Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Anonymous, Mar 25, 2013.
One was a law, the other not.
No, neither Rosa Parks nor this young girl broke any law. In fact, the racial segregation laws did not allow the bus companies to force anyone to move.
Oh, but she did. She didn't have to ride the bus, if she didn't like the rules.
Precisely the same argument used here ITT about the young girl - she didn't have to be a cheerleader if she didn't like the rules, see?
In other threads, Anons are discussing the 'Rape Culture'. I posted earlier ITT about a scientific proof of gender bias that disfavored women. Did you read that?
The parallels are closer than you think.
A disgruntled black had the option of discussing the matter with the bus company and finding a resolution.Oh yes, they did.
Think of the chaos it would cause, having blacks sitting just wherever they goddam please, because one wants a window seat, because their bestest friend is sitting up front, because they think it's unfair to have to sit at the back. Besides, why's this woman fussin' in the first place?... It's a simple task. Blacks have to sit at the back. If you have a problem with that, then the bus is not the place for you.
Oops, did a little gender bias just come out then? Did you not notice? This is what lies at the heart of this case - thanks for the demonstration. The girl has to cheer the boy who molested her. Dem's da rules.
The times you are talking about Parks had no option of discussing fuck all, forgive me but wasn't she arrested and convicted of breaking the laws of segregation? And she needed to use the bus to get to and from work. So the comparison is stretching things a bit.
Gender bias? Maybe, but being the "owner" of two of each, I can tell you that teenage girls are all over the shop emotionally, especially where boys are concerned, damn, they even go upstairs the girl i love that makes me laugh so much and come down ten mins later a raging psycho because someone posted some shit about whoever on twatter or farcebook! You just dont know who you are going to get at any given moment. And one day "Richie" is a fuckwad then before you know it they are dating him!! All that and no instruction manual, jeez! boys are so much easier, they just have one thing on their minds.
Mainly because Vol is convinced the law is totally to blame and the school is completely faultless. Despite all attempts, it became a circular argument and most gave up in exasperation.
I, myself, think there is equal blame and the timeline doesn't erase the fact the school had a chance to have resolve this issue or the fact it's actions didn't make the school look good. No matter what the timeline says: The school overreacted over a pedestrian thing that the cheerleader did. That fact still remains and no amount of circular reasoning can change that.
Feel free to attack and blame the law, the school, or both. The fact still remains the school overreacted and in such made it look like it cared more about the perp than the victim, timeline or not.
It only over reacted if you look at it with the benefit of hindsight and the later conviction.
"anti-rape go after the school assholes"
Arguing in this megathread is pointless. Most of us are acting out in our anti-rape way.
You all have an unrealistic expectation of the lengths to which a school should go to protect victims of alleged crimes, when, ostensibly, a grand jury and prosecutor have already examined all available evidence and declined to indict - when, ostensibly, a grand jury and prosecutor had said they could find no crime to prosecute.
Many kids have been alleged of crimes, even investigated for them by LE, but not indicted for them, or convicted for them. Should schools investigate each and every one of them, separately from law enforcement? At whose expense, and whose behest? Even if they could establish "guilt" or "innocence," should schools prevent these students from athletic opportunities alone? How about academic opportunities, like gifted programs? How about the same classes with their alleged victims? I asked a question about child pornography earlier because I think it's extremely relevant here. Every kid has a camera these days, and they date each other, and participate in sexual activities with one another - possibly including photo or video documentation. We know sexting happens, and it happens in high schools too. It's extremely possible, if schools made a habit of investigating and excluding students on the basis of alleged serious crimes that go unindicted, that ex-girlfriends and boyfriends with grudges could start accusing one another of child pornography.
Let us say that the parents call the police. The police investigate, but the pictures/videos are all deleted, or they fail to obtain a warrant, or the hardware has been moved/discarded, or they're dismissive because both are juveniles, or whatever. In any case, no indictments result.
The standard to which many of you wish to hold the school would still require the school to act in this case, since child pornography is a serious crime of a sexual nature. Can you realistically expect the schools to punish after the cops/courts had declined to? Where do you draw the line for "serious crime?" By what standard should the schools make the decision to investigate? By what standard should they establish guilt before punishment?
Again, I say, the school is perfectly blameless when it defers to the court in these matters. Schools don't have the tools to investigate, collect evidence, and evaluate guilt or innocence when it comes to serious crimes that took place on private property.
You would also generate problems from the student population in general, who would develop an adversarial relationship against their schools, if the schools could investigate and punish them after courts had declined to do so. How many parents would have a problem with this? How many lawsuits would be generated if the schools always sided with those making serious allegations, by investigating further, by punishing further, regardless of courts' decisions? It is against the schools' better interests to generate this sort of adversarial relationship with their students and students' parents.
If a student feels that the allegation of a crime committed by him or her, even if a court dismisses charges and does not indict, can still result in consequences for him/her at school, then there are two potential problems. First, the student perhaps starts to distrust and feel paranoid about his school - the opposite of the relationship you want students to have with their schools. Second, the student perhaps realizes that he/she can now make a serious, perhaps baseless allegation against another student, and regardless of the courts' decision not to indict from that allegation, he/she can waste school resources on inquiries/investigation that could also generate negative rumors about the subject of the allegation.
It is NOT in a school's interest to give every one of its student the impression that the school will go above and beyond the courts to investigate and punish them. It is NOT in a school's best interest to give every one of its students the impression that it somehow has a duty to protect them by going above and beyond the law to investigate and punish them and their fellow students when serious allegations are made between students. A school is not charged with the duty of being arbiter of unpunished alleged crimes.
The police and the prosecutor had the ultimate duty here, to collect the proper evidence, to present it in a convincing manner, and to persuade the grand jury to indict.
Given Bolton's connections to the city council, and by extension, the police and DA's office, there would have been enormous pressure placed on the school to reinstate them after the DA chose not to prosecute.
Many of Paroxetine Samurai's speculative arguments about what the school would have done if the TRO had become permanent have been rendered completely moot, and untrue, by the fact that the school expelled Bolton when he was finally indicted.
The school expelled Bolton, not the cheerleader, when the legal hammer came down. Paroxetine Samurai had argued that the school would have made any excuse to kick the girl off and keep their alleged criminal on the team. In fact, the record shows just the opposite, that the school removed him from classes and athletics subsequent to the initial allegations, and expelled him as soon as he was formally indicted.
Reading Paroxetine Samurai's most recent post, he has accused the school of having had the chance to "resolve this," which it tried to do between the 1st and 2nd protests, and accusing it of making decisions that made it "look bad." Unfortunately, schools make decisions every day with regard to how they deal with matters of disciplining students that potentially make them "look bad," since not every school fosters a draconian reputation for punishment, and many schools feel the duty to give students 2nd chances, since they are minors. You can hardly fault a school for making decisions that, in hindsight, "look bad." Whether the school "overreacted" is a matter of opinion, not a fact.
It's kind of a d-bag move to act like you're above the fray for several pages of a debate, while accusing one side of not knowing how to argue, but then when you disdainfully claim that you're finally engaging in the argument, you copy and paste the words of other people, without attributing your sources, or quoting them. It's even worse that you had doxed the girl by name in your initial post of these quotes, something that the rest of us had not been doing. I had a feeling these arguments weren't yours, and I just confirmed it. You really make me miss the Dumb button.
Anti rape,(note the break) go after the school assholes. I was describing two seperate parties. Nice try though.
Ps, arguing in this megathread is pointless if you have actually read and digested what voluntarily posted, kinda make the other sides argument moot.
She could have discussed it; but most likely it would have been with a guy with a badge, and a billy-club in his hand.
She was found guilty of breaking a city ordinance by a Montgomery court, but, as was already pointed out to you, she did not break any laws, and in fact, the court was in error, because it was the bus company who violated the terms of the ordinance by requiring her to stand and move for a white person. Rosa Parks never paid the fine. She was also later charged with conspiracy, along with others who organised a bus boycott to support her. When her supporters arranged taxis at the same fares as the bus, the city passed an ordinance requiring a higher taxi fare. The organisers of the boycott donated 150 cars instead. (The US Supreme Court threw out all the city's appeals, and the result was, as everyone knows, that segregation on buses eventually came to an end).
The similarities are, to me, striking - one woman protesting quietly but firmly at something that she felt was unfair. But in the present case, it seems many here believe the rules are more important than the unfairness; this, despite the glaringly obvious - the rule that you need to cheer everybody becomes absurd and untenable when you are forced to show appreciation for someone who assaulted you. Something's got to give. Either the rule is wrong and needs to be changed, or the girl should give up her job. It's much easier for everyone (but the girl) that she be forced to give up her job. (It would without question have been a whole lot easier for the city to force Rosa Parks to move or get off the bus, but was it right?)
We're talking about puberty, right? Parents and the teachers who look after them when they are at school, having already gone through that developmental stage, are able to offer a lot of helpful advice to their children. But it sounds as though you're bamboozled by it all? Maybe you didn't mean me to take that seriously, but if so, here's something I found:
Forgive me, but it seems quite inappropriate to bring up the normal teenage issues in support of your argument when this case is about a girl who was the victim of a serious assault, as though they were related, or comparable in some way.
I don't think it's necessary to answer you point by point, Voluntarily, but I think you massively overstate your case here, and it is you whose expectations are unrealistic, not those such as myself who wish to hold the school to account.
A school has to expend whatever resources are necessary to carry out their primary duties - the care and education of their students. Part of that duty is the maintenance of discipline, so that these primary duties can be fulfilled.
In some circumstances, that may mean procuring extra resources, while trying to minimise extra expense whenever possible.
Difficult circumstances such as those found in this case would certainly justify extra resources of some kind, but nothing like what you imagine - they don't have to hire their own detectives, for example.
While they could not know with any certainty whether Bolton was guilty at the time of the cheerleading incident, they certainly did know, at the very minimum, that something serious was alleged, affecting two of their students, and should therefore have considered their actions very carefully, giving the matter the resources it required - not to decide on matters of guilt and innocence, which are outside their remit, but to avoid disruptions to school discipline, while at the same time being scrupulously fair to both parties.
My argument is that they weren't fair to the victim. They did not exercise sufficient care, or they would not have given her the ultimatum of cheering the perp (which you have already accepted was a monstrous suggestion, but that was apparently what the superintendent and principal insisted upon) or losing her cheerleading job.
Of course, it presents a significant dilemma when there appears to be no way of allowing the girl to continue and avoiding the situation where she has to cheer the perp.
You have not justified your assertion that the school was 'perfectly blameless'. I think they are to blame for the monstrous suggestion, as one example.
Nothing in your argument sufficiently addresses the unfairness to the girl, or gives appropriate weight to the distress/harm caused to her by the way the school handled the situation, so it's more than a little lop-sided.
I'd appreciate it if you'd show the circularity. I have repeated many of my points, yes, because people have refused to address them.
However, I have not been circular.
I have made many reasonable arguments for why the DA was responsible for having prosecuted this properly, or recused himself so that someone else could prosecute Bolton properly, on the first go.
I have made many reasonable arguments for why the school had no duty or capability of investigating, establishing guilt, or punishing this student after the court had had its go.
I have made arguments that some consider unreasonable regarding the girl's well-understood duties as a cheerleader. I have pointed out that not every girl is chosen for the cheer squad, and there is no inherent "right" to having a position on the squad. She was there voluntarily, and she understood what duties would be asked of her - if not the first time she protested, then definitely by the second time.
There's not equal blame, because the DA actually has a responsibility to investigate and punish. The school can and should defer to the courts, at its own discretion, regardless of what you might think. The school did try to resolve the issue between the 1st and 2nd protests. Whether its actions made the school look good is pretty laughable as a standard for determining whether the school is equally blameworthy. Do you really expect us to hold The Image a school tries to maintain, to be equal to The Duty of a prosecutor to prosecute?
It only looks like an overreaction in hindsight. At the time, the school was simply maintaining discipline at its sponsored event. Later, contrary to what you had argued the school would do if the legal hammer came down, the school expelled the perp when he was indicted. That shows the school cared more about the victim than the perp.
If you were to ask the courts who overreacted, the long series of decisions calling the lawsuits frivolous would be ample evidence of which side is guilty of overreaction.
I'm sure you will go on feeling that the school is equally blameworthy, if you choose to, but let me suggest to you that you've got unrealistically high standards for the school, and ridiculously low standards for prosecutors.
Please, answer me point by point. I can wait. You can avoid the hypotheticals about sexting, but I really think that middle section is important.
People are trying to attribute the duties to the school that more properly belong to the prosecutor, and too high a bar for those duties to boot. The school is not charged with the duty of being independent arbiter for unindicted crimes committed against its; if it tried to do this for every student's allegations that were investigated but not indicted by law enforcement, it would rarely achieve satisfaction for all involved parties, and it would generate acrimony against itself.
I don't see how I'm massively overstating my case, but you could help show me with a point by point.
Not when it can't spare resources or manpower; schools are strapped as it is. We both know that.
Indeed. That includes maintaining the discipline of its athletic squads.
This would concede then that if kids can report any serious crimes committed by students, which go unindicted by courts, you would then argue that the accusers should expect their schools to procure and expend extra resources for investigating these allegations - while cutting expenses that enrich other students.
Who is being unrealistic?
Difficult circumstances occur every single day for students in various schools, and not every one of them can be investigated, not every one of them can have resources procured for their investigation or resolution.
Giving up her cheerleading job was, in fact, a fair alternative, given that it's a voluntary position, a position of privilege, one which not every girl is entitled to, and one which the school/coach can bestow and revoke basically at will.
I agreed with you that the other alternative was monstrous. My argument rests on the fact that the school also offered a fair alternative, which was not monstrous. In fact, it was the alternative given to most of the girls who want to be cheerleaders - GTFO.
Abuse leads many kids to gain weight, reducing their overall athletic ability. Many student athletes are victims of abuse, and gain weight as a result, making them no longer able to perform their athletic duties to the same degree. They are victims of crimes that render them unable to perform some of their athletic duties. Sometimes, the abuse is subtle, and never goes indicted, as in the case of verbal abuse. Would their schools be monstrous for cutting them from athletic teams? The child's excuse is still, in effect, "I can't perform my duties any more because I was the victim of a crime, but I still want to be on the team."
The school is placed in an impossible position, which is easy to perceive as unfair from the victim's perspective, but it was certainly fair to all of the other students who want to but can't perform the athletic duties of the team, and so never make the team, or are cut.
I said they are perfectly blameless when they defer to the court for decisions in matters of guilt or innocence. I think that is a justified assertion.
I pointed in a previous post how, unfortunately, many of the rules we have will seem unfair to the victim, especially when the accused returns to society free of criminal indictment or conviction. We don't live in a perfect world. It's not the school's job to make it a perfect world for their students. I agree, it is something that they should strive for, but it is simply not a possible outcome for the school to achieve for every student in every situation. It's not the school's job to be arbiter of alleged but unindicted crimes, to the complete satisfaction of all involved parties.
View attachment Rapture%20The%20Ultimate%20Abandon%20Thread%20Ther
Yeah, I am still going to fuck with Richard Bian. I abandoned thread because Vol is using broken record tech. I don't need to convince anybody here. Talk all you want. If you are not scared you wouldn't take the effort to defend the school. The current wikipedia article is too short and no names. Thanks Vol for the info. Will look pretty good whenever anybody google the school name.
OK, Voluntarily. I will take your points in this latest post in turn, since you ask. It remains to be seen if this will be more conducive to clarity.
I think it is you who sets the bar too highly in your argument, by overstating what a school would be expected to do to investigate school issues. You overstate your case when you state that schools 'are not charged with the duty of being independent arbiter...'. They cannot simply ignore the circumstances and act as though nothing happened. The courts' decisions do not absolve them of their duty of care, nor of maintaining discipline. To that extent, they are, indeed arbiters - ie as part of their job description. In fact, that is the main reason why senior teaching and administrative posts such as superintendent exist.
It would certainly be impossible to run a school if every dispute were to be deferred to a court of law, when the majority of disputes are purely a matter of school administration or discipline within the school, and when the duties already mentioned cannot be ignored pending legal proceedings - the school inevitably has to take action of some kind to fulfill those duties. In this case, I specifically excluded any notion of the school deciding on matters of guilt and innocence between the two students and asked you to focus purely on matters for which the school does have responsibilities, and for which they may be held to account. It seems that is a sticking-point for you, because you argue that it is a) impossible for them to devote sufficient resources so as to arrive at a satisfactory resolution, and/or b) that it is not their responsibility at all.
I say a) That you have overstated the resources required to resolve the school dispute and b) It is in fact their duty to resolve the dispute in this case (as in all other such school disputes) fairly - especially when it arose due to the policies and rules of the school.
Let's see if I can do that.
Being fair in resolving disputes should not require the school to be overstretched in the way you suggest. But it is one of those responsibilities that are required of schools if they are to maintain discipline. Many schools manage to do so quite admirably, but it wouldn't take too many bad decisions before causing major discipline problems.
Unless you are going to argue that the same school has many students molesting other students, or incidents of that gravity - in which case, the school is in grave danger of being shut down - you are overstating your case here. What is required is to arrive at a resolution of a dispute that is fair to all parties.
Your argument could be used to justify even the most despicable and unjust actions against an individual student on the grounds that it is for the greater good. To that extent it is flawed. Do you not agree?
I think I already answered this point, but I simply restate: where it is necessary to fulfill the duty of care and to educate students, while maintaining school discipline, sufficient resources need to be made available. It is very easy to get carried away by putting things in absolute terms such 'all' and 'every', with the implication that this would require infinite resources. Again, people are employed specifically so that the school's duties can be fulfilled while maintaining control of resource expenditure. It's their job.
If you say that the school can do just as it pleases when deciding who is on the team, it cannot have anything to do with fairness - can it?
If the school authorities did as you suggest, hiring and firing at their whim and without any justification, they wouldn't have a team, or a school, for very long.
Here's where I want to hold the school to account. They really had no business subjecting anyone to such an abhorrent choice. It was within their duty and their power to avoid such a situation arising, and they are responsible for it. I will not spell out what the alternatives were, but there were alternatives.
I hope I have already shown that your argument must fall regarding fairness in this circumstance. You cannot argue that fairness is not part of the school's duties on the one hand, then insist that whatever they do, at their whim, is fair, on the other.
No, it would not be monstrous to not pick an overweight kid for the team. It would be fair to advise them what they could do if they wanted to make the team. If teachers suspect abuse they have certain duties to follow up on their suspicions. But the situations are not comparable. It is the school which placed the girl in the specific situation of requiring her to applaud her abuser (or GTFO), and it was their responsibility to have ensured that such a situation did not arise.
As I stated earlier in this post, they are not thereby absolved of their primary duties - those for which I think they can and should be held to account - and are not 'perfectly blameless' for the incident we are discussing, IMO.
Schools, and certainly principals and superintendents are, almost by definition, arbiters of disputes of one sort or another. They need to strive to be fair in their dealings, because they can be held to account by law. They usually do a - dare I say - pretty fair job of it, but sometimes, not.
Once again, you express things in absolute terms, such as 'a perfect world'. That is what I mean when I say you are overstating your case. You do not need to have perfect judgment to avoid putting monstrous suggestions to students, just a little better than Silsbee.
Bump for penny tech
Yay, saddle up and ride out........
Who needs the facts anyways, it's a lynching!
It was in the context of free speech and cheer leading, I was merely pointing out that kids throughout their teens are all over the place emotionally, especially girls and not just during puberty, kids are not developed fully and some never are, during school years, emotionally, and to allow that to influence a cheer leading team would lead to a farce.
As for inappropriate? Well given the context that the victim had accused three persons but they had all been cleared by the courts of any blame then it may seem as though the allegations were unfounded and the victim was exaggerating/lying about events for some reason. The coach may have seen the victim as a highly emotional teen with a vendetta possibly. When you make an allegation and a court throws it out you do look like you made the event up.
Apparently that is a big problem, as you see things. Do you not think it rather more than 'farcical' to require a person to applaud and cheer for someone who molested them? How would you feel if that person was your daughter, or you?
A school cannot decide on the innocence or guilt of either party.
Since we know that there actually was an assault, it follows that, if the coach believed the girl was lying, or had a vendetta, he would have been quite wrong to do so. The coach can believe whatever s/he likes, but is not entitled to treat the girl unfavourably based on those beliefs. If you disagree, apply the same test proposed above. If you can't say you'd be happy for your daughter to be treated as though she were lying in these circumstances, it isn't a terribly good argument. (Let's assume that you are able to discern whether your daughter is telling you the truth about being assaulted, and isn't just all over the place emotionally).
If my daughter had accused someone of a serious assault but the courts had found that person innocent i would probably advise that cheerleading was not the best idea as the scenario of having to cheer the one she accused was a given. Seeking vengeance/justice via that route would be the wrong way to go, I would have focused my efforts on the legal route rather than through the school.
If the attacker is deemed innocent of the assault by a court of law the coach is not wrong to believe the victim may have made up the allegations. At that time it was not proved there was an assault so it is pointless to keep saying that everyone was wrong in their actions. Hindsight! Do you not understand the meaning of the word????? If it were my daughter I would be looking to get the attacker put inside not worrying about getting him thrown off the school team!!!!
The prosecuting attorney had ties with the attacker and failed not once but twice to get a conviction and also failed to step asside due to conflict of interests, somewhere else you got all up in the laws ass about this but in this case you are just meh!! Wtf?????
Why the obsession with the school and not the real problem is beyond rational thinking.
That may seem to you the pragmatic approach. In a less-than-perfect world, it might make sense to back down and give up the cheerleading job.
But if it is as you say, when the person accused has not been found guilty at that point, the coach (and no doubt others) might well suspect your daughter of lying/pursuing a vendetta. Would not those same people point at your daughter's decision not to stand her ground as further evidence that she was lying? Would they not feel even more justified in taking some action that could be regretted profusely in hindsight? Would this not create further problems for your child? Wouldn't you agree this is a realistic possibility?
You characterize what the girl did at school as 'seeking revenge', when standing her ground as an innocent victim is a much more accurate description than the negatively-charged terms you used. Surely you cannot be suggesting it was wrong for a completely innocent victim to stand their ground?
No matter how many exclamation marks you use, it does not improve the points you make. When an assault has been subsequently proved, you can draw the inference that a belief that the accuser lied about it was, in fact, wrong. That is not a condemnation, simply a statement of fact.
But if you take any action based on that wrong belief, and that action is subsequently found to have injured a person, then you are wrong in a different sense - you are legally responsible for those actions, and it doesn't matter what suspicions you might have had, or how reasonable you thought those suspicions were.
Lastly, it's worth reminding you that courts do not normally find anyone 'innocent'. There is a probably a very good reason for that.
You have to pick your battles in life, when the real battle should be to ensure the perpetrator of the crime is punished by the law why would you even bother beginning other wars over something as trivial as cheerleading! All my efforts, if it were my daughter, would be towards the courts and getting the attacker convicted, I would see cheerleading as a distraction from the real goal. It would not be a difficult decision to tell my daughter to forget the cheerleading until the attacker saw justice. It is not wrong for a victim to stand their ground but is a school sports event really the place to do it? As for the negatively charged term vengeance? Well to others it may seem that way, that's why I also used the non negatively charged term justice.
Ok so the victim refuses to cheer the attacker, an attacker who the courts decided had nothing to answer for, what do you do as the school? Allow the victim to make a silent protest every time the attacker plays? Where does that end? What if other cheerleaders claim they have grievances against other players? It would quickly become a farce, kids learn very quickly how to use the rules for their own benefit if they have the mindset to do so. Or do you pull the person who has been accused and then cleared by the courts of wrongdoing off the team? Possibly to find later on that the allegations were untrue, who would be the victim then?
Unfortunately it works both ways your line of thinking, you are only thinking from the side of the accuser, who turned out to be genuine. The schools can only look at the evedence at hand, the victim accused her attacker, the legal system with all the investigative power it has decided there was no assault, does the school decide to ignore the fact that the powers that be have investigated this matter in a way no school could ever do and believe the victim? Talk about leaving yourself open to legal action!
Even you have to admit that someone's case looks very shaky when a court of law has decided not to penalise, especially when it took three attempts to actually get a conviction. This was obviously not a simple case. Given what is known now it looks a lot clearer, but before the conviction.......
You are equating ex boyfriend syndrome with rape victims. Fail in logic because you personally will never face this situation
I have some sympathies for what you are saying here, but I would have liked to have seen your response to the point I made about the possible negative effects of not standing one's ground, having accepted your point that others may have already been pointing the finger of suspicion at the girl.
In such a scenario, you just don't get the choice of which battles to fight. You might agree to leave the team (before they kick you off), but then possibly be forced to leave the school, possibly even have to move to a new home, pushed around and hounded out - when you were the innocent victim all along. At which one of those points do you say 'this far and no further'?
In the Rosa Parks interview I linked to, she is quoted as saying more or less that exact thing. Every concession they made to keep the peace was met by further restrictions on black people's rights.
In the end, Rosa Parks did no more than to say 'I have a right to be here', and that is just how I see the girl's situation. She had earned the right to be in the cheerleading team, and they had no right to remove her because she would not cheer her attacker. If the account I read is accurate, there is something warped in the head with the school officials, seeing her cheer the whole team, but watching whether she cheered the particular boy who assaulted her before insisting that she must cheer him, too. (They clearly did not regard cheerleading as such a trivial matter as you).
If you had been reading my other posts, you would have seen that I have been consistently saying that the school should not get too involved in the legal situation. For that very reason, they are not entitled to presume that the boy is innocent, or that therefore the girl is guilty. They must find a resolution that is scrupulously fair equally to both. That is a neutral position, certainly not 'only thinking from the side of the accuser' as you claim, and would not leave the school open to a legal claim.
I don't think any of the suggestions you consider here would have had much likelihood of success. But there are a number of other possibilities, which you do not mention, that would have been much more likely to achieve the outcome of being fair to both. What they actually did was unfair to the girl, and caused her unnecessary suffering. You are not allowed recklessly to cause one person harm simply in order to have your basketball matches run more smoothly, or to maintain the morale of the other cheerleaders.
I must disagree. The courts often decide not to proceed with a case for reasons that may have little or nothing to do with the amount or quality of the available evidence. It is always unsafe to interpret a failure to proceed with a case (as happened in this case, at the time of the cheerleading incident) as being the same as a finding of innocence (which would normally never happen anyway). If, at the trial, the defendant were found not guilty, that means the prosecution could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that the accused was necessarily innocent.
This is why the school has a duty to be scrupulously fair in these circumstances.[/quote]
No, I was saying once you allow cheerleaders to decide who they cheer it will result in chaos, simple as that.
It would be highly unlikely the victim would have to leave the school, move home etc, the school was trying to act fairly by carrying on as normal, not siding with either party, the issue came to a head when the victim changed that by protesting, forcing the school to make a decision, it could not act against the attacker as he was carrying out his duties. You have not said what you think the school should have done, commit yourself and you decide.
Regulated cheer leading keeps us from chaos.
A well-regulated basketball court is far more important than the rights of a single individual - and a woman - a young one - at that!
Letting young women make choices - as though they owned their own bodies! - can only result in the collapse of society.
Bump for clarity^^^^
I have found Vol's ruin. I'm going to write a blow by blow screen play on wikipedia. But first,
1. you don't insult your worthy opponent especially if they are anonymous with an A.
2. when the hornet's nest is coming, cover your penis and run.
3. you don't cross swords with Sea Org's enemy
4. don't start and stay in a fight without reading "The Art of War".
5. all your doxs are belong to us. your dox will be used against you.
6. avoid opponents who have too much time on hand, spending spring break on basements.
that's all for today
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!