Cheerleader kicked off team for kissing boyfriend

[Darth Rotor]

I'd like to point out that this is a small-town American phenomenon, not a purely Texas phenomenon. Alice is a town of 19,000 and has its attendant small-town "morality", which translates in this case into anti-homosexuality.

Any small town in the US, regardless of state, is going to share those same conservative small-town values. Texas, by dint of its size, has more such towns than any other state in the nation, so it has acquired a reputation (especially among people who do not live here) as being full of intolerant rednecks. The reality is much different, particularly in our several huge cities.

And even small-town culture is different from what it once was. 20 years ago that kid would likely have been beaten and battered by the local "fag-bashing" young males, in addition to whatever administrative actions. Now he gets national coverage (good on him!) and an outpouring of sympathy (well deserved) with a "review" of the case forthcoming. The times they are indeed a-changin'... even in small-town Texas.

To add to your data point, you will find that Alice, Texas, is majority Hispanic demographically. This may influence whatever "small town norms" will play into a local hubub of this nature.

When I was in high school in the 70's, PDA could get you suspended if you were a frequent offender. No idea what's actually up in this case. And it ain't the 70's anymore.

 

[Darth Rotor]

No, it's belief--you even said so. "Belief" and "critical thinking" are not synonyms.

You think you can get away with this load of bollocks, Cleon?

Furcifer has attempt to resolve two different and inconsistent sets of information regarding the same event, and has to make a judgment in trying to establish which source is more credible.

When you have incomplete facts, you have to make judgment decisions, which includes information sources available.
This is something you do in the area of critical thinking when you have incomplete information. It doesn't guarantee that you are right, but it forms the basis of making a judgment.

I don't know if he's right or not, and I honestly don't care. I've had my share of disgust for high school boards and faculty, as a student and as a parent, so it's a toss up from where I sit.

(Hmm, I suppose I could ask a few folks I know who lived in Alice years ago, to see if they have any inside scoop or relatives in the ISD there, but they are likely to only get rumor versus fact on this matter).

That little semantic game you tried to play with the various definitions of the word "belief" is worth a two minute minor. Into the penalty box you go.

Put another way, Furcifer is dealing with this dilemma: "Who you gonna believe: a source who you find more credible, or one you don't?"

If your issue is why one source is, or isn't, more credible, I'd suggest people bickering over this need to check themselves for confirmation bias.

EDIT:
I suggest you head to the Corpus Christi Caller Times (newspaper of the nearest big city to Alice) and read up on the case. (Same paper that scooped national media during Dick Cheney's lawyer hunting party down Sarita way ... )

From the last they had, there isn't much more to learn, probably due to the student being a minor, and other UIL issues. (UIL is the regulating body in Texas for school sports, which includes cheerleading. ) It appears at this point that no further details will be forthcoming.

@ autumn1971: You could probably google the Alice ISD web site and find out what the rules are that students in extra curriculars and sports are bound by. Student Code of Conduct (i didn't find that, but I bet it's like the one my kids had at their high school)
and Cheer Handbook.
http://ahs.aliceisd.net/www/AliceISD_AHS/site/hosting/AHS Cheerleading_Handbook_2010-2011[1].pdf
http://ahs.aliceisd.net/site_res_view_folder.aspx?id=6c737402-bf55-4528-984c-18f7a528a233

You can also look up the website for the Alice ISD.

See, that wasn't so hard.

Not sure how helpful it will be, though ... if you did not see the film.

Alice Independent School District officials issued a news release Monday afternoon saying they reviewed the student's removal from the squad and the decision would remain as is.

"The student and parents are clearly aware that the student was not removed from the squad for kissing another student at school," the statement said.

The letter also said the student's parents agree with the district's decision, which involved officials reviewing the Student Code of Conduct and Cheer Handbook.

Officials said those documents aim to encourage students to be responsible for their actions and behavior as community members.

Rodriguez said although he was trying to gain supporters for a potential rally, there is no reason to protest now that full details of the incident aren't known.

Rodriguez is a guy at a local university who promoted support for an LGBT club in a local high school.

 

[slingblade]

Put another way, Furcifer is dealing with this dilemma: "Who you gonna believe: a source who you find more credible, or one you don't?"

Yes, and my response to that is that I used to believe whatever any authority told me, because authority is always right, or else it wouldn't be authority.

That's incredibly naive.

Now, I try not to "believe" anyone. I try to get as many facts as I can and go from there. Because "authority" can be mistaken. Authority lies. Authority has ulterior motives. Authority is just people like me who make mistakes the same as me. To think otherwise is to not really be thinking.

And if I can't get all the facts, and the issue seems to me to still be in question? Then I reserve judgment--forever if necessary--until I can get those facts. In the few cases where I have to make a choice, judgment, or decision without all the facts, I do the best I can with what I have, knowing I could well be quite wrong.

The fact that it's "authority" doing the talking is meaningless, in and of itself. More is needed. It's simply not good enough for me that authorities have decided something. That's the fallacy.

Also, while "authority" can mean "expert," it doesn't have to. A person can be promoted to a position of authority and not be an expert. The two don't have to go together. I can't assume an authority is an expert, just because it's often the case.

In any case in which an authority figure is pitted against a person of lesser status or position, I don't assume the authority is always in the right by virtue of being the authority. By way of example, the Innocence Project has shown several times that authority has been wrong.

I don't have to make any choice or decision in this specific issue. It's not my kid, not my school district, not even my town or my state. It's an event that doesn't directly involve me, or even peripherally involve me. It's simply, for me, an item of interest. Because I haven't seen what's on that security tape, I don't know what's on it, and I'm not going to assume that the school board's decision means there was more than kissing on that tape. Might there be? Sure. But I don't know it. It's fine that I don't come down on either side; it affects no one.

I lack the information I need to say what happened. The best I can say is that I don't know what happened, so I'm not going to make a decision on it. I don't have to. If you want to decide the issue for yourself, and you feel you have enough info to do that, then go for it. Pardon me that I don't, and I won't.

The point still remains that blind trust in authority simply because it's authority is not using critical thinking. There needs to be more to it.

 

[Furcifer]

Yes, and my response to that is that I used to believe whatever any authority told me, because authority is always right, or else it wouldn't be authority.

That's incredibly naive.

Now, I try not to "believe" anyone. I try to get as many facts as I can and go from there. Because "authority" can be mistaken. Authority lies. Authority has ulterior motives. Authority is just people like me who make mistakes the same as me. To think otherwise is to not really be thinking.

And if I can't get all the facts, and the issue seems to me to still be in question? Then I reserve judgment--forever if necessary--until I can get those facts. In the few cases where I have to make a choice, judgment, or decision without all the facts, I do the best I can with what I have, knowing I could well be quite wrong.

The fact that it's "authority" doing the talking is meaningless, in and of itself. More is needed. It's simply not good enough for me that authorities have decided something. That's the fallacy.

Also, while "authority" can mean "expert," it doesn't have to. A person can be promoted to a position of authority and not be an expert. The two don't have to go together. I can't assume an authority is an expert, just because it's often the case.

In any case in which an authority figure is pitted against a person of lesser status or position, I don't assume the authority is always in the right by virtue of being the authority. By way of example, the Innocence Project has shown several times that authority has been wrong.

I don't have to make any choice or decision in this specific issue. It's not my kid, not my school district, not even my town or my state. It's an event that doesn't directly involve me, or even peripherally involve me. It's simply, for me, an item of interest. Because I haven't seen what's on that security tape, I don't know what's on it, and I'm not going to assume that the school board's decision means there was more than kissing on that tape. Might there be? Sure. But I don't know it. It's fine that I don't come down on either side; it affects no one.

I lack the information I need to say what happened. The best I can say is that I don't know what happened, so I'm not going to make a decision on it. I don't have to. If you want to decide the issue for yourself, and you feel you have enough info to do that, then go for it. Pardon me that I don't, and I won't.

The point still remains that blind trust in authority simply because it's authority is not using critical thinking. There needs to be more to it.

Which is exactly why there was a second review of the incident by the school board.

You're overcompensating and because of your prior naivety have established an unreasonable burden of proof in this incident. A principal and a school board confirmed this, that's all that's required. This does not require a Supreme Court decision.

 

[Darat]

Thread has way too much personal bickering amongst Members rather than a discussion about the topic of thread. Thread is being closed until a Moderator has time to go through it and clean it out. As usual do not try to continue the discussion elsewhere whilst this thread is closed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Gaspode]

Thread re-opened. Please keep on topic and ensure posts address the argument not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[slingblade]

Why bother? With all due respect and civility, of course. You may now rub my belly.

 

[Chris L]

Why bother? With all due respect and civility, of course. You may now rub my belly.

Agreed. The thread was going nowhere before it was closed, nothing has happened to change that.

 

[bikerdruid]

Agreed. The thread was going nowhere before it was closed, nothing has happened to change that.

all the arguing aside....
if a straight boy cheerleader had kissed his girlfriend, we would never have heard about this. it would have been no big deal.
he likely would not have been kicked off the squad.

 

[Philosaur]

Nonsense.

Indeed, this is.

With authority comes responsibility, Responsibility makes you accountable to yourself and to others.

So far, so good.

You're held to higher standard and in order to do that you have to be more honest.

Wha...?! You don't have to be honest to be held to a higher standard. You don't have to be more honest to appear as though you're meeting that standard. *If* you care about the higher standard, then you will be more honest.

Without honesty there's no respect and without respect there's no authority.

There's this book that this one guy wrote called...um...the Little Prince? What's his name...Maca-ravioli?

I suppose all those so-called "tyrants" and "despots" around the world were all honest but misunderstood. Or else they had no real authority, right?

Seriously. Is this meant to be an argument supporting your contention that authority entails honesty?

The only point I was making in my post was that it's at least possible (and, as I said, IN MY OPINION, likely) that there is some truth to what the student is saying.

Or, you know, dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist so you don't have to deal with my argument.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Here is the thing, clearly one side is lying, and it could well be either side. Yes it is possible he was doing more than kissing and this makes sense, and it is possible that the district is taking a position that if it covers for an employee who acted inappropriately it will not get caught. Both of those are credible situations.

 

[theprestige]

Here is the thing, clearly one side is lying, and it could well be either side.

No it could not well be either side.

Yes it is possible he was doing more than kissing and this makes sense,

It makes sense because the parents, after reviewing the video record, agree with the district.

and it is possible that the district is taking a position that if it covers for an employee who acted inappropriately it will not get caught.

If the district were covering for an employee who acted inappropriately, why would the parents collude with the district to cover-up the injustice done to their son?

Both of those are credible situations.

No, they're not. See above.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No it could not well be either side.


It makes sense because the parents, after reviewing the video record, agree with the district.

ah that changes things. I thought it was still at the evidence free district vs student level

 

[Chris L]

ah that changes things. I thought it was still at the evidence free district vs student level

Yes it does. Had I known that (and it's my own fault for not looking into it further) I'd have sided with the district's account of what happened. There comes a point where the evidence tips the scales.

 

[Furcifer]

Wha...?! You don't have to be honest to be held to a higher standard.

Wha? indeed. Who said that? It's completely backwards.

You don't have to be more honest to appear as though you're meeting that standard.

How do you "appear honest"? A tall hat and sideburns?

*If* you care about the higher standard, then you will be more honest.

No. Things like judicial and peer review hold people to a higher standard by keeping people accountable for their actions. The consequences of lying and getting caught are also greater.

I suppose all those so-called "tyrants" and "despots" around the world were all honest but misunderstood. Or else they had no real authority, right?

Cheese and mac ravioli?I think you mean Godwin.

Seriously. Is this meant to be an argument supporting your contention that authority entails honesty?

Seriously? Yes, we place people in the position of authority and then hold them to a higher standard, this have a positive influence on honesty.

The only point I was making in my post was that it's at least possible (and, as I said, IN MY OPINION, likely) that there is some truth to what the student is saying.

Some truth? No. He's either telling the truth or lying. It's much more likely that he's lying than the principal and the school board. But he may be telling the truth.

Or, you know, dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist so you don't have to deal with my argument.

What you're alleging is that the school board is conspiring against this student. That's your argument,and it's being dealt with.

 

[gumboot]

It seems to me there's two alternative explanations for this situation, either equally valid:

1) The boy has been deceptive, and is in trouble for something other than kissing, but won't admit it
2) The school is being deceptive, and trying to save face after being caught overreacting

It seems to me either of these is quite plausible, and that short of one side or the other admitting they are in the wrong, or alternatively someone leaking the video to the public (presuming, of course, the video depicts whatever activities led to the punishment), none of us will ever be in a position to say with any sort of confidence which side is right and which is wrong.

All of you are really just speculating, and nothing more.

Have I missed anything?

 

[Dancing David]

Furcifer, I know a hell of a lot of adults who are in positions of authority and lie all the time. I know of school administration members who have lied their butts off in order to silence or punish a student, and I know of at least one school district superintendent who lied regularly in order to get his way with the citizens of the district.

Yup. applies to all sort of people

 

[Philosaur]

Wha? indeed. Who said that? It's completely backwards.

Who indeed? Oh, it was you:

You're held to higher standard and in order to do that you have to be more honest.

So, was it amnesia? Senility? Lack of reading comprehension?

How do you "appear honest"? A tall hat and sideburns?

...apparently it's reading comprehension. What I said was:

You don't have to be more honest to appear as though you're meeting that standard.

I said nothing about appearing honest. I was explicitly saying that you can be a liar and still appear to meet a standard. This is in direct opposition to your claim (see above, don't deny it again) that you have to be honest to be held to a higher standard.

No. Things like judicial and peer review hold people to a higher standard by keeping people accountable for their actions. The consequences of lying and getting caught are also greater.

This is irrelevant. There are no judicial or peer reviews of routine disciplinary actions from schools.

Cheese and mac ravioli?I think you mean Godwin.

Dodge noted.

Seriously? Yes, we place people in the position of authority and then hold them to a higher standard, this have a positive influence on honesty.

You've got it backward. We find honest people to put in positions of authority. We don't put people in positions of authority hoping that the checks and balances will make them honest. The whole point is contained in the aphorism about how power corrupts. Maybe you've heard it?

Some truth? No. He's either telling the truth or lying. It's much more likely that he's lying than the principal and the school board. But he may be telling the truth.

Backpedal noted. Pretending to not understand idiomatic English also noted.

What you're alleging is that the school board is conspiring against this student. That's your argument,and it's being dealt with.

I'm alleging nothing. I was pointing out the possibility only to counter your ridiculous contention that the school board would never lie. But now that you've admitted it's possible they are, I need argue no further.

 

[Furcifer]

It seems to me there's two alternative explanations for this situation, either equally valid:

1) The boy has been deceptive, and is in trouble for something other than kissing, but won't admit it
2) The school is being deceptive, and trying to save face after being caught overreacting

It seems to me either of these is quite plausible, and that short of one side or the other admitting they are in the wrong, or alternatively someone leaking the video to the public (presuming, of course, the video depicts whatever activities led to the punishment), none of us will ever be in a position to say with any sort of confidence which side is right and which is wrong.

All of you are really just speculating, and nothing more.

Have I missed anything?

Yes, the school board met with the student's parents, explained exactly why he was suspended and have since dropped any protest to the suspension.

 

[Furcifer]

Who indeed? Oh, it was you:
...apparently it's reading comprehension. What I said was:

I believe the reading comprehension error is yours, you're not following causality. As I said you have this backwards, holding people to a higher standard has the effect of making them more honest. Here's what you said:
You don't have to be honest to be held to a higher standard.

Which is correct, you don't have to be more honest to be held to a higher standard. But don't expect to do it very long.

I said nothing about appearing honest. I was explicitly saying that you can be a liar and still appear to meet a standard.

Not for very long. You'll get caught. I've stated numerous times the effect of being held to a higher standard is honesty through accountability.

This is in direct opposition to your claim (see above, don't deny it again) that you have to be honest to be held to a higher standard.

It's opposite because you continue to state it backwards.

This is irrelevant. There are no judicial or peer reviews of routine disciplinary actions from schools.

Not unless the student lies and the school board has to review the principal's decision, which is exactly what happened.

You've got it backward. We find honest people to put in positions of authority. We don't put people in positions of authority hoping that the checks and balances will make them honest. The whole point is contained in the aphorism about how power corrupts. Maybe you've heard it?

No, you're wrong, that's it's in addition to being held to a higher standard. You can't "look" for honest people, they have to be tested. Whether that's a formal review or simply by inquiry, it's still a test or a measure.

I believe the exact quote is "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Maybe you've heard it? It means without review and accountability power corrupts.

I'm alleging nothing. I was pointing out the possibility only to counter your ridiculous contention that the school board would never lie. But now that you've admitted it's possible they are, I need argue no further.

I never made that contention. I said it's highly unlikely. Someone said that it was equally likely, or 50/50, which is laughable given the evidence.