Cheerleader kicked off team for kissing boyfriend

[Philosaur]

I believe the reading comprehension is yours, you're not following causality.

Whatever. I'm not going to continue to argue about whether or not you wrote what you wrote. If anyone cares to follow the squabble (I know I wouldn't) they'd see where you're being dishonest/delusional.

In any event, this revelation that you cite, where the parents have agreed with the school board, is just cherry-picking. Here's the article that info came from, plus the very next paragraph, which you are ignoring because you've already assumed your conclusion:

http://www.kztv10.com/news/alice-isd-chooses-not-to-reverse-cheerleader-s-suspension-from-team/

The short statement from the district said "The student's parents are in agreement with the districts decision."

However, we contacted the student, and he said that's not the case. He said his parents do not agree with the decision, but claims they decided to give up fighting the battle.

 

[theprestige]

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?

You missed the part where the boy's parents have seen the video and upheld the school's account and the school's decision. To my mind, that makes option 2) substantially less plausible than option 1).

Beyond that, it's really none of our business.

 

[Matthew Best]

You missed the part where the boy's parents have seen the video and upheld the school's account and the school's decision.

Yes, I missed that part too. Can you point me towards it?

 

[Philosaur]

Yes, I missed that part too. Can you point me towards it?

Unless there's something I'm also not seeing, the only indication of this is from the article I cited above (and which has already been cited in this thread) where the school board *claims* the parents agreed.

The only problem, as I also already stated, is that in the same article the student makes a counter claim that his parents merely stopped fighting the decision. I find this quite plausible, as it's a pain to fight a bureaucracy.

 

[Furcifer]

Whatever. I'm not going to continue to argue about whether or not you wrote what you wrote. If anyone cares to follow the squabble (I know I wouldn't) they'd see where you're being dishonest/delusional.

It's not that hard to follow. I think you may want to speak with some people in authority, even teachers, and see if they feel they have a responsibility to be more honest.

In any event, this revelation that you cite, where the parents have agreed with the school board, is just cherry-picking. Here's the article that info came from, plus the very next paragraph, which you are ignoring because you've already assumed your conclusion:

http://www.kztv10.com/news/alice-isd-chooses-not-to-reverse-cheerleader-s-suspension-from-team/

It hasn't been ignored, I just don't think you're reading for comprehension. Even if it's true so what? Just because the parents don't agree with the results doesn't mean they don't agree with why he was suspended.

The parents might not agree with school policy, if that's the case they can find him another school.

 

[Chris L]

Unless there's something I'm also not seeing, the only indication of this is from the article I cited above (and which has already been cited in this thread) where the school board *claims* the parents agreed.

The only problem, as I also already stated, is that in the same article the student makes a counter claim that his parents merely stopped fighting the decision. I find this quite plausible, as it's a pain to fight a bureaucracy.

I think the article would have been more useful if it were the parents and not the student that were contacted. Just as the school board has motive to stretch the truth a bit here, so does the student. You are right though, dropping the case does not mean they agree with the judgment.

 

[theprestige]

My speculation is that this boy victimized the other boy in some way. His action, whatever it was, was in fact grounds for kicking him off the team. However, due to the sensitivity of the issue, and out of concern for the privacy of the other boy, the school administration is not discussing the details.

The culprit's parents, having seen the video evidence for themselves, have also decided to keep silent, not only to protect the victim's privacy, but to avoid scandal from publicizing their son's actions.

The culprit, meanwhile, has to come up with some explanation for being kicked off the team. Realizing that he can't admit to what he really did, and noting that the authorities (both the school and his parents) and the victim are reluctant to discuss it as well, he concocts a story in which he is the victim, persecuted by homophobes over an innocent kiss.

This theory is consistent with the evidence. It especially has the virtue of explaining why the other boy is conspicuously absent from the narrative.

This theory also hilights a glaring flaw in the boy's narrative: Who ever saw a homophobic authority figure that was willing to persecute a gay cheerleader, but not his gay boyfriend, if the two of them were caught kissing on camera?

 

[ponderingturtle]

My speculation is that this boy victimized the other boy in some way. His action, whatever it was, was in fact grounds for kicking him off the team. However, due to the sensitivity of the issue, and out of concern for the privacy of the other boy, the school administration is not discussing the details.

The culprit's parents, having seen the video evidence for themselves, have also decided to keep silent, not only to protect the victim's privacy, but to avoid scandal from publicizing their son's actions.

The culprit, meanwhile, has to come up with some explanation for being kicked off the team. Realizing that he can't admit to what he really did, and noting that the authorities (both the school and his parents) and the victim are reluctant to discuss it as well, he concocts a story in which he is the victim, persecuted by homophobes over an innocent kiss.

This theory is consistent with the evidence. It especially has the virtue of explaining why the other boy is conspicuously absent from the narrative.

This theory also hilights a glaring flaw in the boy's narrative: Who ever saw a homophobic authority figure that was willing to persecute a gay cheerleader, but not his gay boyfriend, if the two of them were caught kissing on camera?

If his boyfriend was not a cheerleader what would they have done?

 

[Philosaur]

Just because the parents don't agree with the results doesn't mean they don't agree with why he was suspended.

Ok, Furcifer. Uh-huh. You're right.

The parents might not agree with school policy, if that's the case they can find him another school.

Absolutely. Yes, they can.

 

[Philosaur]

I think the article would have been more useful if it were the parents and not the student that were contacted. Just as the school board has motive to stretch the truth a bit here, so does the student. You are right though, dropping the case does not mean they agree with the judgment.

Whatever the case may be, it doesn't look like there's much more coming from this story except what we've already seen. From here on out, the discussion is just a big group-wank over a gay cheerleader. Wait--that came out wrong.

 

[Furcifer]

If his boyfriend was not a cheerleader what would they have done?

I would assume suspend him from school like they did his BF.

It was this boy's suspension that led him to being kicked off the team. It's entirely consistent with what I remember (once or twice the football coach may have gone to bat for me with the administration and prevented a suspension that would have forced him to kick me off the team. But I could be thinking of someone else)