"Give me an R! A! P! I! S! T!---RAPIST!!!"
Back in November, Ethics Alarms reported the awful story of the Silsbee, Texas High school cheerleader, identified only as “H.S.”,who was kicked off her cheerleading squad for violating “the Cheerleader Code of Ethics” after she refused to cheer at a game for the player who, it was later determined, had sexually assaulted her. She stood silent in mute protest, and when her parents sued the school, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that H.S.’s silent protest was not protected speech under the First Amendment, meaning that she could be disciplined for violating the cheerleading conduct code.
Now the Supreme Court has turned down the case, refusing to review it, meaning not only that H.S. loses, but also that her parents have to pay court costs and legal defenses to the tune of $45,000.
This is a perfect example of the distinction between the law, justice, and ethics. The courts are charged with deciding the law, and on the narrow question of whether H.S. had a constitutional right not to cheer without being punished by the school, perhaps they got it right. Is the decision just? Of course it isn’t. The school’s conduct was outrageous, the cheerleader’s conduct was reasonable, and she ended up being the one hurt and punished. The law, however,cannot always achieve justice, though it strives for it.
As for the ethics of the incident, what I wrote in November still applies now:
“Never mind the court decision. Whether it was protected speech or not, the young woman’s protest should have been respected by the adults who knew her situation, and certainly should not have been punished. The school was in a bind, no question about it. [The player who had assaulted H.S.] had been (temporarily) cleared; there was no way to fairly bar him from playing as long as the legal system said he was not guilty of anything. H.S., the victim in the matter, had every right and reason not to allow Bolton to compound the harm he had done to her by forcing her to quit cheerleading rather than to have to cheer her attacker. H.S.’s silent refusal to cheer was a reasonable compromise under difficult circumstances—fairer to her than having to give up an activity she loved; kinder to [her attacker] than shouting, “You assaulted me, you bastard!” while he was trying to sink a foul shot. In fact, she showed remarkable restraint. This was no time for the school’s administration to insist on the letter of cheerleader protocol, which, reasonably enough, omitted any guidance regarding the proper way for a cheerleader to cheer on a player who raped her and got away with it.
“…This isn’t just bias, or sports mania. This is a black pit of an ethics vacuum, shared by a school, a culture and a community. If the entire town didn’t rise up after this incident and send [the principal, the cheerleading coach and the superintendent] to the unemployment line, then this is another small American town where values have gone to rot, like Obion County, where the fire department let a man’s house burn down, and Itawamba County, where the entire populace conspired to make certain that a gay student didn’t get to go to the prom.
“Small towns are often hailed as places where real American values thrive, but they can also, as this story shows, become pockets of soul sickness where ethical values are dying or mutating in awful ways, and innocent people get mistreated as a result.”
As I find myself writing again and again, the law will sometimes support horribly unethical conduct, and an unlucky, courageous, abused young woman from Silsbee, Texas just learned this lesson the hard way.
I’m so sorry.
Ethics Alarms 
There seems to be a disconnect in how society treats rape, in that they support laws going after sex offenders, increased prison sentences, and generally has a hostile view of rapists, and yet rushes to the defense of someone accused of rape.
It has been my experience as a public defender that the only accused rapists that the system rushes to protect are succesful athletes.
I think the school authorities were inhuman, and that the decision of the court could well be illegal. Surely the rights of the person come before the conduct expected of them in their role, in a situation like this?
On the other hand, if he had been cleared already, perhaps it would have been kinder and more responsible, if the teachers knew about her situation and everyone knew the man was going to be there, for them to have supported her strongly and sensitively in missing that particular cheerleading session.
I don’t think this can be the last word, unless she insisted against advice. If she didn’t and particularly if she went in unaware, I think this legal decision has to be challenged.
But even if she insisted, didn’t the teachers have a right to rule otherwise, for her own protection? Or did she cover the fact that she went in intending to protest in the way she did?
I find this confusing and inexplicable. Unless she misled her teachers over her intention, I can’t think how this decision could have been reached. If they knew he was there it seems to me they had a duty to stop her, for her own sake.
Whatever the circumstances of her protest, I’m not sure this should be seen as a closed case, even if the authorities are insisting that it is. That is my feeling, not knowing the details. If her constant intention was defamation of a cleared person, though, I suppose that might be different, but if her authorities knew he was going to be involved I believe the responsibility lay with them to prevent the situation. Isn’t that what authority is about?
Oh, it’s the last word all right—when the Supreme Court refuses to review a decision, that’s the ball game.
Check the story—the player had been released after a whitewash (she knew who had raped her, after all), and then later on was found guilty of a lesser charge. There were no issues of defamation or even mistaken accusation—just refusing to cheer.
Just pathetic. A young girl was raped, her attacker was set free to play basketball for his school, she was punished for refusing to cheer him on… and her family ends up $45,000 in the hole. If this happened in NYC or San Francisco, I would be no less outraged; merely less surprised. That it happened in Silsbee just brings the moral degradation of the country at large closer to home. What does this say for our priorities? That a young girl’s worth is less than that of a criminal basketball player? This case shouldn’t have had to even get as far as the Supreme Court. That it did- and that it was turned down there- just about trashes any respect due to the modern judiciary.
I read somewhere that injustice breeds terrorism.
Will this injustice breed terrorism?
No. It will just breed more athletes who will think they can get away with rape, and women who will be reluctant to oppose them.
Well, it’ll encourage those who’ve been brought up with the notion that obtaining sex- by whatever means- is their due. The terrible irony is that athletics are (or were) intended to instill character in young people. Another one is that feminism, in turn, only succeeded in knocking women and girls off the pedestal and right into the mud. Add to that an athletic system now dominated by high money stakes throughout and a corrupt culture that teaches kids that citizenship is a null term… and here we are. Young people become animals on a long leash and the adults see them as such.
“Will this injustice breed terrorism?”
I believe that it will. For some time, I have been aware of a ground swelling, just under the radar— women have had enough. I believe that women will form vigilante groups, and hunt these monsters down, and castrate them. The ball-player was quoted, after he pled down to a lesser charge, as saying he had “no hard feelings” toward his victim. That is the mentality of the perpetrator.
I do not condone the violence that is his due, but I predict it, nonetheless.
I don’t. I think the culture is getting better in this area, although slowly, and there are pockets of backwardness. We’ll get there without violence.
Spoken like someone, who has never been raped.
Violence is not the answer to violence. I agree with Mr. Marshall. 100 years ago this girl would never even have gotten the -chance- to get a trial. Eventually we will overcome these issues, but more violence will not teach anyone to be peaceful. Gandhi created an entire successful movement in India preaching nonviolence for a reason.
“Spoken like someone, who has never been raped.” If you alienate your allies in justice, you won’t have many left. I am very sorry if you have been, but it doesn’t help to criticize someone’s opinion based on the fact that they have not experienced rape.
He failed in his goal of a united India.
What was the answer to the Holocaust?
The Rape of Nanking?
Dee: 100 years ago, that rapist would have decorated a tree limb in short order.
Written like someone who can’t defend her position without unfairly and illogically disqualifying the opposition. The “you’re not biased, so your opinion doesn’t matter” trick is always amusing—transparent and lame, but amusing.
This is far from a “you’re not biased” position on my part… very far from what I said and meant… and conversely, I could respond in kind with ‘
“typical, sexist, dismissive , remark, from someone who cannot possibly relate, in an arena that you will never be exposed to.”
Re-read my post.
I stated that there is a movement happening.
I have worked with survivors.
I stated an OBSERVATION, and added that I do not condone it… just see it coming.
It is wonderful for you, and your current perspective, that you can blankety dismiss my observations. I hope for you, that you do not observe, first hand, the devastation that experiences such as this… for that will mean that you will never have to comfort a child who has been tortured sexually; that you never have to work with people whose lives are destroyed; that you never have to alter your own behavior because a friend was raped in the parking lot where you suddenly realize you cannot park in… the examples are endless.
So, in my experience, I have come to realize that women have had ENOUGH.
Interestingly enough, it took , quite a lot for some people to accept that serial killers respond to childhood abuse/torture; & Get to a point where they settle the score with society, with twisted, violent, behavior.
So, Jack Marshall, heed my warning, or don’t… It is merely my observation. And again, not CONDONING, just observing.
Be Well.
I read your post, and I said your observation was wrong. You implied that my opinion that varied from yours was invalid because I had never been raped. THAT is sexist, illogical, and disrespectful …not a thing I wrote to you was. Your observation is warped by an unrepresentive sample of women. Whether you condone or endorse your predicted fantasy uprising of wronged women, it’s not happening, because women have a lot of power in the justice system and the culture, and can get more if they want it,because rape isn’t as common or accepted as it once was, and mostly because sane people don’t resort to violence, and the vast majority of women are sane…or raped.
Have you heard of the Second Intifada?
“the legal system said he was not guilty of anything.”
I believe that the legal system determined that he was guilty of assault.
And what do we hear from NOW? Crickets. Again, shameful.
Maybe I’ve missed something, but the news accounts I’ve read show that the man pleaded guilty to assault, not sexually assault. I don’t know all the facts and I suspect none of those commenting here do either. But I do see a problem with branding a man as a rapist without proof that he is one.
The girl knows what he did to her. The fact that he was able to plead down the charges to assault—the description of the event makes it clear it was a sexual assault–changes the criminal record, not the facts. Virtually all accounts refer to the player as her attacker/ attempted rapist/ rapist…and as far as the ethics of her treatment goes, what matters is that she felt she was raped.
After he denied her allegations–he lied—it was determined that he account was backed up, causing him to have to plead guilty to a lesser offense. I’m not sure when sexual assault turns into attempted rape, rape, or something else. Is he being treated unfairly by having his conduct summarized as “rape”? I don’t know…I wasn’t there. I’m not losing any sleep over it. If he’s willing to open up the investigation, he could always sue some media outlets for defamation. My guess is that he knows he doesn’t have a leg to stand on….even in Texas.
The girl knows; so did the girl at Duke.
Nope, bad analogy. The Duke players were convicted of nothing; all charges were dropped; they pleaded guilty to nothing. No basis for comparison at all.
For what it’s worth, the League of Extraordinary Ladies, one of whose prime movers is my friend and former student, is raising money for H.S.’s legal fees. I vouch for their integrity, and I have made a contribution, myself. Perhaps other would care to do so, as well.
My own take is here. Not a lot to add, but perhaps a slightly different spin.
Let me urge everyone to read Rick’s post on this (and to read Rick’s superb blog generally). Among other things, he includes the cheer that the ex-cheerleader refused to give, and it is jaw-dropping. (I want my props for having the restraint to leave the cheer out, despite its obvious uses, on the grounds that it might muddy the issue: it wasn’t that she was required to give an especially gag-worthy cheer, given the circumstances, but that she was required to cheer her rapist at all.)
I tried valiantly to exercise restraint. I lost. And you’re right, in ethical terms, the exact cheer doesn’t matter. But in the circumstances, it is indeed “especially gag-worthy.”
Thanks for the shout-out.