Teenager in trouble because she refused to clap

[rubytuesday]

It's just unbelievable!!!!
Cheerleader must compensate school that told her to clap 'rapist'

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cheerleader-must-compensate-school-that-told-her-to-clap-rapist-2278522.html

A teenage girl who was dropped from her high school's cheerleading squad after refusing to chant the name of a basketball player who had sexually assaulted her must pay compensation of $45,000 (£27,300) after losing a legal challenge against the decision.


The United States Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a review of the case brought by the woman, who is known only as HS. Lower courts had ruled that she was speaking for the school, rather than for herself, when serving on a cheerleading squad – meaning that she had no right to stay silent when coaches told her to applaud.

She was 16 when she said she had been raped at a house party attended by dozens of fellow students from Silsbee High School, in south-east Texas. One of her alleged assailants, a student athlete called Rakheem Bolton, was arrested, with two other young men.

In court, Bolton pleaded guilty to the misdemeanour assault of HS. He received two years of probation, community service, a fine and was required to take anger-management classes. The charge of rape was dropped, leaving him free to return to school and take up his place on the basketball team.

Four months later, in January 2009, HS travelled to one of Silsbee High School's basketball games in Huntsville. She joined in with the business of leading cheers throughout the match. But when Bolton was about to take a free throw, the girl decided to stand silently with her arms folded.

"I didn't want to have to say his name and I didn't want to cheer for him," she later told reporters. "I just didn't want to encourage anything he was doing."

Richard Bain, the school superintendent in the sport-obsessed small town, saw things differently. He told HS to leave the gymnasium. Outside, he told her she was required to cheer for Bolton. When the girl said she was unwilling to endorse a man who had sexually assaulted her, she was expelled from the cheerleading squad.

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.

HS and her parents instructed lawyers to pursue a compensation claim against the principal and the School District in early 2009. Their lawsuit argued that HS's right to exercise free expression had been violated when she was instructed to applaud her attacker. But two separate courts ruled against her, deciding that a cheerleader freely agrees to act as a "mouthpiece" for a institution and therefore surrenders her constitutional right to free speech. In September last year, a federal appeals court upheld those decisions and announced that HS must also reimburse the school sistrict $45,000, for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit against it.

"As a cheerleader, HS served as a mouthpiece through which [the school district] could disseminate speech – namely, support for its athletic teams," the appeals court decision says. "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."

The family's lawyer said the ruling meanst that students exercising their right of free speech can end up punished for refusing to follow "insensitive and unreasonable directions".

[Pax]

Unbelievable.

[MacBeth]

They would have to jail me because I would not allow my child to pay....

But I would appeal, and appeal, and appeal, and talk to the press, and talk to the press, and talk to the press

[Pax]

Talk to the press... yeh. I'd go to war over this one.

[wheelspinner]

Perhaps I just have a different perspective, but to me the obvious solution was for HS to decline to be part of the cheer leading squad. End of problem, and no cost to her or her family.

Bolton had been tried, sentenced and the court decided he was allowed to resume life in the community. Like all offenders, he has a right to live his life after doing his time. That includes playing basketball. Sure HS shouldn't have to cheer for him, but that's up to her to avoid that situation, not force the issue.

Sometimes USAians are just a bit too keen on going to court, rather than looking at how to rationally solve their problems. HS and her family are paying the price for hasty and inflexible decisons. Fair enough.

[Peltigera]

In England, there would be no case to answer - she could not sue the school in the first place - the courts would refuse to hear the case.

Presumably she knew who was on the team before the free throw took place and that was the time to discuss the matter with the school, not during the match.

[wheelspinner]

Yep. The headline is misleading too; it should say "Teenager's Parents in Trouble for Taking Frivolous Court Action".

[Pax]

Actually I should have read the whole thing. I thought it was about her being sued by the school for refusing to cheer. I didn't realize that she was the one who brought the suit for being removed from the cheerleading squad.

My heart goes out to her. I'm honestly not sure what's the right thing here. I can see it either way.

[wheelspinner]

May 5, 2011 7:37:17 GMT -5 Pax said:

Actually I should have read the whole thing. I thought it was about her being sued by the school for refusing to cheer. I didn't realize that she was the one who brought the suit for being removed from the cheerleading squad.

My heart goes out to her. I'm honestly not sure what's the right thing here. I can see it either way.

The case has been a three-time loser, over what is such a small issue really. It's doubtful that the parents should even have gone to court at all, but they should certainly never have gone as far as they have.

This girl probably had quite enough traumas in courtrooms in the original case; she didn't need her folks to be dragging her back there over and over again.

[Pax]

As I said, it's complicated. I can easily see where cheerleading might have been very important to her. Let's assume it was. She was given the choice between cheering her rapist or having yet something else she loved taken away because of her rapist. As a parent, what would you do?

Still, at this point, as heartbreaking as it may be, they should just stop. The court's ruled -- three times. No one ever said life was fair.

[wheelspinner]

May 5, 2011 8:52:46 GMT -5 Pax said:

As a parent, what would you do?

If I was really indulgent I might go to court over it - once. Not three times.

These costs are high because the parents insisted on pursuing a losing case. That's their problem.

[Pax]

I agree, they should have at least stopped after the second time.

I don't know if I'd use the word "indulgent." That's a word I use for parents whose children are spoiled.

In this case -- assuming their fifteen-year-old daughter really was raped, and they're faced wtih the situation that the rapist is walking free and didn't even face expulsion from the school, so their daughter gets to see her rapist in the halls every day, never mind see him honored as a school hero, never mind lose presumably one of her favorite school activities because she declines to cheer her rapist -- I really don't see the parents going to court as few as one time as being indulgent the whims of a spoiled child.

[Peltigera]

The thing is, Pax, for those of us outside the USA, any court action in such a case is totally inappropriate and locally impossible. I also expect that we don't really understand what cheerleading is - there is no such thing in the UK for me to compare it to.

[Pax]

It may be a cultural thing then.

Trust me, I don't believe in litigation.

And strictly speaking, I agree the suit IS frivolous -- I mean, suing because the school removed you from the cheerleading squad? That's not a matter of law and they have the right to do it. And for that reason perhaps indeed the parents shouldn't have even tried it and just explained that to their child, however distraught she might have been.

My support of this is an exception to my general rule -- and only because, as I said, the allegedly heartbreaking position that the girl and her parents are in.

You asked "what is cheerleading." It can be everything from shaking pompoms to a really elaborate thing where teams of young men and women compete with really complicated moves in national contests. And competing/cheerleading at that level is dangerous... it's not unusual for girls to break their knecks. Cheerleading is actually the most dangerous sport in this country in terms of frequency of serious injuries. I don't know if this girl was anywhere near that level, but it gives you an idea of the kind of passion and dedication that it can command. If this girl was anywhere near that passionate and this was taken away by her rapist, that's just yet another injustice... so it's not surprising to me that they're seeking justice, even if it's just to get her back on her cheerleading squad.

I can add that the school also had a choice -- the article says that they did not expel him because he was not found guilty of rape. But apparently being found guilty of assault wasn't enough even to rate suspending him from their sports team... which would have solved HER problem of not wanting to clap for him. One of their athletes is found guilty of assaulting another student and the school apparently takes no disciplinary action against him at all? None was mentioned in the article.

Come to think of it, what her parents should have done/should do is start a media campaign urging parents not to send their children to that school... because the school does not punish in any way one student's assault on another. It's not libel -- the boy was found guilty of assault, and the school took no discplinary action. Still not perfect, but it would give the unfortunate girl SOME closure. And in two years the girl can find out which colleges the boy is applying for (assuming he does) and mail clippings of the news story about the trial to those schools' admissions offices.

[patchoulli]

But, if the guy is a good athlete, nothing the girl does will matter. The colleges won't care either.

[wheelspinner]

May 6, 2011 11:26:14 GMT -5 Pax said:

In this case -- assuming their fifteen-year-old daughter really was raped, and they're faced wtih the situation that the rapist is walking free

First of all, it's pretty much slander to call Bolton a rapist. He wasn't even charged with rape, he faced a court, was found guilty and sentenced. Presumption of innocence, remember?

Second, if Bolton is free it's because the court, faced with all the evidence, determined that it was appropriate. We haven't seen what they saw, and there is no reason to assume that they were wrong.

I don't see why everybody is rushing to support this girl without the first thoughts to Bolton's rights in this matter. Just because she accused him of rape doesn't mean he loses all of his civil rights.

But, if the guy is a good athlete, nothing the girl does will matter. The colleges won't care either

I don't think that's relevant at all. It's hard to claim that nobody cares about the girl - she and her family have had four separate opportunities to put their side of the story in court and have not been able to convince anybody. After his sentencing, Bolton is entitled to get on with his life, without restrictions, and that includes playing basketball.

[patchoulli]

So the girl has to stop doing something she loves so the guy who was found guilty of assaulting her can continue doing what he loves?
Or she can cheer him on in doing what he loves?

[Pax]

He WAS charged with rape -- The article said, "he charge of rape was dropped."

And I didn't say they should start a media blitz saying she was raped by this boy. I said, "what her parents should have done/should do is start a media campaign urging parents not to send their children to that school... the boy was found guilty of assault." THAT much was "proved" by the court, so would not be libel.

[wheelspinner]

May 7, 2011 4:19:03 GMT -5 patchoulli said:

So the girl has to stop doing something she loves so the guy who was found guilty of assaulting her can continue doing what he loves?
Or she can cheer him on in doing what he loves?

Exactly. Because the courts get to decide the punishment, otherwise we just become vigilantes.

[wheelspinner]

May 7, 2011 7:03:24 GMT -5 Pax said:

He WAS charged with rape -- The article said, "he charge of rape was dropped.".

Well that's a bit technical don't you think? Ultimately he wasn't charged with rape. Better for you?

Why do you think the charge was dropped? For all you know, it was a false accusation to begin with, or totally unsubstantiated. Everyone seems determined to believe this girl 100% with no knowledge of the case other than that her side of the story has been rejected by the courts four - count them, four - times.

One of their athletes is found guilty of assaulting another student and the school apparently takes no disciplinary action against him at all?

Why should the school take action over and above what the courts already decided? He was tried, found, guilty and punished.

Let's get this clear - Bolton is NOT a rapist. Not if you have any faith in your legal principles he's not. People should not be dishing out additional punishments to somebody just because they aren't happy with their day in court. That's little better than vigilantism.

What the arguments above show is that some Americans have trouble accepting the outcome even when a fair trial has been held. That shows a complete lack of faith in and adherence to basic principles of justice. Sometimes the outcomes are hard for us to accept, but that's no reason for paying out more on people who have already had their penalty decided. It might be sad for the girl but seriously, that is her bad luck. To do otherwise would be an injustice towards Bolton, as four separate attempts to pursue this in the courts have demonstrated.

Unfortunately, as is often the case when people's rights clash, there is no neat solution here to please everybody, but the courts have made it pretty darn clear when weighing this issue what the evidence indicates is the right thing.

[patchoulli]

Wheel - what would you do if it was your daughter?

[oskar]

The US inJustice System is pretty amazing.

[Peltigera]

If it was my daughter (I know I am not WS) I would advise her to either deal with the chap's presence or to remove herself from the situation. The ability to cope with the presence of people is very important. There are many situations where we have to put up with the presence of people we really do not want near us. If other people in a particular group want them there the choice is either put up with it or leave the group. To me, that would be a valuable lesson for the girl.

[Pax]

Wheel, fer gossake. Justice is about, well, getting justice for what actually happened, not what you end up being tried and convicted for, don't you think? This IS about justice, right? You asked if he was charged with rape. He was, originally. Clearly the girl remembers she was raped. Your position requires you to claim she's lying about that. That's fair -- none of us know what really happened, and maybe she's crazy and maybe she has a grudge against him because he asked out her best friend instead of her. But just so we're clear -- your position requires you to claim you believe she's lying about having been raped.

As to the rape charge being dropped, I don't know how the justice system in Australia works, but over here it's common for the prosecution to only bring charges they actually think they can get a conviction for -- not what they necessarily think actually happened. So, it's very easy to conclude that the dropping of the rape charge wasn't because the rape didn't actually happen or even whether the persons responsible for the prosecution thought the girl was lying about it -- they simply made the administrative decision not to bring a charge that they didn't think they had a reasonable chance of proving to the unanimous satisfaction of twelve people. You're defining justice to be exactly what the prosecution thinks it can prove and hang the rest. Really? I'm still struggling to understand your defining it that way.

As well, I am mystified why you think the school has NO responsibility to take any action over and above what the court did. If Bolton had been convicted of drug possession, most schools would have sanctioned him as well over and above what the courts did, perhaps even expelled him. Are you saying that a school would be wrong to do so? Or only that it is at their discretion?

As to her alternative to, you know, mention, as often as she likes, through all means available to her, that Bolton was convicted of assaulting her, and, you know, if she's likewise inclined, also suggest that other parents might do well to consider the consequences of sending their child to a school that turns a blind eye when one student assaults another... are you saying that she would be wrong to do so? Or only that it is at her discretion? She would after all be only repeating what anyone can find in the public record. Would it be wrong of her to do so?

Finally, let me ask you: OJ Simpson almost certainly did kill his wife and her friend. You either believe that he did, or you do not. If you do, then you're probably aware of the meaning of "travesty of justice"... in fact, I imagine you're aware that in your definition of "justice," there is no such thing as "travesty of justice," defining as you do that "justice" is whatever the courts decide. Let me ask you straight out, though: In your definition of "justice," is there any such thing as a "travesty of justice," and how would it come about? And regarding the fact that OJ Simpson was acquitted in one court of murder, but in another court sanctioned financially for committing those murders, was there a travesty of justice somewhere in those judgments, and where exactly in your opinion is it/what would it be? Your defining justice entirely on what an imperfect court system brings, and proves, leads you quickly into those kinds of logical traps.

Also consider Al Capone. He was almost certainly directly and indirectly responsible for dozens of murders, among many other terrible things. However, the only charge that was ever brought, and proved, against him was tax evasion. So... you're saying that justice by definition was that the only thing that Al Capone was ever found guilty of was tax evasion, because that's what the charge was, and that's what was proved? If your wife had been murdered by him, would you say to your children, "Thank God, your mother can finally rest in her grave... her murderer was found guilty of tax evasion?" That's your definition of justice? Really?

ENTIRELY aside from the opposite view... if you truly believe, as you say, that justice is what charges were brought and which charges were proved, then there is no such thing as the injustice of convicting an innocent man.

I don't believe you really think that, but your stated position requires you to. You really need to think it more fully through.

[patchoulli]

Peltigera said, "To me, that would be a valuable lesson for the girl."

What lesson is in it for the boy?

[wheelspinner]

May 7, 2011 14:23:15 GMT -5 Pax said:

Wheel, fer gossake. Justice is about, well, getting justice for what actually happened, not what you end up being tried and convicted for, don't you think? This IS about justice, right? You asked if he was charged with rape. He was, originally. Clearly the girl remembers she was raped. Your position requires you to claim she's lying about that. That's fair -- none of us know what really happened, and maybe she's crazy and maybe she has a grudge against him because he asked out her best friend instead of her. But just so we're clear -- your position requires you to claim you believe she's lying about having been raped.

This is so wrong I didn't bother with the rest of your post.

First of all, Bolton is also entitled to justice. Your position requires you to assume he is everything he is alleged to be in the article, without the slightest knowledge of the facts. It also requires you to overlook the courts' consistent findings about the matter.

And my position does not require me to assume she is lying at all. Sometimes charges cannot be substantiated, as I averred above.

I agree with everything that Pelti said. Life is not fair, and dealing with that is one of the lessons that we all have to learn eventually.

[Peltigera]

May 7, 2011 17:13:59 GMT -5 patchoulli said:

Peltigera said, "To me, that would be a valuable lesson for the girl."

What lesson is in it for the boy?

That when you do wrong, you are answerable for it and will be punished - which is what happened.

[Peltigera]

Pax, the chap has not been convicted of rape and is therefore innocent of rape - in your judicial system, mine and WS's. We do not have to assume the girl is lying - nor do we have to assume the chap is lying. We should not be assuming anything other than innocence in the absence of conviction.

[MacBeth]

The standard of reasonable doubt as the threshold of evidence does not come close to equating innocence and a not guilty verdict. It indicates the possibility of innocence, a lack of adequate evidence and (sadly, these days) jury nullification succeeded. There is no way to know which of those it is without having been in the jury room.

[Peltigera]

Beth, that is why courts do not ever find people innocent - just not guilty. In this case and the charge of rape, no trial took place and no guilt was established. So we must assume the chap is innocent. Contrary to what Pax said earlier, we do not have to assume anything about the girl.