HS Cheerleader kicked out of squad for not cheering her rapist

[Luigitoilet]

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...ff-squad-for-refusing-to-cheer-for-her-rapist

Silsbee High School in Texas wants their cheerleaders smiling, energetic, and willing to cheer for their rapists by name. Go team!
H.S., a Silsbee student, reported being ***** by Rakheem Bolton with the help of two of his friends, a fellow student and athletic star. In the end, Bolton ended up getting off without serving any jail time by pleading guilty to a lesser assault charge, spending two years on probation, doing community service, paying a fine, and attending anger management courses. Hardly seems like an adequate punishment, but it's unfortunately not uncommon for attackers to bargain down their charges. What really gets the blood boiling is how the students' high school treated the victim.

Bolton was set to be on the school's varsity basketball team, and they couldn't risk losing by barring him from playing for a silly thing like a **** charge. That could impact their chances at winning. Who cares about the traumatic impact it would have an a cheerleader who needed to vocally support a team including her rapist?

But H.S. fulfilled her role as a cheerleader, participating in all the cheers for the team as a group. She simply refused to shout the first name of the man who assaulted her when he stood up alone to make free throws. It seems like she was being more than accommodating, when an student athlete facing trial on **** charges most likely should have been suspended from the team, even if his presence wasn't a source of immediate distress to his victim in her position as cheerleader. In a display of extreme disrespect for a **** survivor and disregard for her well-being, school officials insisted that H.S. had to scream "Rakheem" with the rest of the cheerleaders, or she'd be kicked off the squad.

I tried for ten minutes to make a joke about this, but I just can't because I'm so sick to my stomach.

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

First of all, despite this being such a terrible situation, the article is definitely not objective, and very so demonizing the school. After clicking the link, I notice a second article, that I'll post for you:

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? Here’s his contact information: LEFT OUT FOR PRIVACY

And you can contact the school’s new principal, Eldon Franco, to demand that H.S. be reinstated on the squad: LEFT OUT FOR PRIVACY

As you can see, I left some parts out for privacy. What actually was in there was all the information you needed to seriously harass a person. It contained their e-mail adress, the adress of his residential home and a phone number.

This article is basically asking people to harass these people for their actions. Sure, they might have done the thing that wasn't morally right, but they didn't break the law. The article even said he "allegedly" ordered her to cheer for him. This is ridiculous, nothing has been proven.

I think the writer of these articles has some serious problems to ask internet users to harass certain people, not everything is 4chan. If anything, he's the one breaking the law, giving out all the personal information on someone and asking for harassment.

Horrible article.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Yeah, I was wary as soon as the headline read "The American Taliban is at it again".

However, unless the article is straight up making things up, it does not change the reprehensibility of the story.

And the internet mass-harassing people isn't really new. 4chan seems to like doing it a lot.

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

Does that justify it? It's not like this is an anonymous person giving out information on someone doing something morally wrong (killing cats in the case of 4chan ). The writer of this article has a name and should not be excused from the laws regarding privacy.
I wouldn't really compare this site to the anonymous mass that 4chan poses.

The content of the story:
Yes, this is horrible. Having to yell for your attacker is not something that should be happening, nor should you be expelled from the cheerleader squad. However (I am not an expert on American law, so don't take this from now), there is no law against this. I don't really feel like this falls under the first amendment.

 

[Luigitoilet]

No, it doesn't justify it but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive like you seem to. It's still encouraging harassment. I also don't think a couple of cats being killed warrants mass harassment either.

As for the legality of the scenario, that's a little arbitrary. Legality isn't synonymous with "right". And YES, what the school administration did IS morally wrong. Just because it's not murdering pets or something doesn't mean it's not wrong.

 

[UberMario]

Wow, after all of that, H.S.'s parents' suit is dismissed? This is bull****.

 

[GreenKirby]

Wait. The more important question is why isn't the scum in jail?

Edit: Nevermind

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

You'd have to have a **** horrible varsity team if they can't win a game w/o one of their good (?) players...

Redneck state disgusts me once more.

 

[El Nino]

As you can see, I left some parts out for privacy. What actually was in there was all the information you needed to seriously harass a person. It contained their e-mail adress, the adress of his residential home and a phone number.

This article is basically asking people to harass these people for their actions. Sure, they might have done the thing that wasn't morally right, but they didn't break the law. The article even said he "allegedly" ordered her to cheer for him. This is ridiculous, nothing has been proven.

Just wanted to point out that the people whose contacts were published are the superintendent of schools in that district and the school principal. Unless the school is a private school, these positions are public/government positions, and their contact information would have been found in a directory anyway. Most likely, the numbers published were the numbers of their offices. If the writer used their personal numbers, maybe there'd be an issue. But otherwise, this is no different than asking people to contact their state senator about a political issue. As superintendent or school principal, you are accountable for actions taken under your position, and you are constantly subject to public scrutiny of your performance, whether formally or informally.

 

[PD4FR]

Admitting to a lesser crime should not free you from punishments for a greater crime. What were they thinking when they decided that?

Please, tell me I read that wrong.

 

[Namaste]

That's actually really common. It's generally a plea deal. If they couldn't prove that she wasn't consenting then the prosecution might just do that instead.

 

[PD4FR]

That's actually really common. It's generally a plea deal. If they couldn't prove that she wasn't consenting then the prosecution might just do that instead.

That doesn't seem like a simple thing to prove. :3

 

[SkylerOcon]

She's the plaintiff, she would have to prove that she wasn't consenting. It pretty much boils down to a he-said/she-said type of thing, and unless there's some sort of overwhelming evidence against the guy, he probably would've been found innocent because a reasonable doubt would always exist regarding whether or not he was lying.

The fact that he took the plea deal was testament to the fact that he did **** her, honestly.

Of course I'm waiting for somebody with more than a cursory knowledge of how this would work to come and prove me wrong.

 

[Namaste]

Yeah, Skyler is right, there's more to it, like it's likely the guy got a good lawyer and the prosecuter has other things to do and just wanted to end the case instead of having it be a long drawn out thing. Could also be that the girl didn't want to have to testify about the ****, which would have made it a lot harder for a conviction.

 

[GreenKirby]

Throw in the fact that usually **** cases are hard to prove and people usually think the victim is lying because of "buyer's remorse" and you pretty much got a ****ty judicial system as far as **** cases go.

 

[Raziek]

Political correctness gone wrong, as usual.

I wish common sense was actually COMMON.

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

Could you explain what you mean with that?

 

[Luigitoilet]

I don't thnk this is an issue of political correctness at all. In fact it's kinda the opposite.

 

[Raziek]

"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."

Was what I was referring to, but I suppose I worded it wrong. I think the school is taking it too far by trying to stick specifically to the "volunteer" business.

 

[DtJ SmithZzz]

You'd have to have a **** horrible varsity team if they can't win a game w/o one of their good (?) players...

Redneck state disgusts me once more.

Bolded for extreme ignorance.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Bolded for extreme ignorance.

Really? Out of everything in this thread that's what upsets you the most?

 

[DtJ SmithZzz]

Really? Out of everything in this thread that's what upsets you the most?

No, but Texas is the biggest business capital of the USA. It's not a bunch of rednecks. I think it's obvious the rest is ignorant, but there is nothing you can really do.