The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a cheerleader’s refusal to root for an athlete accused of sexual assaulting her is not protected speech, and the school district had “no duty to promote” the cheerleader’s message. -db
Salon.com
Commentary
September 24, 2010
By Tracy Clark-Flory
Cheerleading is often maligned as an illegitimate, unchallenging sport — but you just try to imagine having to shake your pom-poms for an athlete accused of sexually assaulting you. An appeals court has ruled that a former high school cheerleader’s refusal to root for a basketball player who she claims sexually assaulted her, and who pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of simple assault, is not protected under the First Amendment as free speech.
In 2008, the girl, dubbed H.S. in court documents, claimed that athletes Rakheem Bolton and Christian Rountree sexually assaulted her at a party when she was 16. A grand jury initially declined to indict the pair, and school officials “ordered her to cheer for Bolton when the other cheerleaders cheered or go home,” reports First Amendment Center (FAC). H.S. agreed to go along with the routines, but refused to cheer for Bolton in particular, so she was cut from the squad. Her parents decided to sue the district attorney, the school district and the school’s principal, alleging in part that H.S. “was punished because of her ‘symbolic expression’ not to cheer for Bolton,” reports FAC. The suit was dismissed.
Months later, Bolton and Rountree were indicted and Bolton pleaded guilty to simple assault. Still, earlier this month, an appeals court upheld the original dismissal of the case, and its allegation of a First Amendment violation. A three-judge panel wrote that “in her capacity as cheerleader, H.S. served as a mouthpiece through which (the school district) could disseminate speech — namely, support for its athletic teams.” School officials “had no duty to promote H.S.’s message by allowing her to cheer or not cheer, as she saw fit.”
I didn’t think it was possible for cheerleading to look any less appealing to me — but, thank you, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for proving me wrong.
Copyright ©2010 Salon Media Group, Inc. FAC Content Use Policy
One Comment
It is amazing to what extent the ‘good ole boys’ will go to in order to protect their own. This is a major cover up. If the perpetrator had just been a normal student he would have been hung out to dry. There is a crystal clear double standard here and a ‘no win’ situation for the victim. I feel for her and her family. I’m sure they are very disgusted as well as upset and they should be!
Comments are closed.