My feed

to access all these features

Feminism: Sex & gender discussions

a teenager forced to pay compensation to her school after she refused to cheer for the man who raped her

128 replies

Leverkusen · 04/05/2011 16:20

I don't often post here, but I read this article today and was so appalled

link here

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

OP posts:
BitOfFun · 04/05/2011 16:24


Virgowoo · 04/05/2011 16:31

That's a disgraceful situation. Shockingly handled from the off IMO.

Oo, Texas. Says it all really.

Virgowoo · 04/05/2011 16:33

Hardly think that bringing a case for compensation against the school in those circumstances can be described as a 'frivolous' action.

thefinerthingsinlife · 04/05/2011 17:30

Bloody disgrace, so many people involved in this that should be ashamed of themselves. Victiming-blaming in the extreme!

msrisotto · 04/05/2011 18:23

Fucking hell! Do you think people in that town realise how awful this is?

Leverkusen · 04/05/2011 19:27

It's just so shocking, I can't even believe that obviously so many people have made this shite happen.

OP posts:
InmaculadaConcepcion · 04/05/2011 19:42

two separate courts ruled against her, deciding that a cheerleader freely agrees to act as a "mouthpiece" for a institution and therefore surrenders her constitutional right to free speech.

And surrenders her right to justice, and being regarded with anything approaching genuine humanity, it would appear.


AyeRobot · 04/05/2011 19:44

I don't even know what to say to this.

The authorities failed her every step of the way.

StewieGriffinsMom · 04/05/2011 20:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HandDivedScallopsrgreat · 04/05/2011 20:24

Awful. How can you give up your constitutional right to free speech (without committing a crime)? How is that even legal (especially for a school child) that it can be taken away from you by agreeing to something as trivial as cheerleading?

That poor girl.

confuddledDOTcom · 04/05/2011 20:59

I read this one earlier, I'm also speechless, I think everyone has covered how awful it is. Sad

dittany · 04/05/2011 21:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

catsareevil · 04/05/2011 21:06

The money to be paid is to reimburse the school for the legal costs resulting from her action against the school for telling her to cheer. That means that it is consistent with other rulings where the person who loses pays the costs of the person who wins, though it does seem like a very unhappy result for this girl.

sprogger · 04/05/2011 21:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CatPower · 04/05/2011 21:09

This (along with Nadine Dorries' ridiculous "teach girls abstinence" bill in parliament today) just makes me despair. The poor, poor, poor girl.

AyeRobot · 04/05/2011 21:12

His community service should have taken place at the times of his basketball practice and games, then the situation would never have arisen. Or he could have been chucked off the team. Or his colleagues could have refused to play in the team with him. Or he could have got a custodial sentence, but we can't expect too much, can we?

So many other solutions than making her cheer for him.

aliasdictus · 04/05/2011 23:24

Let's get a little perspective on this, it happened at a school party and she had accused three boys of rape, however the charging authorities concluded that there was no evidence of rape but there was of assault. One of the boys pleaded guilty and was given a suspended sentence with 200 hours community service and anger management, this was duly completed and he was allowed to return to school in order to complete his education.

She joined the school cheerleaders, knowing that they were ALWAYS expected to cheer and support the school team, in which the boy was a prominent player. At one of the games the cheerleaders were expected to shout the boys' names as part of the buildup to the match. When the boy's name was shouted the girl folded her arms and refused to cheer. The coaching staff understood her stance but said that she was there, voluntarily, representing the school and that she had to cheer or leave the team.

She refused, her parents then took the school to court for compensation saying her right to free expression had been violated. The court found in favour of the school. The parents were not happy and appealed twice, both these subsequent courts also found in the school's favour. By this time the school had spent over $70,000 defending itself and decided to try and recoup some of this from the girl and/or her parents, whose legal action incidentally the court had already ruled as 'frivolous'. The supreme court was so incensed by these parents' actions that they would not even review the case.

So it is not quite as clear cut as it would appear.

Oakmaiden · 04/05/2011 23:31

alias - so because rape was "unproven" and it was changed to "just assault" it is all OK then. Hmm

DooinMeCleanin · 04/05/2011 23:32

Why was he not made to go to a school where the victiim of his assault wouldn't have to face him everyday? Why should she have to either give up her hobby (future career?) or cheer her attacker?

Rohanda · 05/05/2011 00:00

I don't think alias is saying that at all.

There was no conviction for rape. The girl had a choice about still being in the 'cheerleading team' knowing the assailant was in the team. The case was taken by her parents who made a case of which the basis isn't reported in any useful detail here. I don't see her freedom of expression being violated in any way. 'Cheer for the team' if you wish to, but not having the right to cheer as and when you choose to is not part of being on the cheerleading team.

As gross as it all appears, yes, but not the shock and outrage it seems to be being interpreted about a girls right to free speech.

confuddledDOTcom · 05/05/2011 00:04

It is her right to free speech though. She has a choice, give up her hobby or give up the right to free speech to not have to cheer him on. Why should she have to give up her hobby because her school see fit to allow him to continue to be a pupil there?

Rohanda · 05/05/2011 00:05

She doesn't HAVE to give up her hobby at all.

also the compensation isn't compensation - I would read it as paying for legal fees of the school which is entirely different.

StewieGriffinsMom · 05/05/2011 00:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Rohanda · 05/05/2011 00:09

SGM - I may agree with you, but that is an entirely different proposition.

It reads like a very ill-advised lawsuit. As morally correct as it appears, yes, but nothing like the OP is suggesting it is.

duchesse · 05/05/2011 00:09

Yeehaw! (Frontierland)

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.