"Cheerleader must compensate school that told her to clap 'rapist'"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ool-that-told-her-to-clap-rapist-2278522.html

They should have agued against his lack of rape conviction when they had the chance.

Who knows, perhaps ht didn't actually rape her. Bad enough that she be forced to cheer someone who's assaulted her.

She chose to be a cheerleader at a school where her assaulter was an athlete.

This possibility should not have been an unforeseen circumstance for her.

She could have made clear to her entire cheer squad and the school's coaches that the BASKETBALL team had an athlete for whom she would not cheer.

She could have made clear to her entire cheer squad and the school's coaches that she would voluntarily cheer at football, soccer, volleyball, or any other sporting events.

All this could have been worked out ahead of time, and she could have been expelled from the cheer squad ahead of time, rather than turning this into a media circus and a frivolous lawsuit after publicly embarrassing her school. Like other school athletic activities, students get cut from squads all of the time, basically at the coaches' discretion. Refusal to participate in the mandatory activities of the cheer squad would be reason enough to cut her from the squad.

The school might also have chosen to accommodate her if she had tried to work it out with them ahead of time, excusing her from cheering at basketball games/events. Who knows? That possibility will remain forever unexplored, since she waited too long to seek redress of her grievance against cheering the basketball team.

Instead, she publicly embarrassed her school, sued them, created a media circus, and ruined any chance of working out a mutually amicable solution.

I thought I should repeat this:

She chose to be a cheerleader at a school where her assaulter was an athlete.

This possibility should not have been an unforeseen circumstance for her.

This whole thing could have been worked out ahead of time.

Where did your compassion go? Did you lose it, or give it away, or did you sell it for drugs? You need to get it back quickly, before other people realize what a little sh*t you are

Agreed, but little shit? How about sociopath or troll.
Poor girl had to go to school with the felon which is disgusting in itself.
Good for her for suing the asshole schools and winning.

Didn't realize there was a difference.
Now I know

So, I lack compassion, and I am a little shit, but you have nothing to say about my arguments?

Here's a couple of hints: I don't have to agree with the girl's lawsuit or her actions to have compassion for her. A person who happens to disagree with your point of view is not, by default, a little shit.

Disagreeing with the girl and siding with the school doesn't make one a sociopath or troll, either.

She didn't win. She lost. That's why everyone around here except me is butthurt.

I hate to say this but Voluntarily is correct in their view.

While I have compassion for the girl and disagree with both the school and courts, the Supreme court seen this as it really was: It could have been solved by the girl not choosing to participate because she knew the rapist was a player in said sports event.

However, to her defense, the school should have banned him from sports due to his misdemeanor charge and could have found a better solution than what they did. Sadly though, the school was in the right as far as the courts were concerned and now the school, rapist, and the victim has to deal with all the PR shit that ensues with things like this.

Perhaps she felt that her assaulter deserved to by publicly embarrassed.

There's worse things in the world than embarrassment.

Sexual assault is one of them.

Uncompassionate little shit is right, she lost the case.

It's not your disagreement that caused me to call you a little shit. It's your callous attitude toward pain and suffering.
The people representing the school were cruel, callous, cold and uncaring. They said a rape victim had to applaud the rapist because the school is more important than the victim.
That's truly a sick way to look at the world, and those who feel this way are...well, little shits, sociopaths, trolls, whatever you call it, this attitude lacks compassion and empathy, ie sociopathy by any other name will still stink

Stay classy america

It's not my business to end this girl's pain and suffering. I don't feel any particular need to be enraged by it, although I do think it sucks for her and her family that they have to pay such a large amount.

It's the girl's business what choices she makes; she voluntarily chose to participate in cheerleading, an activity whose sole purpose is cheering athletes.

I can't see why you're putting this girl's pain and suffering over cheering at this basketball game on me or her school, when she chose to be there.

All I was saying was the girl deserved to lose, because she should have had the foresight to work this out ahead of time with the school - either getting expelled from the squad or excused from cheering at basketball games.

I think that I have been one of the most compassionate posters yet in this thread, because I actually presented a possible solution that might have worked out amicably for both parties. It's too bad the girl didn't pursue her grievance ahead of time.

If I could wish anything for this situation, it would be for the girl to have done just that. I wish the girl would have gotten excused from cheering at this school's basketball games. She could have participated in cheering at other sporting activities, the athlete could have participated in basketball and gotten on with his life, and the whole business could have been avoided.

But I will just go on with my day, being an "uncompassionate little shit" with so very little to contribute to this discussion. Indeed.

you said your piece, now
bye bye baby, don't let the door knob hit your ass on the way out.

Agreed that it would have been a good plan for the girl to have raised it with the school ahead of time, although for the athlete who'd been convicted of a serious criminal offence to have had to change his activity, rather than his victim having to change hers, would have been a better solution IMO.

Passive-aggressive boy! Thank goodness you're here!

I've a better idea. How about these fucking schools stop giving places on sporting teams to men with a record of violence against women.

Or - if the schools don't want to do it - then it could be imposed upon them by the leagues in which their sporting teams compete.

The law has to stay consistent, even if the consequences are sometimes unpleasant.

My gut reaction to this story was that the court and the school behaved unfairly and caused the girl further suffering and humiliation. On the other hand I don't see how the girl could have won her lawsuit.

The boy was convicted and served his punishment. She doesn't have the right to punish him any further than the law allows.

The wise person who wrote that the boy should have been kicked off the team after his conviction is wise. Any student who violently attacks another, especially if sexually, and is convicted, should have all school privileges revoked, especially any special positions where they are supposed to behave as role models for other students.

Couple of things (my opinions only) -

Cheerleading is alien and anachronistic to me. I actually find it deeply repugnant - it's as if females' role in life is to big up men - wtf is that, in the 21st century?

Secondly, Richard Bain is, IMO, culpable for inflaming the situation, and picking on a young girl who has already been wronged. How you get to be a school superintendent with such poor people skills is amazing to me.

Thirdly, what if the other girls had shown some solidarity with their wronged sister? What would they (the school) have done then, I wonder? Sack all of them (or maybe just the ugly ones)? </sarcasm>. I suspect they might have found a solution that was a little less insensitive than what they did. But that wouldn't ever happen, would it? Not in a sports-obsessed town.

Stay classy, indeed. <shaking head>

Is that all I need to do for Canadian citizenship?

Oh sure, those would all have been great ways to act. For a 30 year old.

She's a teenager. Get it? Inexperienced, hurt and frightened, who probably never spoke out against anything before this.

Cheerleading is a athletic school sport. Should she have stayed off of the high school team? Was the ballplayer really more important than she is?
She should have shared the information about her assault with the coaches, other cheerleaders and the rest of the school? She should have sat down with the administrators, told them all about it ahead of time?
She should be expelled from a school athletic team because a player assaulted? Who's at fault here?
She publicly embarrassed her school, that had a convicted sex criminal on the team?

And your very best argument
She chose to be a cheerleader at a school where her assaulter was an athlete.

She chose to compete in a athletic team at her school. Her assaulter was also an athlete.

You think you've attacked my position. All I see is a bunch of rhetorical questions, posed to a strawman of my position.

Yes, she should have stayed off the team if she wanted to avoid the entire unfortunate possibility.

I never implied that the ballplayer is more important than she is. I even suggested a solution that would have allowed them both to continue their athletic activities if it had been pursued. (Like equals. Not like one is more important than the other.)

I never implied that she needed to tell the whole school why she wouldn't cheer for this person. I only said that she should have made clear that she wasn't willing to do it.

I said she could be expelled from a team for refusing to participate in its mandatory activities. Not "because a player assaulted." To answer your question: The player was at fault for assaulting her, and he was punished by the courts already. The girl was at fault for filing the frivolous lawsuit, and the Supreme Court agreed. Does that answer that question about "who's at fault?" I hope so. These rhetorical questions are getting tiresome.

I also suggested that, ideally, she would have worked this out in some way with her school, to be excused from cheering basketball games. The number of people who needed to know the why could be limited to 1 or 2 people - a principal, and/or a coach.

Yes, she publicly embarrassed her school, that pays money to have a cheerleading squad, that pays money for her coaches and uniforms, which cheerleading squad's purpose is to cheer the school's athletes. You call him a convicted sex criminal, but he's a minor too. You question the school for letting the kid play basketball, but he's already been punished for his crime by the courts. Should he be banned from athletics for life? Should he be banned from youth athletics? Draconian punishments, completely unrelated to the crime.

If you post again, please don't post a bunch of rhetorical questions that are off-the-mark with respect to my positions. Thanks.

One is more important than the other.

To explain to the school, coach and squad why she objected to him, she would have to tell them what happened to her. That sound good to you? The kid was convicted. If this is a "Him or me" it should have been the one who wasn't a criminal.

Don't be hatin' on cheerleaders.

Yeah for everyone who back the sexual animal up here's a joke for you!

"I'd definitely applaud my rapist if he were in a basket ball game at my school! I wouldn't mind that he forced me against my will -twootherguysid sexual things to me. Why? Wouldn't you? GO TEAM YEAH SUPPORT RAPISTS ON BASKET BALL TEAMS WHOU!"

really if u do.... Then your just some messed up kid or some ignorant adult.
Sorry I changed font and It just blurred the top message... And I cant fix it... :l

It's not for the school to deal with sexual assault, that's what courts are for. The courts dealt with it, even if you don't agree with the sentencing. The cheerleader knew this situation would arise and decided to escalate by not dealing with it before it happened, the cheerleader also chose to take it even further by starting a lawsuit so the cheerleader seems to have no issue with who knows what about the assault seeing as the cheerleader has been through 2 court cases involving the assault. I think the cheerleader and probably the family engineered a showdown to try and force the schools hand against the one who assaulted her. This was not a good choice.

Should have just kicked him in the balls.

While at school, teachers and other members of staff are deemed to stand in loco parentis - in the place of the parents, so they do have a responsibility for whatever goes on in school.

The assault conviction and sentence is not in dispute here.

It was the school's responsibility to take appropriate action before the so-called incident arose, for the reason given above.

They chose to do nothing - apart from allowing the inflammatory situation to arise.

Answer this: If you were the parent of that girl, would you tell her to clap in the same circumstances? Alternatively, would you tell her that, even though she was the innocent victim, she should give up her place on the cheerleading team so that the abuser could enjoy being clapped by the others?

These are the choices the school needed to consider. It was their failure to do so, and to act appropriately which led to the further injustice against this girl.

It would be pretty awkward, having a "he raped me" moment in every basketball game the school plays against other schools. I don't see how that would actually work. So I think the school didn't have much of a choice, if it is a given that Bolton was staying on the team.

We don't have enough info about the situation, IMHO, to determine if the school had legal grounds for dropping Bolton from the basketball team.

I'm surprised the free speech angle got so far. People on a public podium as a representative of their school or some other entity have to keep the interests of the other party in mind.

Maybe this family got bad legal advice. Or maybe not, as I guess this case made it nearly to the
Supreme Court.

I bet if he'd raped the coach or the principal, they'd have found a way to take him off the team (and probably out of the school).

The girl's welfare is just unimportant to the school's management.

Exactly. It would be pretty awkward. It would be even more awkward if other cheerleaders started refusing to cheer for particular athletes, especially, say, ex-boyfriends, like a game of favoritism. This cheerleader is special because she was a victim, apparently - more special than the other cheerleaders. What about their right to free speech? E.g., "He cheated on me with that Lubbock slut! I refuse to cheer for him!" or "He took naked pictures of me, he's a child pornographer!" Yes, kids take naked pictures of eachother, too. Does that make them sex criminals who should never play basketball or cheer lead again, after they've broken up?

To take it further, what if every high school in America stopped giving 2nd chances to youths (yes, minors) convicted of sexual assault, dealing drugs, sexting/receiving child pornography, or drunk driving? What if every high school in America ostracized these youths, kicked them off of teams, or forced them to change schools to avoid the people affected by their crimes?

Anons famously "do not forgive," or "forget." I guess that goes for the crimes of children, too.

Not really.

If a court has convicted someone of a serious crime, that's not comparable to the kind of favoritism you're describing.

That's what the court decided, yes. If you have some other standard for determining who is a victim of crime - other than that provided by the judicial system - then do feel free to share.

No-one's suggesting summary execution here. It wouldn't kill him to be off the basketball team.

I don't see why teenagers convicted of serious offences should not be deprived of privileges, particularly when (as in this case) those privileges impact negatively upon the victims of those offences.

nice selective editing there.

Is child pornography a serious crime?

I wasn't saying that she was an apparent victim, you idiot. I was saying that apparently, she is more important than the other cheerleaders because she is a victim.

Thanks!

Genuine misunderstanding on the "apparently" bit.

Yes, it is. Surprised you need to ask.

What you said was:

And she is special and different in respect of that particular basketball team in that she is a victim of a serious crime committed by one of the basketball team.

You seem to be arguing that she is in no way different to the other cheerleaders in respect of the team which includes the person who perpetrated a serious criminal act of which she was the victim. The other cheerleaders haven't been sexually assaulted by a member of the basketball team. That's the difference.

The courts punished this athlete already. They did deprive him of privileges. They put him on probation for 2 years, which is a significant deprivation of privileges. If the courts had wanted to, they could have ordered his school not to let him play basketball. They didn't do this.

It's not the duty of the schools to punish a child who's already been punished by the courts.

The problem with your point of view is that the victim can subsequently go and purposefully participate in activities that would conflict with those of the offender, in effect harassing the offender and curtailing his activities and privileges beyond the limits of punishment set out by the court. Who would be the judge of whether the victim is honestly pursuing an activity, or simply harassing her attacker out of spite? How long could this go on? From how many activities could the offender be ostracized?

That's why the courts set out the limits of punishment. Those limits are not left to the whims of teenage girls who may choose to participate in this activity or that activity. An individual teenage girl is not more important than her school's entire cheerleading squad or basketball team.

I don't think that you can compare ex-boyfriendism to rape. Granted, he wasn't convicted of rape, merely misdemeanor assault, but unless the perps post the evidence to social media sites, that's tough to get a conviction on.