Fulton County (Atlanta) Assistant District Attorney during the week, sultry, pom-pom-waving Atlanta Falcons cheerleader on the weekend, attorney Ina Khasin (That’s her, above) has, at least so far, dispelled my suspicions that there would be “Cheerleading Prosecutor Principle” along the theory behind the “Naked Teacher Principle” and its relatives, which is that when one’s sex-related internet images clash dramatically with the expectations and duties of one’s profession, one’s days in that profession are numbered. Apparently Khasin shares some of those suspicions, since she cheers under the (sort of) alias “Irina K.” If there’s nothing about the activity that anyone would find inappropriate, why hide the name?
Now I am assuming this is all in the open, approved by her superiors, and no longer an issue. I am also assuming that there might just be some kinds of cases that the DA’s office might not want prosecuted by a professional cheerleader. In any event, Khasin has dewn a bright line between being a lawyer-cheerleader and being a lawyer-dominatrix, which, as you will recall from this story, didn’t work out so well.
This is clearly not the “ick factor” for me, and perhaps more of a “Humunahumuna!” Factor, but I am not yet certain that professional cheerleading is in fact compatible with the ethical obligations of a prosecutor. I am very sure that it would not be consistent with the dignity and decorum requirements of a judge.
I think I’ll just have to look at the evidence for a while…
__________________________
Facts and Graphic: Above the Law
Ethics Alarms 
*SIGH* Men….
Jack !! Hey Jack!! Over here!! OVER HERE!! Its the 21st Century , you should join us.
No, lack of professionalism isn’t a new century thing, its been around for ages. I’d submit you are inviting Jack to regression.
No I’m asking to him to open his eyes and realize that standing on the side lines of a professional football game working as a cheerleader is no way even close to posing nude , and that him to even mention them in the same blog post imply’s that they could be seen as such. They are not doing anything worse then some of the dancers he has employed in shows over the years and lot less then some actresses Im sure. Would he tell an actress or dancer that he employees that she isn’t professional because she also works as a judge or prosecutor or lawyer??
I think the distinction between your rebuttal examples is that the cheerleader is employed because her body is there to draw attention. The role she plays is purely physical and the scantily clad nature of a cheerleader is based on the sexualization of her role on the field.
Now, if you re-read Jack’s post, you’ll note he makes several comments mitigating and qualifying the comparison to the Naked Teacher Principle. You’ll also note, upon re-reading, that he doesn’t make a certain judgement about this scenario as he does make a certain judgement about the Naked Teacher ones.
Bill’s analogies are perfectly apt. An actress or dancer might count sexual attractiveness among her qualifications. That doesn’t mean that “being sexually attractive” is the entirety of her job description. I’m sure there are many cheerleaders who would take exception to your implication that their only role is to stand on the sidelines and look pretty. There’s a good deal of acrobatic ability on display, as well.
You are quite correct, looking pretty isn’t their only reason to be on the sidelines. But it is one of the reasons. And you are muddying the waters with your minor modification of the terms used.
Also, you’ve fallen for Bill’s error:
Jack isn’t making an apples and apples comparison, he qualified that. He even clarified that he wasn’t sure if there was a Principle involved or not. Just that it opens the issue.
I’m not responding to Jack; I’m responding to you. In your first comment you intimated that acting as a professional cheerleader constituted a lack of professionalism. And in your second response you clarified that your reasoning was that the role of a cheerleader is purely as eye-candy. Now you seem to be saying that it’s sufficient if that’s just part of the cheerleader’s role. But I’m not muddying the waters if you didn’t make them clear in the first place.
Bill’s challenge remains. Do you – not Jack, but you – think that a lawyer is lacking in professionalism if she moonlights as a dancer or actress, assuming that she’s expected to be physically attractive in order to do so?
I spoke of that one quality, because that is a distinguishing quality, and the one most pertinent to this discussion. So yes, I’m allowed to add on to that when confronted by your rebuttal.
You muddied the waters with your spin “An actress or dancer might count sexual attractiveness among her qualifications”
That’s not the concern here. The concern is that the role being performed may be outright sexual, not whether or not a particular person considers their role or qualifications to be sexual.
And, I don’t the answer to your question. Nor have I asserted to know.
Wait, so you don’t have an opinion on the subject? Because everything else you’ve said implies that you do. Your last comment seemed to say that “the role being performed” by a cheerleader “may be outright sexual.” If that’s true, then filling that role probably suggests a lack of professionalism. I just happen to think it’s not true.
Again, you can’t be insufficiently clear and then blame me for muddying the waters. Bill’s objection, and mine, were in response to the suggestion that acting as a cheerleader is somehow comparable to posing nude. I assumed that that that was based on the idea that sexual attractiveness is one criterion of being a cheerleader. If that’s the argument, it’s completely valid to present other cases – dancers and actresses – in which that expectation also holds. Then you have make a decision about whether you think the proposed principle applies in those cases, or else you have to illustrate the difference between the two kinds of cases. That’s the way analogies work.
If you think our analogies weren’t valid, it’s either because you weren’t sufficiently clear about your perception of cheerleading as being a possibly outright sexual role, or because you’re moving the goal posts. Either way, your disagreement doesn’t show my comparisons to be “spin.”
“Bill’s objection, and mine, were in response to the suggestion that acting as a cheerleader is somehow comparable to posing nude.”
Right, and my response to your objections is that its pretty apparent Jack realized it isn’t a perfect analogy and his language clearly mitigates this. So y’all’s objections were anticipated. And his conclusion was he can’t decide on whether or not there is a principle that applies to this situation.
That’s the core of our discourse starting here
It doesn’t matter if he qualified them or not to bring them up in the same post compares them to each other.
As to the difference between them and dancers I can assure you that you don’t see any out of shape or unattractive dancers. My comparison stands.
Ok, I’ve already addressed that.
He made an analogy and then he qualified the analogy to temper it.
You are wrong on your objections because you jumped to conclusions and didn’t factor in Jack’s mitigating qualification of the analogy.
I’m not going to get into a circular discussion with you on this.
Then admit that you’re wrong and bow to my superior intellect. 🙂
Nicely worded loaded proposition.
See – I look at the hair and think she looks too much like Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Now try taking that image back out of your head.