I would agree that the school needs to be arbiter for issues that shouldn't involve law enforcement, like petty theft between students. Sexual assault is an issue that should be addressed by law enforcement, and my opinion has been that schools should defer to law enforcement to determine whether or not a crime has been committed, and therefore whether punishment needs to be administered. In cases where schools must arbitrate a dispute not settled by law, the schools need not arbitrate to the complete satisfaction of all parties. That seems to be the problem here, and it is an unreasonable duty with which to charge a school. I agree, they should try to be fair, but "fair" doesn't mean that everyone walks away satisfied and happy. The girl's issues were most certainly addressed by the school, but not to her complete satisfaction. She insisted on remaining on the team, whose duties were abhorrent, and yet the school had already made clear what those duties were, and that the position was voluntary. I will speak further on the fairness of cutting the student shortly. I agree with you on this, for petty crimes that are not necessarily addressed by law enforcement, especially while people are still juveniles. Sexual assault does not fall into this category. Leaving the team was not a monstrous option for the school to offer. The duties of the cheerleading squad as an athletic squad were clearly laid out. The school didn't prevent this girl from pursuing another athletic opportunity, such as volleyball or swimming, track or basketball. The school would not be considered a horrendous offender against free speech if it asked a Muslim female student to wear a specific type of uniform, that revealed her legs and face, in order to play soccer, swim, or be a cheerleader. The school would not be considered a horrendous offender against the 1st amendment if it allowed this student to tryout, told the student that it had made the team because of their athletic ability, and then cut the student when the student revealed their religious restrictions that prevented them form performing some athletic duty of theirs. Cutting students because they can't perform their athletic duties, no matter how just the reason for the refusal, is not a horrendous offense. The school runs the team. It's not the other way around. It's responsibility is to offer athletic opportunities to its students. There were plenty of athletic opportunities that HS could have pursued that would not have put her in conflict with Bolton. It is not a school's responsibility to resolve this to the satisfaction of all parties. It is not a school's responsibility to rewrite the rules of their athletic squads for every student athlete who has a problem with every other student athlete. I think it's completely fair for a school to cut an athlete who cannot perform their athletic duties, no matter how justified the reason for their refusal. I think the religious example that I have used here is a perfect example of why schools need not bend completely to the will of every student who wants the rules rewritten for them to be allowed to participate in their sport. Is it abhorrent that devoutly Muslim women cannot swim competitively, because they cannot wear the competitive uniforms required by the sport? Is a school abhorrent for cutting this student, despite their ability to swim competitively, if they refuse to wear the appropriate uniform because of their 1st amendment rights? It was fair. The school didn't prevent HS from participating in any other athletic activity which would not have brought her into contact with Bolton. The school is justified to cut students from teams who refuse to perform their athletic duties. "Being fair," is a subjective term where we seem to disagree. You haven't offered what you perceive to be a "fair" resolution to this case. Please, do. Cutting HS from the team for refusing to perform the athletic duties of the team was not as terrible an alternative as you're all making it out to be. It's perfectly normal, and fair, for schools to cut students from teams (1) if the student refuses to perform their athletic duties, and even (2) if/when their 1st amendment rights come into conflict with their athletic duties, as in the case of the religious example I have used. Lol. Just Lol. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/chains.htm Rape & violence against intimate partners: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf#page=47 Within a 12 month period, about 6% of people in intimate relationships experience rape, physical violence, and/or stalking. One percent experience rape per year - high school lasts 4 years. I am not going to find statistics on sexting for you, even though it certainly represents a larger percentage of this population that has committed a serious crime of a sexual nature against another student, which could result in allegations that the school would yet again have to resolve in the perfect Anon world. These stats prove that my argument is valid, and you're going to have to address just how it is that school's should entangle themselves in these sexual relationships every time a student accuses another of rape, and yet a court finds no reason to indict or punish. "Fair" is subjective. I argue the school was fair to cut her from the team when she made a pattern of publicly refusing to perform her athletic duties. The student felt unfairly treated, but it's not the school's responsibility to come to a resolution that is 100% satisfactory to all parties. No. I don't see how my argument could be used to justify even the most despicable and unjust actions against an individual student. I think it is not the school's responsibility to procure extra resources to investigate, punish, or resolve if the courts (the entity sanctioned by the community for the purpose) already did this job. I don't see how it would be reasonable for a student to expect a school to resolve every issue that they ever had with every person with whom they ever had a bad sexual encounter. The school should provide counseling, yes, and referral to more expert authorities. It doesn't need to rewrite the rules of every athletic team for every student who ever had a bad experience at a party with illegal alcohol. Please see the diagram above and links above. All and every become very relevant, when considering the statistics on how many intimate partners experience stalking, physical violence, or rape at the hands of their significant others. The schools haven't the resources to resolve every single dispute that may result from relationships between their students which, although reported, go unindicted/unpunished by the court system. With respect to who can or can't perform the athletic duties -- With respect to who will or who won't -- Then yes, the school can do as it pleases, and it's perfectly fair. Firing people who couldn't or wouldn't perform the duties of their job would be a good way to keep the school running, if you ask me She could have left the team privately, instead of being asked to leave publicly. This could have happened after the 1st protest and before the 2nd. They did fulfill their responsibility to ensure that such a situation did not arise by reminding her the position was voluntary, and advising her to leave the team. Far less responsibility lies with the school than with the court to protect HS. If HS alleged that she was a victim of a crime, then we should expect the court to do something about it. Not her school. If the court didn't do something about it, I might expect the school to offer HS counseling (like many schools have counselors), but I wouldn't expect the school to rewrite the rules of athletic squads to accommodate HS and all other students who allege that they are victims of crimes. Godforbid they should defer to the decision of a court of law in the determination of whether a crime has been committed. The school did a pretty fair job of it by removing Bolton from classes and athletics for 4 months, until the court dropped charges. How was it poor judgement to ask a student who was refusing to perform their athletic duties to leave the team? I understand that the refusal was justified. However, plenty of students have justifiable reasons for refusing to perform their athletic duties, and schools are not monstrous for cutting those students from teams.