Here is a story proving (yet again) that bad cases make bad logic, particularly when our friends on the left are involved. Let's dive in with the Think Progress summary:
5th Circuit Rules That High School Cheerleader Is Required To Cheer For Her Alleged Rapist
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, one of the most right-wing courts in the country, sanctioned a former high school cheerleader because she brought a lawsuit claiming that she shouldn’t be required to cheer for her alleged rapist:
Rick Casey of the Houston Chronicle has the single best summary and evaluation of this story that I have read. His takeaway:
I hate to say it, but it appears the appeals court got it right.
It’s the school officials, not the judges, who should be ashamed of themselves.
If stupidity was a crime these school administrators would be in jail.
Stacy McCain also represents a voice of reason here:
Would somebody please tell these a–holes that the election is over and they can shelve the “Republicans are pro-rape” propaganda until the DCCC starts cranking out attack ads around Labor Day 2012?
You can read the whole story at the San Francisco Chronicle – San Francisco is a helluva long way from Silsbee, Texas, I hasten to note — and conclude that the plaintiff, “H.S.,” is indeed a victim, without necessarily agreeing that the ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was tantamount to an endorsement of rape.
...The underlying legal principles involved are of no interest in the eyes of the outcome-oriented Left, you see — not even the presumed innocence of a black teenager accused of rape in Texas, which we might otherwise expect to be the first priority of progressives.
The San Fran Chronicle article is pretty good but a bit PC. There is also helpful contemporaneous coverage from KDFM in Beaumont Texas.
This is from the Chronicle:
H.S., then 16, attended a party in her hometown of Silsbee, Texas, in October 2008. She said she was dragged into a room, thrown onto the floor by several youths and raped by Rakheem Bolton, a star on the school's football and basketball teams.
Bolton and a teammate were arrested two days later, but were allowed to return to school after a county grand jury declined to indict them. They were later indicted on sexual assault charges, but in the interim came the February 2009 incident on the basketball court.
Left unmentioned, although it appears in the court record - the assailants were black and the victim was (I infer) white. Excerpting from the victims appeal we see how "To Kill A Mockingbird" has been updated in Texas:
In fact, Plaintiffs alleged, “[District Attorney] Sheffield said that although the evidence against Rountree and Bolton was strong and exceeded the requisite requirement for probable cause, the Grand Jury was racially divided and that the black grand jurors would not vote to return an indictment against Rountree and Bolton because of the race factor.”
Elsewhere are are told that Rountree and Bolton are black, so I am guessing that there is a "race angle" because the victim was white. Let's add that Silsbee is a small racially mixed town with a median household income below the state median.
The Chronicle alludes to the correct timeline - there was an incident at a party in October 2008. Alcohol was involved, so witness credibility and meaningful consent seem to have been at issue, but in any case, Rountree and Bolton were promptly arrested and suspended from the football team.
In January 2009 the grand jury declined to indict, so "innocent until proven guilty" became a factor and Bolton was allowed to play with the basketball team. During this period of legal limbo the victim refused to cheer for Bolton specifically while he shot free throws. I can only guess that school administrators and their legal advisors felt that the cheerleader could not be seen as promoting the notion that Bolton was a rapist while functioning as a representative of the school after a grand jury had declined to indict.
In November 2009 another grand jury finally indicted Bolton, at which point he was kicked off the football team and out of school. However, I suspect the season was more or less over, because KDFM tells us that
Bolton is a senior and played football this year. Rountree played last year and has graduated.
And this is from Bolton's attorney in Nov 2009 (after the indictment but before the plea deal):
Morrison said she wants a speedy trial so Bolton can move ahead with his life.
"Rakheem has received several football scholarship offers," said Morrison. "It's important for a child who can't pay tuition to receive a scholarship and get an education. The family had been working and preparing for this for years. Now there's a question because he's looking at a sentence of up to 20 years. I don't want to say the victim isn't devastated, but yes, it's devastating to Rakheem's family."
He reached a plea deal in September 2010. Hmm, had he already matriculated at some collge or other on one of these scholarships even before reaching a plea deal? I find that hard to believe, and there is certainly no mention of his enrollment in the latest stories.
Bolton has consistently denied assaulting the victim; the first grand jury couldn't (or wouldn't) sort out the facts; this is from KDFM, Jan 2009:
The Hardin County grand jury has decided not to indict three Silsbee High School football players who were charged with sexually assaulting a cheerleader during a party, according to District Attorney David Sheffield.
The grand jury heard about three hours of testimony Monday before voting to no-bill Christian Rountree, 18, Rakheem Bolton, 17, and a 16 year old juvenile.
They were accused of sexually assaulting a Silsbee High School cheerleader last October during a party at a home in Silsbee.
The girl testified before the grand jury.
"The action by the Grand Jury ends the matter unless something such as newly discovered evidence arises and necessitates presentment of the case to this or another Grand Jury," said Sheffield.
Sheffield told KFDM News everyone involved in the case is a victim of underage drinking and an extreme lack of adult supervision.
"Because everyone had been drinking, it would have made it difficult to prove the allegations raised in this case," said Sheffield.
"Everyone's memory and degree of accuracy in their recollections would make it tough to prove."
That said, the police were called to the party to investigate a sexual assault, the girl has not subsequently backed down from her story, and a subsequent grand jury did indict. There is lots of racial and cultural baggage here - so far on the left blogosphere, the white girl is getting a lot more support than the poor black kid trying to get to college, but the day is young.
Let me just pick out the worst of the worst. Here is "Ms.", with no basic math skills:
Silsbee school officials had two responses to the incident. First, they urged H.S. to keep a low profile, such as avoiding the school cafeteria and not taking part in homecoming activities. With the support of her family, she refused to do so, rejecting the notion that she had anything to be ashamed of. Secondly, school officials kicked her off the cheerleading squad for refusing to cheer for Bolton. No kidding.
Bolton had been allowed back on campus during a brief period when one grand jury withdrew the charges before another grand jury reinstated them. During a basketball game, H.S. cheered for the entire team but refused to cheer “Rakheem” during his free-throws, so she was off the squad.
Uhh, "two responses to the incident"? I would say that kicking Bolton off of the teams and the campus was a third response. The decision to kick her off of the cheerleading squad was daft, but letting her use the school cheerleading venue to promote the rape allegation after a grand jury had dropped it may have been problematic as well. I am highly confident that the school attorney's stewed over just that point but if any legal eagles would chime in that would be wonderful.
And "The Frisky" is "The Useless", with no sense of time at all:
H.S. took Bolton and the other two young men to court in September 2010, where he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of assault. Bolton was sentenced to a year in prison, but the sentence was suspended and he’ll stay out of jail as long as he does not violate the terms of probation. (Gotta love our criminal justice, don’t ya?) Bolton told the local news station about H.S.‘s accusations, “I feel like it was just a misunderstanding.”
Now Bolton is back at Silsbee High School, playing on the basketball team, and H.S. is still a cheerleader. When it came time for the cheerleading squad to cheer the players by name during their free throws, H.S. refused to cheer for “Rakheem.” Refusal to cheer got her kicked off the team.
Wow. Here on Earth, Bolton and "H.S." are out of school and the cheerleading incident occurred in February 2009 during a period of legal limbo when Bolton was kinda sorta cleared.
Finally, the DKos provides an example of the sort of voter outreach that turns independents into conservatives - scroll down for the email exchange with the former cheerleading coach.
And props to the Dkosser who managed to get his facts marshalled by the 7th Update:
To clarify: the rapist was not indicted by the grand jury. His suspension was lifted due to the fact that he wasn't indicted. He was playing ball as an alleged rapist that was not convicted.
More fantasy at Women's Rights:
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 rape 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?
No mention of the suspension and initial non-indictment.
This is an awful case. In terms of outcomes, it's a shame the victim and her parents have not found a legal setting prepared to serve the school administrators some crow. But in terms of the law, I don't see the free speech angle working.
STILL MORE: Writing in Sports Illustrated Selena Roberts deplores the conduct of the school officials without tackling the legal questions. Works for me.
VERY LATE UPDATE: In May 2011 the US Supreme Court declined to review the appeals court decision.
(05-02) 17:12 PDT WASHINGTON -- A Texas high school cheerleader who was kicked off the squad for refusing to chant the name of a basketball player - the same athlete she said had raped her four months earlier - lost a U.S. Supreme Court appeal Monday.
Federal courts have also ordered H.S. and her parents to reimburse the district more than $45,000 for the costs of defending against a frivolous suit.
Selena Roberts has a column about the incident in the November 8 Sports Illustrated.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | November 09, 2010 at 11:53 AM
You know what this means,TM?
Sylvia will be back here.
*shudder*
Posted by: Clarice | November 09, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Selena "Michael Jordan is overrated/the Duke LAX players are guilty/guys hate me because I'm a lesbian" Roberts rarely gets anything right. Did she break her losing streak on this one, DoT?
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 09, 2010 at 12:15 PM
the sentence was suspended and he’ll stay out of jail as long as he does not violate the terms of probation. (Gotta love our criminal justice, don’t ya?)
So, wait, do lefties think the criminal justice system is too harsh or too lenient?! Or maybe "too lenient on rape, too harsh on murder"?
And last I checked, lefties were all about letting felons vote, and endlessly whining about how young black men don't get a fair shake. So here's a case where the court didn't reflexively assume a YBM's guilt, and the left is ticked off?
(And how much of a PC mess would it have been had H.S. -- rather than simply not cheering for the accused -- bowed her head in a 'prayer for justice' when he was up for the free-throw?)
Posted by: Rob Crawford | November 09, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Does this ruling mean that Jerry Brown can call her a whore?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | November 09, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Rob wins.
Posted by: Clarice | November 09, 2010 at 12:38 PM
"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 rape charge."
Although our esteemed host describes this as "fantasy," this comment contains the truth of what goes on in high school sports across the country. Sports run the schools.
Posted by: MarkO | November 09, 2010 at 12:48 PM
Last I checked, lefties were all about letting felons vote, and endlessly whining about how young black men don't get a fair shake. So here's a case where the court didn't reflexively assume a YBM's guilt, and the left is ticked off?
I can explain the left's new interest in locking up scary black men in three words:
Representative Allen West.
Posted by: bgates | November 09, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Who the heck cared if she cheered for him? I assume there were other cheerleaders on the squad? Had the school not made a federal case of it, we wouldn't know about it. Idiots running our schools.
Posted by: Sue | November 09, 2010 at 12:55 PM
Lefties have a hard time when forced to choose between two favored identity groups. (They much preferred the Duke lacrosse case when everything was arranged in their preferred hierarchy, at least at first.)
When this happens, they twist and turn but usually find a way to place ultimate blame on whomever is white and in a position of authority - school administrators, judges, etc.
[Please forgive me for summoning s----a]
Posted by: Porchlight | November 09, 2010 at 12:57 PM
(And how much of a PC mess would it have been had H.S. -- rather than simply not cheering for the accused -- bowed her head in a 'prayer for justice' when he was up for the free-throw?)
A Muslim prayer.
Although our esteemed host describes this as "fantasy," this comment contains the truth of what goes on in high school sports across the country. Sports run the schools.
Although I acknowledge the truthiness of the importance of sports, he was in fact suspended and expelled from October to January, when the grand jury gave him a pass. Si I'm sticking with "fantasy" to describe their account.
Less of a fantasy - there was a second grand jury that might have indicted him before the fall football season. Incredibly, irregularities with release of grand jury information put that grand jury on hold. Strange luck.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | November 09, 2010 at 01:00 PM
Don't know, CHate. Didn't read it.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | November 09, 2010 at 01:06 PM
Who the heck cared if she cheered for him? I assume there were other cheerleaders on the squad? Had the school not made a federal case of it, we wouldn't know about it. Idiots running our schools.
Exactly; whoever in the school initiated this suit, either on their own or from listening and giving credence to some imbecile who prompted it, needs to be relieved of any employment where judgement is called for.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 09, 2010 at 01:10 PM
"grief counseling" story blogged @ Politico LUN.
Posted by: macphisto | November 09, 2010 at 01:21 PM
oops, wrong thread. sorry.
Posted by: macphisto | November 09, 2010 at 01:23 PM
Just to be clear about what is driving the school, the coach could have determined that he did not want this sort of player on the team. Although most of those coaches are now dead. The administration could have suspended him for underage drinking or any other similar notion, but there goes the State Title. The district could have imposed a suspension. I’m certain if I looked up the bad behavior list for the district, I could find something. This kid was a good, if not great, player. Were he the 10th kid on the bench, the cheerleader could spit on him at the free throw line with impunity. I”m actually shocked that he didn’t play while only charged with a rape.
This came up principally, if not solely because he is an important part of the team, more important than common sense or a raped or molested girl. Winning trumps racism. Would you care to wager that the black members of the grand jury knew his skills? How dare she complain? She can be replaced; he can’t.
One of the paramount reasons schools are as bad as they are is the overriding emphasis on winning teams.
Posted by: MarkO | November 09, 2010 at 01:26 PM
OT,
Breaking on FOX. Former ACORN director in Nevada takes plea bargain and pleads Guilty to committing Voter Fraud in Nevada in the 2008 Election.
Posted by: daddy | November 09, 2010 at 01:29 PM
Can't we get some comments on this head scratcher from the New York Times:
Mr. Obama’s family rented the guest house inside a compound belonging to a prominent physician. There, according to the neighborhood’s longtime residents, the young Obama, who had already experienced differences in class and religion in his short stay in Indonesia, was exposed to another aspect of Jakarta’s diversity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/world/asia/09indo.html?_r=1&hp
Fortunately, Rupert Murdoch's Australian explains how Barry experienced the diversity:
The US President's former grade three teacher said that Mr Obama - who was known as "Barry" when he attended the Menteng One school in Jakarta - studied the Koran and went to classes on Islam, despite the objections of Ann Dunham, a Catholic.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/barack-obama-joined-muslim-prayers-at-school-teacher-says/story-e6frg6so-1225949239614
Posted by: reader | November 09, 2010 at 02:05 PM
Former ACORN director in Nevada takes plea bargain and pleads Guilty to committing Voter Fraud in Nevada in the 2008 Election.
I hope to God it includes lots of jail time.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | November 09, 2010 at 02:11 PM
I didn't realize Obama's mother was Catholic. Obama has described her has a little of everything and a whole lot of nothing. It doesn't sound like the Ann he described, complaining of him learning different religions.
Posted by: Sue | November 09, 2010 at 02:14 PM
To make myself a little more clear...she encouraged him to learn different religions...as she herself did. According to Dreams.
Posted by: Sue | November 09, 2010 at 02:14 PM
The school officials who dismissed the cheerleader are chumps who should be replaced. I'm surprised she couldn't get a restraining order vs Bolton, which would have avoided the issue since a basketball court is only 94 feet long.
Posted by: JamesH | November 09, 2010 at 02:20 PM
I think what surprises me most about this story is the fact that a man accused of rape in Texas, of all places, didn't get tossed behind bars with a very large bond attached. Maybe I just don't understand enough about the Texas system though. Here in CT we don't use Grand Juries very often....
However, given the mass hysteria of the general public over these types of charges it is surprising that it took so long to indict him...so, maybe the idea that he was "key" to the basketball season (which is big in Texas) has a bit of merit.
I still think that H.S. got a raw deal though...she should not have been dismissed...
Posted by: Specter | November 09, 2010 at 02:36 PM
The Grand Jury acted stupidly. The High School acted stupidly. The rapist should have his nuts removed. I think there's a teachable moment for Barack in there somewhere.
Sue; sometimes overseas the only decent schools are either the International schools or those run by various denominations. In all my reading I never heard that his mom was Catholic, especially with he choice in men. At the time, it would have been a scandal for her to marry a Muslim, especially an African Muslim. Then there's Frank the commie, and then Soetero.
Obviously she didn't take religion very seriously if not antipathetic to it outright.
Posted by: matt | November 09, 2010 at 02:38 PM
Matt,
IIRC, his grandparents were loosely Methodist and Baptist, not Catholic. Not that that means his mother couldn't have been Catholic, but I've never heard Obama say she was Catholic.
Posted by: Sue | November 09, 2010 at 02:44 PM
From Obama's book:
Posted by: Sue | November 09, 2010 at 02:48 PM
Sue - I see confusion. For grades one through three, Barry attended St. Francis, which was a private Catholic school. For grade four, he attended SDN Menteng 1, a secular, government-run school. I doubt that Stanley Ann was Catholic in any way. The one school record open to public review dealt only with the father Mr. Soetoro. Mum was not mentioned IIRC.
Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | November 09, 2010 at 02:48 PM
Frau,
Everything about Obama is confusion. Even the religion, or lack thereof, of his parents. He himself says they were neither one religious. Yet stories like these continue to pop up. Because everyone feels the need to assign a religion to them? Who the hell knows?
Posted by: Sue | November 09, 2010 at 02:52 PM
I don't have an issue with this particular story. If it were me under the same circumstances and the same age, I would have wanted to attend both as well. I spent the first 18 years of my life attending every weird house of worship I could find, because I was curious.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | November 09, 2010 at 02:54 PM
BTW - in my best conspiracy moments, I think that *if* there was an actual Obama marriage --and no trace of a record has been found-- it might have been in the local Unitarian Church which later served as a sanctuary for military who wanted to escape the trip to Viet Nam. When Oliver Stone makes the movie, that's what I want to see.
Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | November 09, 2010 at 02:55 PM
Jane,
I don't have an issue with the story. Just seems there are always little details about Obama that are never quite right. Like his mother being Catholic. She wasn't.
Posted by: Sue | November 09, 2010 at 02:57 PM
Frau,
While the marriage might not have been exactly official, there is indeed a divorce in the official public records in Hawaii for Obama's parents. Way back when the BC controversy was roaring, I saw the file-marked copy of the final decree. I think I was at Pam Gellar's site, but I can't remember now.
Posted by: Sue | November 09, 2010 at 02:59 PM
I'm not defending the school, just pointing out that (as is usually the case) it ain't so black and white.
The cheerleading team had a rule that all cheerleaders had to yell the name of the player shooting free throws. This was to create a 'we're all rooting for you' atmosphere, there was no 'I don't like the guy' exception at all, not even a 'I really don't like him' exception. The girl knew what the rule was when she joined the team. She didn't follow the rule, she was dismissed from the team.
Should there be a 'I don't like him' exception? Did the school choose to make an issue over something they probably could have ignored? Should school administrators be allowed to follow only the rules they think ought to be followed?
Posted by: steve | November 09, 2010 at 03:02 PM
Should there be a 'I don't like him' exception?
What kind of amoral monster are you that you can't conceive of the difference between "I don't like him" and "I was raped by him"?
Posted by: bgates | November 09, 2010 at 03:24 PM
Just seems there are always little details about Obama that are never quite right.
Yup - in everything he does and says. He is a slippery little eel. And I bet he has been that way his entire life.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | November 09, 2010 at 03:27 PM
The girl knew what the rule was when she joined the team. She didn't follow the rule, she was dismissed from the team.
Tricky - remember, he was suspended immediately after the incident, so for a few months there was no issue.
Once he came back it should have been obvious to a blind man that this train was coming down the tracks, but she says the free throw scenario never dawned on her until it was happening, and apparently the cheer leading coach was equally oblivious.
And obviously, once the grand jury listened to her story and declined to indict there were probably skeptics in the student body as well.
I haven't seen any inside gossip on how the student body broke. The obvious guess would be along racial lines but maybe the white girls were also slut-shaming her.
If it was a break on racial lines the school administrators have a whole (unspeakable) new reason to take a tough line on the girl, since they can't be supporting a white girl making unsubstantiated and dismissed rape charges against a black kid. Very awkward.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | November 09, 2010 at 03:43 PM
whatever the merits of the underlying criminal case at the time, administrators with the sense of a flea should have just let her refusal pass as understandable under the circumstances.
Posted by: Clarice | November 09, 2010 at 03:50 PM
What kind of amoral monster are you . . .
Gotta admit I'm not nearly so fired up about this.
But I also think much of this misses the point. Whatever should've happened at the grand jury, basketball game, and cheerleading squad is not really the issue. The question is whether the young lady in question should be able to sue the school district for violating her constitutional rights (not to cheer, apparently), and have the relevant taxpayers pay her. And on that narrow question, I don't think it's an appropriate use of either the court's time or the taxpayers' money
Posted by: Cecil Turner | November 09, 2010 at 03:54 PM
"he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of assault"
So she definately had a reason for not cheering her assailant. Also, failure to indict is not really "sorta cleared".
She should not have been dropped for being emotionally unable to cheer any more than if she took sick and was unable to cheer. After all, not cheering is not really the same as grabbing a megaphone and yelling "THAT BASTARD RAPED ME !!" is it.
Posted by: boris | November 09, 2010 at 03:57 PM
Mr. Obama’s family rented the guest house inside a compound belonging to a prominent physician
Known for yanking out tonsils for profit?
Posted by: DebinNC | November 09, 2010 at 04:03 PM
Well, there is that, Cecil. School administrators everywhere seem so damned dumb, if we allowed kids to sue for every stupid move they made, there'd not be enough money to keep paying their salaries.
Maybe what we need is a Cardozo brief on how cheerleading damages the brains of kids who engage in it and should be banned.
Posted by: Clarice | November 09, 2010 at 04:04 PM
"If it was a break on racial lines the school administrators have a whole (unspeakable) new reason to take a tough line on the girl, since they can't be supporting a white girl making unsubstantiated and dismissed rape charges against a black kid. Very awkward."
Wrong again. They didn't kick her off the team for making unsubstantiate and dismissed rape charges. They kicked her off for not cheering for her rapist. Her basketball-star rapist. Come on, man.
Posted by: MarkO | November 09, 2010 at 04:14 PM
"d"
Posted by: MarkO | November 09, 2010 at 04:16 PM
School administrators everywhere seem so damned dumb
Obama thinks doctors everywhere seem so damned greedy.
Posted by: DebinNC | November 09, 2010 at 04:18 PM
BO has a hospital traveling with him everywhere he goes - I wonder what his co-pay is?
Posted by: Specter | November 09, 2010 at 04:19 PM
Slowly and carefully, however, may we observe and absorb the salient fact that this kid entered a guilty plea to assaulting this girl. Why is he playing on a school basketball team? Are there no adults in the district? He does have the perfect resume to play for Calhoun. How can she be dismissed?
Easy. He can shot the "J" or dunk.
She's just a girl.
Posted by: MarkO | November 09, 2010 at 04:20 PM
shit, shoot.
Posted by: MarkO | November 09, 2010 at 04:20 PM
MarkO, I think TM has it correct on this one (and TM deserves a Pulitzer for being willing to venture into an aspect of this that MSM is not going to dare touch). I don't read TM's comment as he concluding that the charges were unsubstantiated. I think he was pointing out that if the accuser kept up her silent protest, the accused's supporters in the stands were going to view the school as supporting the white girl who hurled unsupported rape charges against the hardworking black student who was studying hard, practicing hard and trying to get a college scholarship to escape from the poverty for which whitey is responsible. The school was in a tough spot. They quite possibly were trying to avoid a race riot.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | November 09, 2010 at 04:38 PM
Just OT stuff concerning Obama's peculiar upbringing:
My dad was stationed in Thailand from 58-61, so I (3-6 years old) grew up in an interesting situation where we had a Muslim female cook, and all the other cooks and dishwashers and laundresses and lawn cutters and drivers we had were Thai Buddhists. Older brother and I hung out with the servant kids (Oot and Ott-our best friends) and ran around most of the time half-naked and barefoot just like them, and prowling the clongs and floating markets, and speaking pidgeon Thai with our bosum buddies,and learning how to squat like Thais while eating fingerfuls of rice with dried fish parts. Amazingly delicious! Was truly a different era of trust and relative safety. Mom was very good at exposing us to all the Temples (Wats) etc, the snake farms, the whole business. She really wanted us exposed to different cultures. The only time I recall her going ballistic was when Dad brought home a baby gibbon sort of monkey critter, but it turned out swiftly to be so unruly that she terminated that experiment pretty quick. Our head driver, Bunchu, (we had 2) would always pimp her to let him take me and older Brother to the latest Tarzan movie, and she acquiesced. For all that I truly love and respect her. Wouldn't trade it for the world. A great childhood.
Anyhow, just thought I'd throw that out there to let folks know its possible to grow up overseas in unusual religious territory, and still wind up somehow loving America and not having an idiotically naive view of foreign religions.
And something struck me last night when reading this story of ">http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/24/lauren-booth-converts-to-islam"> Tony Blair's Sister In Law converting to Islam. A lifelong Journalist and Broadcaster, the story says that she Converted to Islam following a feeling of euphoria while visiting an Islamic Shrine, after which she is now finally taking the time to read the Koran. (She is on page 60). It struck me as odd that Journalists/Reporters etc, whatever the heck we want to call our information folks, would make decisions of such import apparently so rashly, without having taken the time to actually read the Sacred text first before making the jump. Whatever. To each his own I suppose, but I guess that's why I'll never be a professional Journalist, and partly why I have so much difficulty believing them.
Posted by: daddy | November 09, 2010 at 04:44 PM
Race riot? Hyperbole much.
The school made the bogus conventional PC bullshit mistake of enforcing "innocent until proven guilty" behavior on the victim of an actual assault. Not their place and besides that is a rule for juries not for victims.
Posted by: boris | November 09, 2010 at 04:45 PM
I agree, TC, especially given that once he was formally charged he was kicked off the team and expelled. The charge of favoritism doesn't really fly.
But the school obviously could have taken the girl aside and said, "Look, we understand you don't want to cheer, but don't make a big show of it and we'll ignore it."
Posted by: jimmyk | November 09, 2010 at 04:47 PM
Gotta admit I'm not nearly so fired up about this.
About the court case, or about Steve's contention that being the victim of sexual assault is one of those things that high school girls get overly emotional about, like bad hair days or missing a Justin Bieber concert?
on that narrow question, I don't think it's an appropriate use of either the court's time or the taxpayers' money
I'm inclined to agree with that, though Clarice's point,
if we allowed kids to sue for every stupid move they made, there'd not be enough money to keep paying their salaries,
is a compelling counterargument.
Posted by: bgates | November 09, 2010 at 04:47 PM
If the accuser had wanted to press her point, she would have been better off, after she had been told she couldn't be silent when the accused was at the free throw line, resigning from the cheerleader squad and staging silent protests with her supporters at the games when the accused was at the free throw line and wearing anti-rape t-shirts. If the school then banned her from the games, she might have had a solid First Amendment claim (she quite possibly could have developed evidence, for example, that the school allowed others to enter with t-shirt slogans).
I haven't read the opinion, but one of the articles said the Fifth Circuit is making the plaintiffs pay the legal fees because the suit was frivolous. I wonder whether any of the JOM lawyers have considered whether the Fifth Circuit erred in assesssing attorney's fees.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | November 09, 2010 at 04:50 PM
Sounds like you've been rather intrepid from the get-go, daddy. Kudos to your wise parents.
Posted by: DebinNC | November 09, 2010 at 04:54 PM
Wth is wrong with that school, honestly, why should they penalize her, for something that yutz, and I'm being very charitable, did, this isn't like the Duke case, or the incident
which pretty much torpedoed the Buck race.
That being said, the Court had little lee way in the matter
Posted by: narciso | November 09, 2010 at 04:57 PM
Race riot? Oh, well. Let's have that little girl sit down. Extortion works everywhere. She was NOT kicked off the team for a "false" claim which resulted in a guilty plea. She was punished later for daring to refuse the opportunity to cheer this little dweeb.
As for a basketball scholarship, I can tell you without fear of knowledgeable contradiction that those scholarships come out of summer leagues and select teams. That is just so speculative as to make my eyes roll back in my head. Poor little Willie, if he doesn't start for our team, why he'll live in poverty the rest of his life. That's a total fabricatino if we're looking for one.
Kids can sue for violations of their rights. Being a cheerleader is a privilege, not a right. Courts don't intervene in that sort of thing, but usually districts don't ask for fees. Who are these people?
There's underlying tension here. I'd love to see a color chart. But, that said, this is motivated entirely by the fact that this kid is a good player. How else does he cop a plea to assault and get on the court? Hell, were he a lawyer he would have a hard time appearing in court.
Anyway, a seasoned observer can read this for what it is.
Posted by: MarkO | November 09, 2010 at 05:03 PM
I'm sure that's true, daddy. Unfortunately for us, Obama didn't manage it.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 09, 2010 at 05:09 PM
"...Steve's contention that being the victim of sexual assault is one of those things that high school girls get overly emotional about.."
I neither said nor implied nothing of the sort.
I don't know why, but I continue to be surprised that some people are so blinded that they see things that just aren't there.
Posted by: steve | November 09, 2010 at 05:10 PM
Did Michelle assault the Indonesian minister by forcing skin to skin contact on an unwilling victim?
Posted by: DebinNC | November 09, 2010 at 05:11 PM
Porch, you got a big grin out of me on that comeback!
Posted by: Mark Folkestad | November 09, 2010 at 05:11 PM
MarkO, you may be correct. None of us really know. Anyone interested doing a thorough piece on this would start by undertaking a careful review of the court papers. However, I don't think anyone here is claiming to be steeped in the facts of the case and, having been so steeped, has concluded the accused's claim is false. TM's scenario is a possible way of looking at how the accused's supporters might have viewed things.
As far as the school's actions go, perhaps in looking at this carefully we would conclude that the school gave in to extortion. But we also might conclude that the school was in a tough situation and handled it as well as it could have.
As far as the fees go, I was surprised that fees were awarded. I think the Fifth Circuit reached the correct result on the school's ability to terminate the accuser from the cheerleading squad, but I don't think the accuser's claim is frivolous.
TM, you've struck a nerve here. When you get tired of short selling against the box and speculating in Zimbabwe governmental paper, write the book on this!
Posted by: Thomas Collins | November 09, 2010 at 05:19 PM
Make that noone has concluded that the accuser's claim is false. Now that I think of it, however, I don't think anyone here is really purporting to make a strong claim on the underlying facts of what happened at the party, and whether those underlying facts support the accused or accuser's version. And that is the correct posture unless one really has steeped oneself in the facts.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | November 09, 2010 at 05:30 PM
(and TM deserves a Pulitzer for being willing to venture into an aspect of this that MSM is not going to dare touch).
Unless the topic summons sylvia. Then I won't forgive him for a while.
Posted by: Jane | November 09, 2010 at 05:30 PM
I worked at a school where a black student was convicted of rape, suspended and came back with probation officer in tow and continued his education. This was middle school and the girl was still attending the school. I understand public school is a right but shouldn.t the student have been expelled?
The principals also would wait to expel until February because then the student would be unable to return in that school year.
Posted by: maryrose | November 09, 2010 at 05:39 PM
Steve, you did not ask whether there should be an "I accused him of felony assault" exception to the rule. You asked whether there should be an "I don't like him" exception. Why is that?
Posted by: bgates | November 09, 2010 at 05:41 PM
--As far as the fees go, I was surprised that fees were awarded. I think the Fifth Circuit reached the correct result on the school's ability to terminate the accuser from the cheerleading squad, but I don't think the accuser's claim is frivolous.--
IMO her legal claim in the instant case (as Cecil said, the right not to cheer?) which is the one she was sanctioned for, is pretty darned frivolous.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | November 09, 2010 at 05:47 PM
Shouldn't the student have been expelled/
If Arne and Obama have their way, public schools wil soon swell with miscreants the admin dare not suspend, much less expel. And just at a time when fewer and fewer familities can afford private or home schooling.
Posted by: DebinNC | November 09, 2010 at 05:54 PM
FWIW, in TX 23 randomly called county residents make up the grand jury. True billing a charge takes a simple majority, with the foreman breaking a tie. Hardin County is 89% white, 7% black, and 2.5% Hispanic according to census quick facts.
Posted by: DebinNC | November 09, 2010 at 06:01 PM
maryrose, under those circumstances, I cannot imagine why he was allowed to reenroll at the same school.
Posted by: Clarice | November 09, 2010 at 06:02 PM
Isn't it obvious? Bureaucratic Mindset overtops Common Sense....
Posted by: Specter | November 09, 2010 at 06:06 PM
About the court case, or about Steve's contention that being the victim of sexual assault is one of those things that high school girls get overly emotional about . . .
Seems to me the discussion was about whether or not a cheerleader who refused to cheer must be retained on the squad. (And the plea was to "simple assault" with a suspended sentence; which suggests either the case was weak or a far more important miscarriage of justice than the civil right not to cheer violation.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | November 09, 2010 at 06:12 PM
in our local district, the felons get expelled from one of the schools and can enroll in a school across town. Expelled doesn't seem to mean expelled anymore.
Posted by: matt | November 09, 2010 at 06:26 PM
Legal jeopardy or not the school, a government institution, added insult to injury.
Posted by: boris | November 09, 2010 at 06:39 PM
A look at a similiar problem!
Controversy is brewing over a city-sponsored anti-racism campaign that calls on Caucasians to recognize their "white privilege". .
Posted by: pagar | November 09, 2010 at 07:34 PM
The squad had the cheerleading equivalent of a zero-tolerance of weapons rule... if you don't cheer, you are off the team, and your reason for breaking the rule is irrelevant.
If there was to be an exception, 'I don't like him' covers the full spectrum of reasons a girl could have for not wanting to cheer for a particular player.
Of course, if you have an exception, then you have to draw the line at what is and what isn't an acceptable reason (a crime, but only if reported? a former boyfriend who is dating her former best friend?)... and you also have to decide who gets to make the decision (the girl herself, administrators, a vote by the student body?)
As with the no-weapon policy, the administrators seemed to feel the best/easiest choice (at least for them) is to take discretion out of the playbook.
Posted by: steve | November 09, 2010 at 07:39 PM
Yes, it did, boris, and it did so in a way that anyone with the smallest modicum of regard for the wellbeing of all the students would have understood was wrong.
Posted by: Clarice | November 09, 2010 at 07:39 PM
Seems to me the discussion was about whether or not a cheerleader who refused to cheer must be retained on the squad.
Not the conversation I was having with Steve, which you joined.
Posted by: bgates | November 09, 2010 at 07:48 PM
a crime, but only if reported? a former boyfriend who is dating her former best friend?
One of those sounds like the circumstances of this case. The other sounds like one of those things that a high school girl might get overly emotional about. Why do you persist in linking an allegedly serious crime with a hypothetical triviality?
Posted by: bgates | November 09, 2010 at 07:53 PM
Steve's yours is the sort of formulaic reasoning that characterizes idiotic school administrations/
a) This is fucking CHEERLEADING, not life saving.
b) The girl had charged the boy with a grievous offense to her and
c) While the mater worked its way through the system what harm is there in not forcing her to cheer for the person she believes harmed her?
d)Alternatively , what's the message to her and others if she knuckles under to your pressure and cheers someone she thinks harmed her?
Really.
This isn't brain surgery..
Lets try this another way.
You were given a free ticket to geraldo's show--audience members are supposed to be respectful and appreciative of the crap he serves up.
In the course of the show he says something so outrageous about you that you refuse to smile and pretend this is all good natured ribbing. You tell him in front of the audience that he has offended you,
Should the program toss you out in front of the viewing audience?
Posted by: Clarice | November 09, 2010 at 08:02 PM
This whole thing has an air of unreality about it. Frankly I'm surprised the other cheerleaders didn't all quit in support of the victim (or conversely why the victim would want to be part of such a gaggle of backstabbing shrews) but this is one of these situations that I don't feel we're getting anywhere near to the whole story, for whatever reasons. Except the school acted stupidly.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 09, 2010 at 08:03 PM
To the phrase that we must "First, kill all of the Lawyers" we should now add - "and public school administrators".
Posted by: Strawman Cometh | November 09, 2010 at 08:07 PM
or perhaps "PC nobs"
Posted by: Strawman Cometh | November 09, 2010 at 08:09 PM
"First, kill all of the Lawyers" we should now add - "and public school administrators".
I've had about all of this blanket slamming of school administrators I can take. A comparatively few bad apples, yes, but all, NO.
Posted by: DebinNC | November 09, 2010 at 08:22 PM
Admittedly, deb , we only hear of the worst cases. but the rise of foolish litigation which has scared people into acting by silly formulas (suspending kids for having GI Joe plastic bayonets and aspirins in their backpacks) and not very smart principals and district heads makes these reports ever more common.
Posted by: Clarice | November 09, 2010 at 08:35 PM
Set aside the administrators, with the few bad apples, and the teachers, with a few moldy oranges, because they do not cause half the problem that a misdirected curriculum causes -- you know, one the resorts to multiple guessing facts because they are easily tested.
Posted by: sbw | November 09, 2010 at 08:38 PM
Good points all, Clarice. I wish I'd written down all the anecdotes from my dh's time as teacher and now administrator. There's been something to laugh about almost every day.
Posted by: DebinNC | November 09, 2010 at 09:05 PM
When I was a cheerleader in the dark ages I think the coaches wanted us to quiet the crowd and have all eyes on the shooter during foul shots. Why did anyone notice her actions anyway? I agree that there must be more to the story.
Posted by: caro | November 09, 2010 at 09:13 PM
Actually, Sarah Palin can shoot her food. And, also catch it at the end of a line.
What DC doesn't want is Sarah Palin's voice to get heard. But look at all the stuff that's messing around, now? Did you know Kirk won Obama's old seat, and should have been seated on 11/3? Wasn't.
While Nancy Pelosi is not afraid to hold a victory party. Where, I am sure Boehner will show up for the free drinks. And, he'll cry a lot.
DC is still a swamp.
Posted by: Carol Herman | November 09, 2010 at 10:11 PM
Do unto others... but... do it through the courts and make sure they fill the full term of the sentence preferably in a cell with a fellow drug crazed rapist with a Passion for murder...
Force Factor
Posted by: Assunta D. Roberson | November 10, 2010 at 01:05 AM
Why didn't the other cheerleaders back her up? They should all have walked off rather than cheer for their squadmate's rapist when he first walked on the court. Did they think she was lying?
One screwy story.
Posted by: Ralph L | November 10, 2010 at 01:19 AM
@Ralph and @Captain Hate, yes, it would have been gratifying to see an act of solidarity on the part of the cheer-leading squad. I am not surprised and, no, it doesn't make me doubt H.S.'s story. It is a lot to expect of kids to (a) defy authority, (b) sacrifice this common goal that they are not only mentally but physically -- as in neuro-chemically -- committed to, AND (c) act collectively. It is a rare group of kids with a strong leader who can do that and it is highly unlikely for a group of ambitious (insecure) young women in a community where the grown-ups have shown them that the victim is at fault (probably not for the first time) do to that.
I wish I could say with certainty that at 16 I would have refused to cheer along with H.S. -- whether her story was true, exaggerated, or totally made up -- but I can't and I know with certainty there are a lot of *nice* girls who wouldn't have the backbone to do it, they just couldn't stomach disappointing all of these people (school admin, coach, the rest of the basketball team, parents, classmates) they are supposed to be pleasing no matter how sympathetic there were to their friend... Competitive cheer aside, the primary role of cheerleaders is to be supportive and pleasing.
Yes, I am disappointed that her squad left her all alone in her protest, but their betrayal was minor and momentary compared to the failure of the school admin to protect and support a victimized student.
Posted by: abracadabra | November 10, 2010 at 09:53 AM