November 6, 2010

Cheer for rapist or else, appellate court rules

First, she was raped.

Then, she was told she must cheer for her rapist.

Now, a federal appeals court ruling that she had no grounds to protest is putting the tiny town of Silsbee, Texas on the map.

It all started when a group of boys grabbed 16-year-old "H.S." at a post-football game party two years ago, dragged her into a room, locked the door, and proceeded to sexually assault her.

After the assault, H.S. went back to cheerleading at Silsbee High School. But when her rapist sauntered up to the foul line for a free throw, H.S. sat down and turned her back.

"I didn’t want to have to say his name, and I didn’t want to cheer for him," the girl said. "I didn't want to encourage anything he was doing."

The district superintendent, his assistant, and the school principal called her outside and demanded that she cheer for the star athlete, Rakheem Bolton. Either that, or go home. Fans, meanwhile, sat in the bleachers and mocked the crying girl.

As is frequently the case in gang rapes involving athletes and other cultural icons of masculinity, the high school and community rallied around the rapists. H.S. was forced off the squad. In the coming weeks, she and her family underwent a campaign of harassment in the small town of 6,300.

"They were the star athletes, and I was standing up to them," San Francisco Chronicle legal reporter Bob Egelko quotes her as saying.

A panel of three of the most conservatives judges on the Fifth U.S. Circuit of Appeals in New Orleans has denied her claim that her free speech rights were violated. As a "mouthpiece" for the school, she had no right to refuse to cheer for her rapist, they ruled. Indeed, it was she and not the school whose rights were violated:
As a cheerleader … H.S. was contractually required to cheer for the basketball team, whose roster included Bolton…. H.S. served as a mouthpiece through which [the school] could disseminate speech -- namely, support for its athletic teams…. [H.S.'s refusal to cheer] constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, H.S. was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily.
The girl's lawyer said he will petition for a rehearing in front of the full appeals court.

While the cheerleading aspect of this case is unusual, gang rapes by members of the masculine elite such as athletes, soldiers and fraternity members are common. As I discuss in my theoretical overview of gang rape in Sexuality Research and Social Policy, such assaults serve a variety of functions, including social bonding, the celebration of power, and the public display of heterosexual masculinity through the subordination of women. In other words, group rape of women is a form of cultural theater, in which the victim serves as a mere dramatic prop.

As in this case, the main weapon of these group rapists is alcohol. Also common is for police, prosecutors, judges, school officials and other representatives of the power structure to side with the assailants against the victim.

Here, it appears that H.S. was re-victimized at every stage in the process.

Although Bolton and two alleged co-participants were arrested almost immediately, an initial grand jury declined to indict. Meanwhile, H.S. and her family were told that the rape kit collected that night would not be processed for DNA evidence for more than a year, due to a backlog of cases. The boys were allowed to return to school, and Bolton was allowed back on the basketball team.

When H.S. complained to school officials that students were taunting her in the cafeteria, they told her to keep a low profile and stay out of the cafeteria, according to her court documents.

Eventually, a special prosecutor was appointed. Bolton pleaded guilty to a lesser assault charge and was expelled from the school. He has denied raping H.S., and said it was all a "misunderstanding." The case of codefendant Christian Rountree is still pending.

No matter what the 5th Circuit Court says, it seems outrageous to me that someone can essentially be fired from a job for refusing to cheer for her rapist. But, hey, that's just me.

Bob Egelko's excellent article, explaining the legal landscape of diminishing free speech rights on high school campuses, is HERE. The 5th Circuit ruling is HERE.

Photo: Ultra-conservative jurist Priscilla Owen,
one of three judges who issued the ruling against the cheerleader.


FpsY said...

I couldn't resist saying WTF.

I did some extra research and found this,

"....The State feels it's a fair resolution for the victim, and the victim agrees," said prosecutor Barlow. "I think it's a fair resolution also....."

Does the victim really agree or has she been pressured to accept Boltons lesser plea.

Also this,

"...."The community at large does not know all the facts and all the details involved in the agreement," said Barlow. "Only the attorneys and the people involved. They are the ones that know and that's why everyone who was involved in this does believe it was justice and the proper thing to do."

Justice and the proper thing to do, justice for who, it doesn't appear justice was done for the victim.

Karen Franklin, Ph.D. said...

I agree. When I this background while preparing the post, my interpretation was that the victim was considered a potentially poor witness due to intoxication. Unfortunately, date rapists know this. On college campuses, according to an excellent NPR series, they coach each other that the best weapon is not a knife or a gun, but alcohol. It's a two-for-one: Overcomes resistance and hinders successful prosecution.

FpsY said...

Research by Dr. Lisak on the "undetected Rapist" was that "date rape" is not a pleasant evening gone bad because of too much alcohol. Rapists plan and preditate. They have scheme for getting their victims into a secluded place where they will be vulnerable. Alcohol is all part of this plan, intended to make the victim vulnerable.

In a transcript of an interview with an unincarcerated rapist Lisak was able to show the modus operandi. They invited the younger girls to their frat parties and got them drinking straight away, the punch was laced with alcohol but disguised with sweet juice. They new the girls couldn't handle their alcohol. "the young ones were plastered in minutes and they were our targets". when questioned about targeted for what? the interviewee stated for sex. Even rooms in the frat houses were designated spaces prepared to take girls too for the purposes of sex.

BTW what is the NPR series I could find that in the link. Thank you

Karen Franklin, Ph.D. said...

That's weird, I must have put in the wrong link. Here (I hope!) is the correct link to the NPR series on campus rape.

The research you mention by Lisak jibes with another really good article on this topic, Eugene Kanin'’s " Date Rapists: Differential and Relative Deprivation ” from 1985.

FpsY said...

Yep! that link works and the Kanin article, thanks a bunch!

ndmike said...

A clarification: the court ruled that her first amendment rights were not violated. Given SCOTUS precedents, this result was guaranteed. In short, her lawyer screwed up. She can probably sue her lawyer for malpractice and force him or her to pay the $45,000 in attorney fees.

All of this is not to say that school officials were at all reasonable in demanding that she cheer for her attacker or quit the squad. She has other potential claims. She still has legal options. I think she can make out a prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the school officials, for instance. She can certainly sue her attacker in tort as well.

What I really don't understand is why the school officials felt the need to take action against her for refusing to cheer her rapist. The charitable explanation is that they got some lousy legal advice and thought they might be open to liability otherwise.