Cheerleader kicked off team for kissing boyfriend

[bikerdruid]

HS students, gay or straight, are a bunch of lying horn bags.

i was a high school teacher for many years.
i find your attitude offensive.
kids are great...sometimes despite rude, redneck parents.
there is no doubt the board over reacted.

 

[Philosaur]

I believe professionals over HS students. I know it's a radical idea, but whatever.

They've made it clear it wasn't about the "kiss", but it obviously has something to do with what was on the tape, which they've admitted is too sensitive to reveal to the public.

That's all there is too it.

Or you could look at it another way, which is that the principal or administrator(s) had a knee-jerk reaction to a gay couple kissing, made an unfair and overly harsh decision, and are now claiming the tape is too graphic to reveal to the public.

In this case, the fact that the administration has much more to lose than the student shifts the balance of credibility in the student's favor. I know this is speculation, but it's not so off the wall it couldn't be true. In fact, I think it's at least as likely.

Also, your assumption that they were doing more than kissing seems to rest on the assumption that they "snuck off somewhere secluded". It's not unheard of for students to cut through a building on the way to another class. It would not be unusual for the cheerleader to be meeting his boyfriend in the band hall in order to walk to another class.

 

[Furcifer]

Or you could look at it another way, which is that the principal or administrator(s) had a knee-jerk reaction to a gay couple kissing, made an unfair and overly harsh decision, and are now claiming the tape is too graphic to reveal to the public.

Perhaps if it was just the principal, but it's been reviewed by the district. At this point it's becoming a conspiracy which is ridiculous.

Kissing Cheerleader Was An Inside Job!

In this case, the fact that the administration has much more to lose than the student shifts the balance of credibility in the student's favor. I know this is speculation, but it's not so off the wall it couldn't be true. In fact, I think it's at least as likely.

This is verbatim from the conspiracy theory handbook.

If this were in fact how things worked the school board had much more to lose backing the principal so they would have cut their loses.

Also, your assumption that they were doing more than kissing seems to rest on the assumption that they "snuck off somewhere secluded". It's not unheard of for students to cut through a building on the way to another class. It would not be unusual for the cheerleader to be meeting his boyfriend in the band hall in order to walk to another class.

So they didn't do anything wrong, everyone is just out to get them.

Like just about every conspiracy theory this falls under Occam Razor. Either you have this elaborate conspiracy involving numerous school officials or you have a lying HS student pissed off over getting caught.

But I guess we'll never know...

 

[slingblade]

But I guess we'll never know...

No, we won't. We don't know now, either.


We do know that being in a position of authority is no measure of one's honesty or dishonesty.

You're trying to imply it is, or it should be, or that it's more reasonable or logical to simply believe someone because of their authority.

Are these authorities lying? I dunno.
Are they being 100% honest? I dunno that, either.
Is the kid lying? Dunno.
Is he being 100% honest? Not a clue.

Do authorities sometimes not exactly tell the truth about an incident, and then close ranks and claim they can't speak due to "privacy issues?" Yeah, it's been known to happen. Is it happening in this case? No idea.

Do kids sometimes lie? yup, been known to happen. Is the student in this case lying? No way to know.

See, who you believe and why doesn't really matter, if you don't have all the facts. None of us has all the facts. Picking a side in this case is no more critically thought out than any other belief-without-evidence, so it's fallacious, unreasonable, and illogical.

I don't choose a side in this specific event, because I can't. And really, it doesn't matter who I believe. I have no dog in this specific fight. What really mattered to me about this story were the comments I read on the various news sites that ran this story. A lot more of them than I expected were of the "Two guys kissed, so what?" variety.

Regardless of what happened, that outcome was surprising and welcome.

 

[slingblade]

My belief is based on the application of critical thinking. I applied the principle called Occam's Razor.

It can be applied wrongly. Not saying you did so, but it's no surety.

I am shocked. In order to refute the obvious many people are now maintaining that a school board is conspiring to keep a gay male cheerleader off the team.
I assumed once the board investigated the incident and made their ruling people would see the writing on the wall.

Many people are doing this? Care to name names?


Besides, we can't see the wall. Too much info still missing, and likely to remain missing.

I honestly have to question if this being done for the sake of the forum name sake, or if it's just bad critical thinking.

It's a lack of facts.

 

[Furcifer]

No, we won't. We don't know now, either.

Nonsense. You should choose your words more carefully. We don't know for absolute certain. We won't ever know for absolute certain.


Which is pedantic anyways. We hardly ever know things one way or the other for absolute certain. We can say with relative confidence that it's highly probably that the kid lied about what is the actual cause of his suspension and banishment from the team.

We do know that being in a position of authority is no measure of one's honesty or dishonesty.

Nonsense. The process of selecting "authority" ensures that authority remains more honest. Judges are more honest than criminals because we hold them to a higher standard. School boards are more honest than students.

You're trying to imply it is, or it should be, or that it's more reasonable or logical to simply believe someone because of their authority.

No. That's why I waited until the school board made their decision. To borrow a term the principals decision was "peer reviewed".

Are these authorities lying? I dunno.
Are they being 100% honest? I dunno that, either.
Is the kid lying? Dunno.
Is he being 100% honest? Not a clue.

So you're saying you don't know much?

The same failed logic you've applied above is the same employed by psychics, homeopaths, intelligent design proponents and religious fanatics.
Are the scientists lying? I dunno
Are they being 100% honest? I dunno
Could the creationists by lying? Dunno
Could creationism be true? Not a clue

I guess we're at an impasse on everything. Notify Randi, skepticism is over.

Do authorities sometimes not exactly tell the truth about an incident, and then close ranks and claim they can't speak due to "privacy issues?" Yeah, it's been known to happen. Is it happening in this case? No idea.

Do people conspire? Sure. I guess we'll never know if this is a conspiracy then.

Do kids sometimes lie? yup, been known to happen. Is the student in this case lying? No way to know.

Wrong. You could get a group of people to look at the video tape then make an informed decision. They did, and that's how we know. It's called an impartial investigation of the evidence. It's quite common and the "way to know" things.

See, who you believe and why doesn't really matter, if you don't have all the facts. None of us has all the facts. Picking a side in this case is no more critically thought out than any other belief-without-evidence, so it's fallacious, unreasonable, and illogical.

No this is a commonly employed fallacy on this forum. The fallacy is that because we can't know everything, we can't know anything and therefore both positions or arguments are equally valid.

I don't choose a side in this specific event, because I can't. And really, it doesn't matter who I believe. I have no dog in this specific fight.

Nonsense slingblade, you do have a dog in this fight. It might not be a direct interest, but at least tangentially it's important that society functions as it's intended. We don't want bigots running out schools, but we don't want HS kids crying "Wolf!". If an injustice has occurred it's in our best interest to examine it and rectify it. That comes by way of discussion.

What really mattered to me about this story were the comments I read on the various news sites that ran this story. A lot more of them than I expected were of the "Two guys kissed, so what?" variety.
Regardless of what happened, that outcome was surprising and welcome.

As a Canadian I didn't find that surprising at all. But that's a good point in the sense that you need a card in order to play it. Perhaps they haven't handed out the gay card in the US just yet?

 

[Furcifer]

Many people are doing this? Care to name names?

Just read this thread, there are more than a few people jumping to conclusions incorrectly. Of course the most egregious examples were on other websites.

It's a lack of facts.

NO!!!!!! No.

Don't confuse the lack of publicly available information on this case with a lack of facts. The school board had the facts and made a decision based on those facts. Due to privacy we have to infer things from what they said, but that's in no way a "lack of facts".

 

[Furcifer]

I wasn't trying to do that. And I'm not surprised you're pretending to miss the point. Your shtick works best when you pretend you aren't able to understand what you're told. Doesn't it?

There's no point to miss. The kid said he was suspended for kissing. A group of school officials after reviewing all of the evidence made a public statement saying he was not suspended for kissing.

Someone is lying and there is no "middle ground" as you tried to infer earlier.

Likewise, if a judge says the guy is guilty and the criminal says he's innocent, believing the judge to be correct because he's a judge is not an appeal to authority. Granted a school board isn't a "judge" and the kid isn't a criminal, but they are the appointed officials and have all of the facts. That makes them experts in determining this case.

I understand what's being said, I just can't believe someone would say something that ridiculous

 

[slingblade]

Nonsense. You should choose your words more carefully. We don't know for absolute certain. We won't ever know for absolute certain.

Oh, I've got some words, most carefully chosen, trust me.

We won't know any more than what the media's already reported, and what they've reported isn't enough to form an educated guess, much less an opinion. "Privacy" saw to that. Maybe if the security tape gets leaked...

Which is pedantic anyways. We hardly ever know things one way or the other for absolute certain. We can say with relative confidence that it's highly probably that the kid lied about what is the actual cause of his suspension and banishment from the team.

Nope, I can't and won't say that. I don't know that.

Nonsense. The process of selecting "authority" ensures that authority remains more honest. Judges are more honest than criminals because we hold them to a higher standard. School boards are more honest than students.

I just about choked on that load of utter bull.
What exactly about the "selection system" (otherwise known as an election) ensures that authority--in this case, the school board--remains honest? The signs you stick into people's lawns? The speech you give to the five people who actually watch the Public Access Cable Channel? The election?

You can hold people to all the standards you can imagine. It doesn't mean they live up to them. Ask a few priests about that one. Or a few politicians. Or a few ministers. Or hey, even a few judges.

Or do you think I couldn't come up with numerous examples in which these paragons of veracity didn't live up to the standards, hmmm?

No. That's why I waited until the school board made their decision. To borrow a term the principals decision was "peer reviewed".

That's good enough for them, and it's apparently good enough for you. It's not good enough for me.

So you're saying you don't know much?

All the time.

The same failed logic you've applied above is the same employed by psychics, homeopaths, intelligent design proponents and religious fanatics.
Are the scientists lying? I dunno
Are they being 100% honest? I dunno
Could the creationists by lying? Dunno
Could creationism be true? Not a clue

I guess we're at an impasse on everything. Notify Randi, skepticism is over.

Are there facts about those topics that are hidden from the rest of us due to "privacy issues?" Or can anyone get access to the information and do his own work to find out?

Do you just skim over things like "not enough facts in evidence" and use your vaunted guts to come to conclusions? Mmm, sloppy. Tsk, tsk.

Do people conspire? Sure. I guess we'll never know if this is a conspiracy then.

Probably not.

Wrong. You could get a group of people to look at the video tape then make an informed decision. They did, and that's how we know. It's called an impartial investigation of the evidence. It's quite common and the "way to know" things.

They never said what was on the tape, though. That information was never released. I don't know what they saw. Nor do you. Until I do know what was on that tape, I don't know the investigation was impartial. I only know some people say it was.

Why are you so willing to swallow whatever authority tells you?
Ah, sorry...I didn't see you wearing your Sheeple Shirt.

No this is a commonly employed fallacy on this forum. The fallacy is that because we can't know everything, we can't know anything and therefore both positions or arguments are equally valid.

That's not at all what I said, but it is chilly outside, so how about you light that straw man up? I said we lack certain pertinent facts in this case, and without those facts, we can't know what really happened in this case. And we probably won't know, either. There's not enough info given for me to make up my mind, either way. If you can take what little you've been fed and come to a conclusion, that's just dandy for you. I can't, and I won't.

Nonsense slingblade, you do have a dog in this fight. It might not be a direct interest, but at least tangentially it's important that society functions as it's intended. We don't want bigots running out schools, but we don't want HS kids crying "Wolf!". If an injustice has occurred it's in our best interest to examine it and rectify it. That comes by way of discussion.

Nah, not really. I can't think of a single social ill any of my discussions here has ever "rectified." Not one. How many are you batting, champ?

As a Canadian I didn't find that surprising at all. But that's a good point in the sense that you need a card in order to play it. Perhaps they haven't handed out the gay card in the US just yet?

Next time we have a threesome, Hubby and I will ask.

 

[tyr_13]

What about the 'kissing' are they claiming is too graphic? If they are claiming that they did more than kiss, what are they claiming they did?

'It's too graphic' appears to be a hand wave, and an amazing stupid one as well. They don't have to release the video, they would have to say what they are claiming actually went on.

But if they did that, and it wasn't true, they could be sued and the video would disprove their claim. This would seem to be a good reason to not to say what they did besides kissing.

 

[slingblade]

Correct. Your ignorance is no excuse.

I don't know what happened. I'm not going to take a side in this until I know. That simply means I'm not going to decide either the student or the school board lied.

Because it was tried in a court of law.

How is simply accepting a court decision without knowing the pertinent facts indicative of critical thought?

If TMZ said it happened I wouldn't be confident.

You shouldn't be, if you're thinking critically about it. You should have the facts.

This is the power of expertise. If you said the Universe was expanding I'd probably agree, but if Stephen Hawking said the Universe was expanding I would be confident it was.

I didn't say expertise, and neither did you. Bring those goal posts back here. You said the school board's position of authority renders the board members honest. You said the system for selecting them renders them honest.

You still haven't given any reasons for either assertion.

Part of the reason your argument is incoherent is because you're jumping from "I" and "me" to "we" and "us" at leisure. I'm not sure you're aware you're doing it.
The other reason is because you continue to use words like "everyone" and "everything". Using words like this should be avoided if you wish to improve your debate skills. It turns your argument into a fallacy. Everytime

Which one(s)?

Same fallacy, you don't need all of the facts to judge a case, just a judge!

What do you need the judge for? To tell you what to think? I'd prefer to do that for myself.

And I'm waiting for you to substantiate your claims. "Evidence?"

Your posts.

lol, I know what happened, the kid got suspended and kicked of the cheerleading team and continues to lie about the reason. I know because the experts ie; the school board officials have clearly communicated this to me.

Experts? I thought they were authorities? Okay, so what are they experts on again? And where did they acquire this expertise? How is it measured, with a degree or certification, or...?

The fact is you know this too.

I don't know what happened. I know what each side on the issue says happened. That's not the same thing.

I don't know why you don't. Some people have an irrational fear of strangers, but it's a condition easily controlled with medication. Or do you just mean the Texas school board officials in particular and not just authority figures in general?

Authority isn't my sacred cow. But you can keep milking it if it turns you on.

Which would be complete nonsense for most people, but may in fact be entirely consistent for you. I'll try to make a mental note of what you've said here and see if you believe what you're saying. Somehow I doubt it.

I can't see why you'd doubt it. I'm the sole authority on the topic. You naturally accept my every word on the topic as factual, honest, and final.

 

[Mason]

We know the boy was suspended.

The boy claims it was because he kissed another student, who was also a boy.

The student who received the kiss has not been identified in the media, and has not issued a statement on whether he was also suspended.

The principal's immediate response to the accusation is that the school does not suspend students for kissing. The principal does not make a statement on the status of the boy receiving the kiss.

The board says that after reviewing a videotape, the suspension will stand (given the above statement from the principal, this should imply that the suspension was not for kissing, because the school doesn't suspend students for kissing)

The board also explicitly states that the suspension was not for kissing, but due to privacy issues, the reasons will not be publicized.

The board states that the boy and his parents are both clear on the matter, and they understand that the suspension was not for kissing another student.

The board does not mention the student receiving the kiss also being suspended, nor does it mention this other student's parents' reactions.

None of the media statements, including that of the accused boy, use phrases like "We were suspended for kissing", or "They were not suspended for kissing" or "The parents of both students have been made aware of the breech of conduct", or any other phrasing that would be expected from two students being suspended.

The boy has not spoken on the unfairness of being suspended for kissing while the other kissing party goes free.

These things don't add up, to me. If he was suspended for kissing another student, there should be at least some mention somewhere about a second student being involved in the kiss and the subsequent disciplinary action of that other student. If the other student was not punished, the boy who is being so vocal would probably be in even more of a fit because he was the only one punished for an event which required two people.

The student's side of the story does not add up, and nobody in posession of the details of the video supports his claim.

The school's side of the story does hold up, within the limits of the available facts, and they are not being spoken against by those who have access to the videotape and other evidence (specifically, the parents, to whom the board claims to have spoken).

Given the lack of further evidence, sure, we could conclude that the student is being wronged, but I think it far more likely that the student is trying to misdirect the issue and bully the school through the media into reversing their decicion on his suspension (i.e. pulling the gay card). Other explainations are possible, of course, but this one seems to fit the available facts more plausibly than a case of persecution.

 

[slingblade]

We know the boy was suspended.<snip'd>

Now that's a proper argument. Much better than, "I believe whatever authority tells me, because it's authority."

 

[Furcifer]

I don't know what happened. I'm not going to take a side in this until I know. That simply means I'm not going to decide either the student or the school board lied.

And I'm just saying this is a ridiculous position to take, much like saying you don't know if Creationism is true or if Evolution is true because you "don't know what happened 4000 years ago".
(you're not a Creationist right?, sorry if you are this is just an example)
You rely on the scientists to study the fossil record and report back to you that everything is in order. You haven't seen the fossils or "studied the evidence" but you believe Evolution is a true theory because the experts tell you so.
If some private collector had Lucy, but refused to display it to the public all the while allowing the experts to study it and report back that it's authentic, would you still maintain that not being able to see the fossil means you're at an impasse with Evolution and Creationism?

I realize this isn't the best analogy because Lucy isn't some sort of lynch pin in the theory of Evolution, but I hope you can try to understand the point I'm making. It would be nonsense to say the scientists are not all perfect, and some of them lie, and therefore Lucy may or may not exist and therefore Evolution may or may not be true. I'm quite certain you would say "The experts have seen the evidence and have verified it, it's good, everything falls into place as it should"
Unless you were a Creationist, then of course, well everyone lies and scientists are godless atheists, they're all lying and there is no fossil, so there's no definitive answer one way or the other.

Honestly, that's exactly what you're doing. You're brushing off the school board just like anyone with an agenda does. All because they're remaining professional and protecting this kid's right to privacy.

How is simply accepting a court decision without knowing the pertinent facts indicative of critical thought?

Because we use critical thinking to evaluate the source of information and rate it in terms of it's validity. We appoint judges to oversee court cases because they have some expertise in law. We instill our trust in them based on their expertise. If we handed out tickets at a Mc Donald's and picked judges out of a hat then you'd have a point. I know I wouldn't instill much faith in the ruling of a fool. But someone who has gone up the ranks and won the admiration of their peers and attained the position?
That's not to say you should blindly accept a court decision. In some cases the prosecution and the police are unable to collect enough evidence to convict someone. Or it's possible the defense didn't have enough evidence to prevent a person from being convicted.
So if the kid was saying "Hey, we were only rehearsing a skit for class, everything we did was simulated and there was nothing really going on" there might be some room for interpretation. You might say "The schoolboard wanted to see what they wanted to see and I'm not really sure what happened". As it stands however they're in direct odds with one another and there's no middle ground to be found.

You shouldn't be, if you're thinking critically about it. You should have the facts.

I have the facts. I don't have all of the facts, but I have enough to support the school board ruling. We don't need all of the facts, your insistence we do in order to come to a logical conclusion is at fault.

I didn't say expertise, and neither did you. Bring those goal posts back here. You said the school board's position of authority renders the board members honest.

No I didn't. I said the school boards expertise made them more likely to be honest than a HS student.

You said the system for selecting them renders them honest.

I don't know if you're playing semantics here, or if I misspoke. The system for selecting them makes them more honest. I didn't mean to imply that judges never lie, because I'm sure they do. I'm saying they're more likely to be honest because the system holds them to being honest. Do you understand?

Which one(s)?

All of them.

What do you need the judge for? To tell you what to think? I'd prefer to do that for myself.

You're not qualified

Experts? I thought they were authorities?

au·thor·i·ty

a. An accepted source of expert information or advice:

They're all sooper dooper n' stuff.

Okay, so what are they experts on again?

The Case Of The Kissing Cheerleader.

And where did they acquire this expertise?

ex·pert
A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject

They have knowledge of all the facts pertinent to this case.

How is it measured, with a degree or certification, or...?

A high degree of knowledge in the subject. The school board officials know everything, that makes them experts. You know less, therefore you aren't an expert

I don't know what happened. I know what each side on the issue says happened. That's not the same thing.

Nonsense. In a later report the kid said a merchant marine, wearing scuba gear and a fluffy hat broke into his room and ate his sandwhich.

You really can't be sure than didn't happen? Seriously? You gonna be all skeptical and say there's no evidence on way or the other if a merchant marine was there of not so you don't know what happened? Cool.

Skeptical and gullible aren't synonym! For most of us at least.

Authority isn't my sacred cow. But you can keep milking it if it turns you on.

I've always been fond of jeans and a tight white Hanes t-shirt, no bra.

That was question right?

I can't see why you'd doubt it. I'm the sole authority on the topic. You naturally accept my every word on the topic as factual, honest, and final.

No remember, I said you weren't qualified.

 

[autumn1971]

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. Really, the guy was wildly applauded by the parents at my graduation ceremony, all of whom believed the lies and thought the superintendent was doing a great job. The teachers on the stage all pointedly sat stock-still. That superintendent was later elected lieutenant-governor of a certain wang-shaped state.

Position of authority most certainly does not make one more honest than anyone else. Ever.

That said, I simply don't know the facts, and therefore withold judgement as to who is telling less than the truth in this case.
The thing that gets me is that the ones who have seen the tape, and rendered their descision, haven't said anything like, "there was sexual activity involved beyond kissing," or anything like it. That omission really suggests to me that they are being careful to not make a direct claim that would be easily disproved, and possibly bring a slander suit.
So, without making anything like your claim of absolute trust in any authority figure, I estimate that there is at least an equal chance that the district board is full of crap.

 

[Furcifer]

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. Really, the guy was wildly applauded by the parents at my graduation ceremony, all of whom believed the lies and thought the superintendent was doing a great job. The teachers on the stage all pointedly sat stock-still. That superintendent was later elected lieutenant-governor of a certain wang-shaped state.

Everyone poops and everyone lies. Everyone.

Position of authority most certainly does not make one more honest than anyone else. Ever.

Nonsense. With authority comes responsibility, Responsibility makes you accountable to yourself and to others. You're held to higher standard and in order to do that you have to be more honest. Without honesty there's no respect and without respect there's no authority.

As an anecdote, as a student I called in sick for work on more than a few occasions. At the same place but in the position of supervisor I wasn't ever too sick to come in to work. I had to much responsibility, I had to set an example. Was I more likely to tell my wife that dress didn't make her butt look big? Probably not.

That said, I simply don't know the facts, and therefore withold judgement as to who is telling less than the truth in this case.

This is simply incorrect, you do know the facts, you're just refusing to accept them because you don't know all of the facts.

Which is fine when nobody knows all of the facts. In this case however, the school board is fully aware of all the facts and made a ruling in support of the suspension. You don't know as much as everyone else {school board} but you disagree with them? How foolish or naive is that?

The thing that gets me is that the ones who have seen the tape, and rendered their descision, haven't said anything like, "there was sexual activity involved beyond kissing," or anything like it. That omission really suggests to me that they are being careful to not make a direct claim that would be easily disproved, and possibly bring a slander suit.

You're guessing at things. There's no need to guess. The school board has made it very clear that he was not suspended for "kissing" and if the student wishes to discuss them honestly he's more than able to do so, but because of privacy they are not at liberty to disclose them. This is not unusual or uncommon, under no circumstances should the school board be making public the indiscretions of students.

So, without making anything like your claim of absolute trust in any authority figure, I estimate that there is at least an equal chance that the district board is full of crap.

Geesh, if only you were my principal in HS, I would have played you like a fiddle

If a school board in my district ever got to the point where their word was 50/50 to that of a student I would be at every meeting screaming for blood. I mean if you're going to settle for that fire them all and replace them with a coin and save the taxes payers a few hundred thousand a year.

 

[bikerdruid]

Everyone poops and everyone lies. Everyone.

wow...

 

[Furcifer]

It's true. Apparently men more than women, men lie an average of 22 times a day and women lie 15. It's a natural part of social interaction. If I can find the study online I'll get a link.

 

[bikerdruid]

It's true. Apparently men more than women, men lie an average of 22 times a day and women lie 15. It's a natural part of social interaction. If I can find the study online I'll get a link.

the study must be a lie.
men lie 22 times a day?
what a crock.....

 

[Darth Rotor]

The cheerleader was a boy and it is Texas. Can't say I'm surprised.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44903115/ns/us_news-life/#.TpiCw95E6rs
So you can get knocked up, but don't kiss another boy?

My daughter was cheerleader in high school. Three girls got kicked off the squad after the homecoming dance for having booze on their breath when they showed up. (My daughter was not one of the libation crew ...)

You can get kicked off for any number of reasons, to include pissing off the faculty advisor for the squad, for having perscription drugs in your purse in school (for a treatment you have under medical orders form a doctor) and a number of other reasons. (This happened to others on the squad over the three years my daughter was on it.)