A Texan Cheerleader and her Free Speech Rights
While we're on the topic of free speech, here's a story from the lone star state about one young girl who has taken her fight for free speech to court.
The young high school girl, referred to as "H.S." in the article and in court documents, was a cheerleader who, at a basketball game, refused to cheer for a basketball player that she claims had raped her. As Suzi Parker over at Politics Daily reports, "the principal and other school officials told her to cheer or leave. She and her parents left, and she was subsequently cut from the squad."
The former cheerleader and her parents moved to sue school officials,
on grounds that H.S.'s 14th Amendment rights (especially her right to equal protection) had been violated. According to an account in the Washington Post, H.S.'s lawyer also argued that the district attorney "violated the First Amendment by retaliating against H.S. for filing sexual assault charges by revealing details about the case to the public." H.S. contended she was punished because of her "symbolic expression" not to cheer for the player.
H.S. obviously has the right not to cheer for someone who allegedly raped her--and to express that right at a basketball game--but I think she should be willing to face the consequences of her symbolic actions. She was not performing her duties as a cheerleader, after all, so it makes sense that she was kicked off the squad.
The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school:
the cheerleader's First Amendment right to free speech was not violated because in her role as a cheerleader, she "served as a mouthpiece" for the school, not herself. It further ruled that school officials "had no duty to promote (her) message by allowing her to cheer or not cheer, as she saw fit."
Perhaps the school does not have a legal obligation to allow H.S. to continue cheering, but what about its moral obligation to H.S.? Does it have one? Is the school suggesting that it values the basketball player more than it values the former cheerleader? By kicking her off the squad for her "symbolic expression" against the rape, was the school silencing an act of sexual assault, as H.S.'s lawyer implies?
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: A Texan Cheerleader and her Free Speech Rights
Emily
I failed to see the point in the article, if someone is a rapist, then why are they at large ? If the school was aware of the rape, then the school is threatening the public welfare aren't they ?
Beyond the obvious litigious overload in society, that we focus on the case rather than the facts seems to have taken society onto a new plane of callous indifference to certain things.
On a more basic level, how could this girl's father sit in the bleachers when a person who has raped his daughter cavorts on a playing field in front of him ?
Basic disconnect when we quibble over intellectual rights and ignore the most basic human physical ones.
Overlawyered. I imagine that HIPAA was involved and the facts of the rape case were inadmissible in the suit.
Edited on Nov 11, 2010 at 7:26amRe: A Texan Cheerleader and her Free Speech Rights
Good question about the rapist and why he is still at-large. The article says that a grand jury failed to indict him and I bet the school is worried about being sued for suspending or expelling him if a grand jury already did not charge him with a crime:
May '10
Re: A Texan Cheerleader and her Free Speech Rights
There's a wrong, though understandable, habit among modern Americans to assume that, of two strangers, the one claiming to be a victim is telling the truth.
If the school officials have no concrete evidence that the girl was raped by that particular boy, then they acted appropriately. Bolton's misdemeanor charge does seem to lend credence to the girl's claim, but people who know the kids would know best.
I knew a guy in high school who was convicted of some form of sexual assault and put on the sex offenders list without merit. As I recall, he lost his temper and grabbed a person in a non-sexual (though threatening) way, and it became "sexual" assault merely because the other person was a woman and had a wild imagination.
In a scenario where a person is not acting as a public official, he or she could accept less than complete and official evidence to believe an accuser and respond accordingly. But a school official must rely on certain, concrete evidence or else risk a lawsuit.
Aug '10
Re: A Texan Cheerleader and her Free Speech Rights
I bet the school is worried about being sued for suspending or expelling him if a grand jury already did not charge him with a crime:
But the school doesn't have any problem in letting Rakheem respresent the school on the playing field.
Unless Rakheem's value to the school is on the playing field .
It stinks to high heaven. Texas high school football coaches can be coddled as the girls of the community are assaulted ? Come on now, we're being discredited by the public education community and their lawyers because we dare to show disapproval at moral turpitude and we're accompanied by a body of evidence ? Shame on us.
Rakheem needs to be off the team, most reputable teams have morals clauses don't they ? Gosh, how do Ray Lewis and Michael Vick make a living ?
Jul '10
Re: A Texan Cheerleader and her Free Speech Rights
I understand this is high school, but shouldn't there be some form of the professional sports contract "morals clause" at work here? The football player was convicted and fined of a misdemeanor, although a serious one implying violence. I would think it would be in the best interests of the football program, if not the school, to cut him from the team.
The fact that he's a star athlete needs to be set aside, for the school's sake and for his. We do not need any more athletes who believe that their physical ability excuses serious lapses in behavior. It is not fair to us, and it is not fair to them.
Edited on Nov 11, 2010 at 8:45amJul '10
Re: A Texan Cheerleader and her Free Speech Rights
Okay, since when did Cheering for individual players become a requirement of cheerleaders?
The purpose of the cheerleading squad as I understand it is to promote and uphold team spirit, to encourage good sportsmanship, to support good relations between teams and squads during events. Also to work with team management and administration as well as other athletic teams and sporting organizations.
One can cheerlead for the team in general without making specific note of individual players.
She can achieve all of those goals without having to swallow her self respect and cheer for an individual who has wronged her and got away with it.
Considering the fact that her accusation against this individual is NOT an isolated incident, I think this is another extension of the idea that an athlete is given greater value than others within the school system.
He gets to rape and assault and is still on the team, she says I will cheer for the team but I will not cheer for HIM specifically and she gets dumped!
She is now a victim of this person a Second time.
Jul '10
Re: A Texan Cheerleader and her Free Speech Rights
Followup Question;
Where is the Vaunted Sensitivity of the school officials regarding this girls 'feelings' once they found out her issues with the player in question.
Seems once again the values of these school officials (who I am safely betting are of a liberal bent) are cafeteria values to be used when needed and shelved when not.
May '10
Re: A Texan Cheerleader and her Free Speech Rights
I didn't consider that the misdemeanor conviction should disqualify him from the team, but of course that's the case. My schools' teams did have morality clauses. Players were removed even for being arrested for drinking while under age.
Aug '10
Re: A Texan Cheerleader and her Free Speech Rights
Let's ask the faculty at Duke !
Nov '10
Re: A Texan Cheerleader and her Free Speech Rights
If the boy was never convicted of the alleged rape, then the school has no reason to act on the cheerleader's allegation. Indeed, to do so would violate the player's rights by denying him the constitutional right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The school has no obligation to offer special privileges to a student based on an accusation for which there is no evidence.
That said, the crime for which the player was convicted certainly should have gotten him thrown off the team.