception operation against the Nazis. One of the 'assets' was a rather socially awkard woman, who really, really loved her dog. She had had to leave her dog in Portugal, but wanted it back. Her handler was adamant that her dog had to stay six months in quarantine, complying with British regulations.... In short... the refusal to smuggle the dog almost blew up the whole operation, which may have cost thousands of lives.
Seriously, sometimes it is better to let people have what they want. Getting your way all the time is not worth it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा