A guest post from my awesome friend, Kate Torgovnick!
Earlier this year at Bothell High School in Seattle, two photos made their way across the student body via text message. The first featured one of the school's cheerleaders topless; the second showed another cheerleader in the buff. When the school's co-principals found out about the photos, they suspended both cheerleaders from the squad--asking the first to forfeit her pom-poms for 30 days and the second to leave the team for the entire year. Conveniently, the football players who were suspected of circulating the photos weren't punished at all.
Last week, the parents of the two girls decided to sue the school, calling for them to wipe the incident from the girl's permanent records, reinstate them to their positions on the squad, and apologize for not punishing anyone else involved in the incident. "My clients fully realize what they did was stupid," said Matthew King, the lawyer for both families. "But there should have been some punishment meted out to those who were in possession of the photos. It seems the girls are getting the brunt of it."
"When you sign up to be a cheerleader--or for any student activity--you agree to certain codes of behavior," fired back school district spokeswoman Susan Stolzfus. "We consider them student leaders, and we want them to be role models."
Stolfus does have a point. But if these photos were of women in the math club or student council, it's hard to imagine that the photos would have had the same appeal or incurred the same punishment. For anyone who follows cheerleaders in the news--and as the author of CHEER!: Inside the Secret World of College Cheerleaders, I do--this incident sounds remarkably familiar. Remember the Fab Five cheerleaders from McKinney, Texas? They terrorized their school for months, but what seemed to set off an investigation (and national media attention) was them taking photos of themselves fellating penis-shaped candles at a sex store. Or what about the Carolina Panthers cheerleaders who in 2006 were making out in a bar bathroom and got in a fight with another patron who was waiting to use the stall? They were both dismissed from the team after newspapers ran with the story.
So why all the interest in cheerleaders gone wild? Cheerleaders are American icons, up there with the bald eagle and the McDonalds arches--they appear in every city, in almost every high school, which is our culture's lowest common denominator. Think through all of the images of cheerleaders in American pop culture. They fit neatly into two categories: the chaste A-student and the miniskirt-wearing slut. For every squeaky-clean Kelly Kapowski on Saved by the Bell, there's an Ali Larter in Varsity Blues, strolling into a room wearing a whipped-cream bikini. For every Claire on Heroes, whose safety is the key to saving the world, there's some anonymous women in Playboy's video special Cheerleaders and College Girls (not the other way around). Cheerleaders straddle the fault line between virgin and whore. They're a group onto which our culture projects its very complicated beliefs about women--that we can only be one extreme or the other.
So should these teens be punished for taking nude pics? In my opinion, no--they've no doubt learned their lesson. Is it a school's place to punish students for sexual activity? I just don't think so. But what I think schools can and should do is recognize that, so-called "sexting" is something their students are no doubt doing. It couldn't hurt to remind teenagers that a photo they think will be kept private can very easily make the rounds with just a click of a send button. And not everyone bounces back like Paris Hilton.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Cheerleaders Gone Wild?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10610
Girls get punished for het, consensual sexual activity. Boys don't. For all the jokes about dads with shotguns, when was the last time a teen boy got punished for consensual het sexual activity?
(And don't say, "Genarlow Wilson." Anyone who followed the coverage closely knows there is good reason to suspect he raped the other girl. I'm glad he got released, because "good reason to suspect" shouldn't be enough for a criminal conviction. But still, he probably did it.)
You mean other than the many boys like Marcus Dixon?
Pretty Recently, in fact the first two cases I can remember of the top of my head...
13 yo Boy faces jail time for receiving nude photo
"She is a mother of a 13-year-old boy arrested Monday and suspended from school and spent the night in a juvenile detention center after an eighth grade female student texted him a naked picture of herself. "
http://www.khou.com/news/state/stories/khou081008_ar_porntext.f31234e3.html
By contrast in this case both parties face jail time/charges
"Licking County Assistant Prosecutor Erin Welch said Monday the investigation into the incident remains open, including exploring whether charges will be filed against the minors who received the photos."
http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20081008/NEWS01/810080302
Good point, TD, there are some cases of teens being prosecuted for trafficking in child porn for pictures of themselves or their similar-aged peers. I think this is one of those areas where prosecution is stupid. I understand that keeping images from circulating is different from keeping two people from having sex, so that it doesn't follow that just because two teens are appropriate sex partners they should be able to send each other nude images of themselves. But it certainly changes the equities and intent, and it seems meanspirited in the extreme to charge them criminally.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how the girls taking naked pictures of themselves is the school's business. In high school, I had a serious boyfriend, and I sent him a few naked text messages. (Not that it matters, but I was also a cheerleader.) If he had decided to be an ass and send them to all his friends, why should I get in trouble or kicked off the squad by the school? I don't believe it's any of their business to deal with sexuality in that way.
If they're going to deal with it, why is it that the cheerleaders are the only ones getting in trouble? They didn't single-handedly distribute those pictures to everyone in the high school. I could safely bet that the girls didn't want them distributed to everyone. Why aren't they finding who else is responsible for forwarding the pictures? If someone received the pictures and just deleted the message, then good for them. But if most of these kids received it and forwarded it to more people, then they are at fault as well.
I completely agree with the analysis of cheerleader and how society portrays them. It's like no one does cheerleading for the fun of the sport, for the stunts and the performance factor. Even as down-to-earth as I am, a friend I had from band, who most of the "popular kids" wouldn't talk to, always told me he couldn't believe I considered us friends because I was "a cheerleader." It's like society holds cheerleaders up on a pedestal in one instance, and rakes them over the coals in another.
Sorry, this comment is kind of all over the place.
It's not the school's business?
Many times when you join an organization, be it a charity, a non-profit, a company, or even a school club or athletic team, you are considered to represent that organization whenever you're in public, not just when you're dressed in the uniform or acting in a official capacity.
For example, police officers in many departments are not allowed to go to bars lest they get drunk and make asses of themselves. It just wouldn't look good for the police department.
We've all heard about beauty pageant contestants being deposed for various indiscretions.
If the CEO of a company were caught on tape assaulting someone, I'm sure the board would remove him/her too.
We enter into such agreements whenever we voluntarily join many organizations. Cheerleading squads are no exception.
If you don't want to follow the rules, don't join the organization.
Did you really just compare assaulting someone to taking some naked pictures of yourself?
No, I didn't compare them. I used them as a variety of examples that could get you removed from an organization.
Well, you kind of WERE comparing them. It seems like you are saying that it is the school's business since various organizations have codes of conduct and can remove members or participants if they break these codes of conduct, then you go on to give some examples of things which might lead to being removed, including a CEO assaulting people. Had these young women assaulted someone, then they should have been removed as cheerleaders, and face legal consequences as well. But they did not. They allowed themselves to be photographed naked. Unless thes pictures were taken while at school or at a school-sponsored function, it is absolutely NONE of the school's business in any way shape or form, and I frankly find it a little scary that anyone would think it would be. There are enough people trying to assert ownership of young women's bodies. They do NOT need an entire school district added to that.
Well, consensual or not, naked photos of underage girls are considered child porn. As cheerleaders they are representing the school and it isn't out of line to compare this to one of many behaviors that an organization could find objectionable and a dismissable offense. If a Senator rapes someone he should rightfully lose his seat if convicted. Even if he is only proven guilty of being drunk in public or flashing his privates on MySpace as opposed to committing an actual assault, most likely he would end up losing his position one way or another and with much shame. Something doesn't have to be a violent felony to be an offense worthy of dismissal. That's why girls/women in the Miss USA competitions can be fired if they violate codes of behaviors. At some point you are representing an organization and not just yourself.
That said, every person who forwarded those pictures could be charged with child pornography (although I don't put 16 and 17 yr olds in the same category as exploited 8 yr olds) and they should all bear the same consequences. That point is valid. It just reeks of that case where the pregnant teen girl wasn't allowed to attend graduation but the boy who knocked her up could. That is the kind of bs we need to stay on top of.
And now with the rape comparisons. Seriously. These girls aren't elected officials. They aren't cops. They didn't take some vow to uphold some ideal. They're cheerleaders. If comparisons are to be made, can we stick to at least the same TYPES of completely victimless actions and not include violence like assaults and rape?
Ok. When you put on a school uniform be it for marching band, football, or cheerleading, you are representing the school like it or not. No one seems to mind the social privileges that come with belonging to the cheering squad or football team but when they are expected to adhere to a code of conduct that doesn't appeal to them they freak out. Well, I'm pretty sure that they all had some kind of conduct pledge that they agreed to. Whether you think such agreements should be in place isn't the issue. If you don't like the standards don't agree to them and let someone else take your place on the team.
And I did make a comparison about an elected official flashing on MySpace so I wasn't limiting my comparisons to violent crime only.
They weren't wearing the uniforms. They were not associating themselves with the squad when they took the pictures.
Did they sign a legal contract that holds them to a code of conduct?
All of the things you've compared this to are public. These girls took pictures for their boyfriends. Not public events. Not meant for distribution.
Wait, were these girls underage? I don't recall seeing their ages or state. The age of consent varies, so without that info, that's an invalid argument.
Also, say they were underage. They should be punished for taking pictures of their underage selves that other underage people sent to more underage people?
That doesn't quite add up. Plus, I recall seeing another post here about a girl having legal charges against her for showing people nude photos of herself and she was 16 and we agreed that was a load of crap. I hardly see what the difference is here.
These aren't politicians. These are cheerleaders. The idea that they set some kind of ethical standard is a bunch of crap. The school's just pissed because it allowed stereotypes of slutty cheerleaders to continue in their school. It's not about their kids. It's about the school's image.
According to the news story, they were and are both underage. Plus, they were not charged with any crime. They were suspended from school for violating the school district's code of conduct. The code applies to any student who participates in any school activity, not just cheerleading. The code may or may not be crap, but the cheerleaders agreed to abide by it as a condition of participating in cheerelading.
Naked photos of "underaged" girls sent to "underaged" boys - please, explain how that's "child porn" (especially since the "children" we're talking about here are teenagers - and there are no "adults" in the loop at all)?
This is nothing more than consensual sex between minors gone digital - and it's not the school's business, or the police's, or anybody else but the people directly involved!
I just really can't see how a police officer acting like an ass in a bar is the same thing as a student taking naked pictures of themselves.
I think this a very gray area. Yes, the girls were under 18. But does that automatically make them incapable of being sexual beings? It seems to me more that they're being punished for being "bad girls" than the actual incident itself. They made a poor choice in who to send the pictures to, but I don't see how the school gets to decide that they'll be punished and those who sent them won't. Like I said in my previous post, I did the same thing, although my pictures were only seen by my boyfriend (because I had the good judgment to trust where I sent them). If the school had somehow got word that he was in possession of those pictures, then would it really be any of their business to confront and punish me? Absolutely not.
The school is punishing these girls for the fact that OTHERS blew it up into a huge deal by forwarding the pictures around. I think it's a very slippery slope and the school is being awfully ballsy by deciding to punish anyone severely.
The problem with the "girls as representatives" line is that you've got to justify how this is immoral or bad.
Sure, you could cop out and say, "well, the community at large dislikes it, regardless of if it's hurtful."
But is that an ideal we're really willing to accept?
Remember, many communities consider homosexual relationships distasteful.
So, sure, we could make the rule, "to participate in state-sponsored activities, you must not do anything that's seen as embarrassing," but I for one, am not ready to.
Are these young women over 18? If not, why wasn't child pornography indictments for those in possession of the photos and those who distributed them a route taken?
also, not go off topic but: Math club girls are way cute.
"When you sign up to be a cheerleader--or for any student activity--you agree to certain codes of behavior,"
Oh, really? What about the FOOTBALL PLAYERS who were passing these photos around? They didn't notify a teacher or coach or principal ... they instead passed them around to their budies.
But notice that that "code of behavior" is totally acceptable, because they are boys.
I don't think the cheerleaders and the football players are similarly situated here. Thus, I don't believe it is accurate to state that the cheerleaders and football players are being held to different codes of conduct. I think there is a substantive difference between knowingly allowing oneself to be photographed nude and distributing it versus distributing the same photograph.
Also, as I said in my comment below, it would be problematic to discipline the football players because the school officials apparently don't know who did or did not receive the transmit the photos. They cannot just confiscate and search any student's cell phone without a search warrant.
"I think there is a substantive difference between knowingly allowing oneself to be photographed nude and distributing it versus distributing the same photograph."
Oh, okay.
So it's NOT okay for the girls to take pictures of themselves, but hey, let the football players send them around (even though they did not take them, and they are not pictures of themselves, and I doubt they got permission). Right? I mean, that's totes okay, right?
I understand the officials may not have and may not be able to obtain proof against those who sent them, but if they HAD proof, or are able to get proof, are you really saying the football players shouldn't be punished? For reals?
I never said the students who sent them around (which included students other than football players, by the way) shouldn’t be punished. My problem is no one knows who redistributed them and it would be virtually impossible for the school to determine in a constitutionally valid manner who did. I have a big problem with punishing someone based on “rumors” of inappropriate behavior.
When is the last time anyone here can recall hearing about high school boys taking pictures of their dicks? Probably for the same reason I've never heard of any 'rainbow' parties where teen boys line up to take turns giving a girl oral sex and competing to see who can do it the best. Sadly, it seems guys have more sense than to do this crap and most of them would never put themselves in subservient positions to get female approval.
This comment ignores the different pressures put on girls to be sexual but virginal at the same time. Men don't have the same pressures. There are plenty of smart girls who see women being objectified in society every day and just think that's the way it should be. That that's how they can feel accepted.
On the other hand, and responding to another comment of yours, not every young woman who takes a naked picture of themselves for their boyfriend is being irresponsible or needing some sort of approval. I was dating him for over a year and I felt it would spice things up. Don't judge every situation.
Your intentions when taking those pictures really doesn't change the fact that once they're out there, they're out there and you ultimately have limited control over who else sees them. When they are on his phone they actually become his property and he can show them to whomever he wants.
We could go on all day about why girls feel pressured to do this or that when society doesn't pressure boys to do the same thing.Ultimately, though, every individual has to take responsibility for making their own decisions and we can't always blame a sexist culture for the silly things we do. I hate to say it but we could actually benefit from following the examples set by men on quite a few things. Seldom will you see a boy or man degrade himself to impress a woman for a quick second. They aren't as quick to claw their best friend's eyes out fighting over some girl who wouldn't even give them the time of day. If their woman suggested they get a penile implant most men would hit the pavement running and she'd be looking for a new boyfriend. Men think they're pretty hot even when they are bald, fat, and ugly. It never seems to stop them from aiming high.
Crumpet, you try the "just get over it" thing when the message to be prettier, be skinnier, be cuter, be flirtier, be sexier (somehow without being sluttier) and be girlier is all you've ever known.
Can you honestly tell me that you have the slightest perception of what it's like to be a teenage girl? 'Cause if not, you might want to STFU and listen to those of us who do.
What makes you think I have no idea what it is like to be a teenage girl? Nice assumption that anyone who doesn't see a situation exactly the same as you must not have ever stood where you stand. I am an adult female which pretty much guarantees I was once a teenager before I got to be 37. I didn't grow up on the moon and I grew up seeing the same magazines, movies, and tv shows as everyone else. That and there were a lot fewer visible women in positions of power in the workplace nad government to look up to when I was a teen than there are now. I wasn't considered one of the 'pretty girls' then, either. I was an outsider, not part of the in-crowd. Now I am one of the 'hot girls' so to speak so I'm also well aware of the implied pressure to keep up what you've got because like it or not, beauty is a powerful thing.
It's just a circular argument to say or suggest that we are all just victims of a sexist culture so we can't be expected to make better decisions about our own lives. I'm not willing to wait for the world to be perfect or easy for me to make my place in it.
I wasn't a "hot girl" in high school, either. And yet I'm not willing to write their behaviour off with a sneer, because I did some stupid things too, before I knew better.
Whether you meant it that way or not, the "just get over it" statements make it sound like social pressure is an easy thing for a just-out-of-childhood person to resist. Acting like it is will get us nowhere.
Just because you think it's naive for a girl to expect someone to keep her nude pics to themselves doesn't mean that that person isn't just as much of an ass (and possibly even sexually harassing her) for spreading the pics around.
Do we really need to have a pissing contest over which sex does the stupidest shit to impress potential romantic interests?
Please. Teenage boys and young adults are legendary for stupid risk-taking behavior, Jack Ass type pranks, thugishness and tactics such as bullying to increase their status for the sole purpose attracting girls.
Boys wouldn't take risqué picture of themselves? Huh? There have been some news reports of teenage boys who sent nude photos and masturbation pics, of themselves to impostors posing as other teens---which leads me to suspect that it's not so unusual for boys to send pics into cyberspace when requested. Of course it should be said that there is a level of manipulation going on with these predators/impostors, but we also shouldn't assume that teenage boys necessarily "know better." In fact they are just as vulnerable as teenage girls here where a seemingly harmless poor decision has an unintended consequence.
These same "sensible" teenage boys are the ones who indulge in date rape and other predatory behaviour, Crumpet.
It's not about who has "more sense". It's about who's been told for their entire fucking life that it's their place to serve, or their place to take.
Crumpet your comment is ridiculously OFFENSIVE!! You're saying basically that teenage girls don't have any sense and teenage boys do so therefore it's all the teen girls' faults for taking these pictures of themselves and having them spread around the school. Insane. I don't even know where to begin with telling you the many many things wrong with your comment. Maybe you should just read the other poster's responses to your comment because I'm just too mad right now.
I never said any such thing (that boys have more sense than girls). To the contrary, they are just as foolish due to immaturity and thus shouldn't be trusted to keep naked pictures of their girlfriend to themselves. In fact, it isn't just as naive for teens to assume that naked pics will be kept private. Adults break up all the time and home made nudie pics or sex tapes have a way of getting seen by other people, too at some point.
None of these emotional reactions change the fact that if you pose for nude pics and give them to someone, anyone, else there is always the risk that they will be seen by an unintended audience. The control is out of your hands one you give that material to someone else and there isn't anything you can do about it. True, a person who would violate someone's trust and distribute private pictures like that is a loser and a cad and I wouldn't touch them with a 20 ft pole. I have no repsect for that kind of behavior and it says more about them than it does the person in the pics. That doesn't change the fact that it's YOUR naked ass that your potential boss is looking at on MySpace or whatever and the jerk who initially put them out there may never be identified. Things take on a life of their own in cyberspace. Therefore, my position is that I take responsibility for my future and don't put it in the hands of someone who may not even remember my name 2 years from now.
Rainbow parties have been proven to be more urban legend than reality- they are just another way to titilate the public with stories of the perverted promiscuity of girls today. By the time those very wise high school boys get to college and join a fraternity, they do their fair share of stupid picture taking.
When is the last time anyone here can recall hearing about high school boys taking pictures of their dicks? Probably for the same reason I've never heard of any 'rainbow' parties where teen boys line up to take turns giving a girl oral sex and competing to see who can do it the best. Sadly, it seems guys have more sense than to do this crap
Ahem. For six years I moderated a shareware gaming board that was STUFFED with American high school boys, and I can promise you they most certainly do take pictures of their dicks and share them, often at random, and certainly without much consideration of the potential consequences.
To add to my previous reply, now that I think about it a bit more, I believe the students who redistributed the photographs in fact violated the cheerleaders' civil rights under Title IX by creating and perpetrating a sexually hostile environment against them. I believe this creates a legal obligation on the school to undertake an investigation as to who redistributed the photographs and mete out discipline in accordance with Title IX regulations.
I reject the idea that students who participate in certain extra-curricular activities should be held to some vaguely-defined "higher standard." First of all, what the hell does that mean? To some people, it might mean rejecting the patriarchy and spreading revolutionary materials across campus. Apparently to this particular school, it means that they have a right to judge students' choices about their own bodies. I can understand rules requiring students to maintain passing grades to participate in the extras, but other than that, the only "higher standard" should involve showing up to practices and games/performances on time and putting in the work and time to involve yourself in the activity. What you do sexually, religiously, spiritually, economically, politically, etc, should have nothing to do with it.
ah darn, didn't mean this to be a reply to you, crshark. I just meant it to be on its comment. blarg.
It is sort of counter-intuitive. Sometimes the kids who would benefit most from extra-curricular supervision are kicked out of those activities. However, how else are you going to maintain any level of discipline in those activities? Presumably these are things the kids want to do, so it works as an incentive. Maybe they should come up with a difference one.
I agree with some of this. I'd like to think teen girls will wise up and quit feeling like they need to get naked on film just to improve their hotness quotient for some guy they probably won't even remember twenty years from now. If you pose for a pic there is always, always the possibility that it can be seen by someone else and then it is out of your hands. I also don't buy that this trend of girls flashing on camera for their 'boyfriends' (that they've known for about a whole 2 weeks)is evidence of them taking charge of their sexuality as much as it is about young impressionable girls doing whatever it takes to get some male approval.
Actually the school can confiscate everyone's cell phone and search it. Laws about minors/ schools are not the same as laws about adults. Especially if the phones were in the students' lockers.
Not that I'm saying they should, just that I absolutely had my cell phone confiscated in high school. Most schools (at least then, and I am only 20) have rules prohibiting cell phones at school.
Think of it this way, when it comes to drug charges, which is worse: carrying a dime bag of weed, clearly for your own use, or carrying enough that constitutes "intent to distribute"? Then, what about actual distribution?
If these girl have naked pictures for their own private use, then who cares? The real problem is that these guys, without the girls' permission, distributed them all over the place.
A way worse offense.
But according to the news story (which unfortunately is not reported in the post), both cheerleadres did distribute the photos to several other students, albeit "accidentally". And it wasn't just male students who were passing them around. I'm in no way defending the behavior of those who passed around the photos, but they wouldn't have been passed around but for the actions of the cheerleaders.
This.
Honestly, I don't buy at all that the school didn't punish the people spreading it around because they didn't know who was doing it. Cell phone companies keep records of this kind of thing, it would be so easy if they wanted to try. And since we don't know if it was against their will (and either way, this is a high school, so the cheerleaders were likely underage) they could get the police involved and really easily get the records.
I think passing around naked pictures of a classmate is way worse than taking them in the first place, and it's mindboggling that they wouldn't punish the people who were spreading it.
Yep, this.
Easy, yes. Legal, no. In fact, the school officials did not know who had received and/or redistributed the photos. All that school officials knew was that there were "rumors" that these photos were circulating among many students, not just football players. A search warrant would be necessary to examine cell phone or cell phone records, but a search warrant cannot validly be issued based only on rumors.
If you believe that distributing the photos is way worse than having them taken, well, it was the cheerleaders who distributed them. According to the news story, they sent the photos to other students.
Unfortunately, this post doesn't provide any links to a source explaining why exactly the cheerleaders were punished. I found a news story of this event here.
Apparently, the school suspended the cheerleaders for violating the school district's code governing participation in any school activity. According to the district, students who participate must agree to abide by the code, which imposes "higher standards of behavior".
The football players were not disciplined because it is apparently unknown who did or did not receive the photos. I don't see how there is any way the school could know, unless it searched the cell phones of the students, which would be a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.
I don't have particularly strong feelings regarding whether knowingly having nude photos taken of oneself and then distributing them should be a punishable offense. But it seems the cheerleaders agreed to behave according to this nebulous "higher standard", and it doesn't seem the standard has been applied differently towards them.
I concur, but ideally, i think the school should not intervene with private issues such as this.
There's a problem with your analysis.
Whether or not cheerleaders should be held to "higher standards of behavior" than the average high school kid not involved in a school group isn't the issue. (Most would agree they should be).
Rather, the issue is disparities between what consitutes "higher standards of behavior."
In this and several similar situations that have been reported over the past year or two, the "higher standard" that's been breached has been the photographing of oneself in a sexual pose or state of undress. Well and good.
But the "higher standard" of "student leader" behavior must ALSO include "not engaging in the deliberate spreading of malicious gossip," "not distrubuting material harmful to another student or teacher," and "reporting the distribution of such materials instead of covering up for it."
The football players HAVE breached the code to which they pledged themselves...that is, of course, unless the code in question only lists sexual, alcoholic, or drug offenses and ignores the question of distribution.
And in that case, we must ask why this disparity exists.
"The football players HAVE breached the code to which they pledged themselves"
Yes. But as crshark already said, there is no way to know WHO in the football team did it, and that is why they went unpunished. Since you cannot search their phones, its dependent on witnesses, which none have come forth.
Good for pointing out that the school can't look at the phones, but by the same logic, the school doesn't know who took the photos, or in what context. The punishment is still illogical.
How does it make any sense for schools to be able to use drug-sniffing dogs to go through bags and lockers without a warrant or even permission but not have access to the content of student's phones that was used in perpetration of a crime?
The law makes a distinction among differing degrees of invasion of privacy. It's been pretty well established by the courts that having a dog sniff various articles does not violate a student's "reasonable expectations of privacy". That's why schools bring in trained dogs rather than ordering every student to dump out the contents of their bags and lockers. That would violate their reasonable expectation of privacy. Even when a crime has been committed, the government does not have the authority to search the private possessions of all students or of random students. They would still have to obtain a warrant based on probable cause to search the possessions of specific students.
I believe in high school, you don't have any civil rights.
Clearly the girls are guilty of having little common sense-you don't send naked texts and then have a reasonable expectation of privacy- at least not in high school. It reminds me of that cell commercial last year where the wife sent her husband a video of herself stripping via cellphone, and his buddy picked it up instead. Now, since they did semd the pictures, the only rule they should be punished for in my opinion (and as a high school English teacher) is class disruption. You simply cannot and should not police what kids do off school hours. And even then, I'd be more likely to punish the kids that originally forwarded the pictures under the same rule. And to do that all you need to know is whom the girls originally sent the emails to. I'm sure the girls' parents would be willing to fess up their text records in exchange for a little equity...
There is a third category that cheerleaders fall into: women of color are often portrayed as the mean, tough, bully cheerleader. The sexuality of these characters is rarely an issue as they are written to be one dimensional.
Logrus, that young woman alleged then, and alleges now, that Marcus Dixon raped her.
She was 15.
The jury convicted of the statutory rape, but not the forcible rape.
I don't think that an acquittal in a rape case is a declaration of innocence. Rape is one of the least successfully prosecuted crimes, even when reported. I believe the girl.
Are you saying that the girl is lying?
(BTW, Dixon landed on his feet. The Cowboys picked him up as an undrafted free agent, for over a million dollars.)
About those "many boys," do you mean the ones who rape girls, or do you mean the ones in jail for statutory rape with no allegation of force? Because if you can't find evidence of the latter, you may want to STFU.
I believe there was some serious discussion about this case where the girl cried rape because her father is a very mean spirited racist and she was afraid of him. I can see why she would continue to say it was rape if she fears repercussions from her father and her community. It's a possibility. I also seem to recall that at some point she had said it was consensual and that he was her boyfriend at the time but didn't want her father to know.
I thought the 15-year-old always maintained that the sex was consensual and another girl, who was 17 at the time, claimed rape and that is why it went to court. Also, he got way more time with the statutory rape then if he was convicted of non-statutory rape, which is weird.
Those are the facts of the Genarlow Wilson case. the younger woman fellated Wilson, and maintains it was consensual, but the 17-year-old who was raped in the same room on camera filed charges, the rapists who were on the tape pleaded guilty, Wilson was in the room at the time, but because the girl was passed out she couldn't say whether Wilson also raped her while unconscious, and he was not on the tape.
In the Dixon case, the girl has steadfastly maintained in the face of tremendous pressure (including an apparently very testy exchange with Oprah, which I have not seen) that Dixon forcibly raped her.
I don't have anything except for my hunches to support this, but I agree with your statement that the situation might be viewed differently if the pictures were of a girl from the math team. In that case, I have a feeling that people would view the young woman in question as a victim of a cruel prank and would come down much harder upon the people who distributed the photos. Cheerleaders, I would imagine, are seen differently because they wear skimpy outfits and do provocative dances. In the same way that some rape victims are discredited because of their sexual histories or what they were wearing, it seems that the cheerleaders are not being treated like victims because their "sexy" behavior is somehow viewed as consent to the violation of what was meant to be private.
IAWTC, and can't believe this isn't totally obvious to everyone else commenting here. Ugh.
I also believe that they aren't being viewed as victims because people have had it up to here with this stupid Girls Gone Wild lame assed attention seeking nonsense. If you're stupid enough to send a teenage guy naked pics of yourself and think no one else will see them you need to go buy some swamp land in Florida.
I think its worse to distribute pictures of someone else without their permission than it is to take pictures of yourself.
Unfortunately, it looks like the school can only prove for sure that the girls were involved and can't prove who else distributed the pictures. It might be an issue of the practicalities of evidence winning out over who is really more morally guilty. But I wonder if they made any effort to find out who distributed the pictures and whether they had permission to do so.
(Here I am assuming the girls willingly took pictures of themselves and some boys distributed it without asking them. If the girls were photographed without permission/knowledge, or if they did indeed send their photos to everyone themselves, it changes the landscape. But I think I'm choosing the most likely scenario.)
The news story states that both girls knowingly allowed the photos to be taken of themselves and both initially distributed the photos to other students, although the distribution to at least some of the students was "accidental"
So, they managed to figure out the girls were in on at least part of it, but they just can't seem to figure out who else was involved? Hmmm.
These girls definitely have a case. The school stepped WAY out of line here. Every student has the right to privacy, just like you and me, and it IS NOT the school’s job to police the morals of the students when they are off school property and not participating in a school event. Period. The only wrongdoing of any kind is on the part of the person(s) who distributed the pictures. The girls’ did nothing that warranted being suspended from the cheerleading squad, not to mention the humiliation they endured from it. That punishment would have been warranted only if the girls’ themselves were behind the distribution of the photos, but the school doesn’t care about that. They are too busy punishing the girls for be sexual. How dare they!
This is just another case of girls’ sexuality being policed. It’s outright misogyny (courtesy of your tax dollars!) and it’s abhorrent.
The cheerleaders did initially distribute the photos to other students. That's how they began circulating.
Does anyone else feel like they are taking crazy pills as they read this post and some of the responses?
Honestly - in the original post we have "they've no doubt learned their lesson"
Throughout the comments we have various arguments about whether the victims of a breach in privacy are culpable for the abuses against them.
Finally we get various claims that the private acts of individuals (ie acting like "sluts")should be grounds for their dismissal from jobs or disciplinary action.
Reads more like the American Family Association than Feministing.
Reads more like the American Family Association than Feministing.
Sometimes, when I read the comments here, it's like I've stumbled onto bizarro Feministing and I can't get back to regular Feministing.
YES YES YES.
Thank you. I completely agree. WTF, guys.
YES. I really had to take a few breaths and count to 10 to even be able to respond as civilly as I did to a few of them. They're really something, huh.
Don't you know that we draw the line at defending women when it comes to slutty cheerleaders? Those girls are on their own!
[/sarcasm]
I'm a little confused...Only one girl took full-body pictures, right? The other one was just topless?
And last year, New York set a precedent by dropping the charges against a woman arrested for indecent exposure (she was topless) on the grounds that it was sexist.
So, by that logic, one of the girls only took shirtless pics...like any guy would have (and send to people) after a trip to the beach.
...therefore the controversy not over the topless pictures, but over the fact that she's a girl (and therefore has breasts) and took topless pictures.
Stupid idea or not, I'm sensing a double standard here.
Why are so many people agreeing with the "breech of ethics code" BS?
Did these girls sign a legal contract agreeing to adhere to certain behavior? Was the specifics of this banned behavior laid out for them, before trying out for the squad?
But even if they did, isn't part of the problem that they're minors?
So, either their adults in breech of a clearly defined code of ethics that they all specifically agreed to, or their kids that did something stupid. The school can't have it both ways.
Is it even clear that the cheerleaders consented to the distribution of the photos? In other words, did they pose for their boyfriends, thinking it was a private activity?
If they intended the photos to be private, then they are victims of betrayal, not guilty parties.
This is not to say I agree with any characterization of the behavior as a crime, but the possibility that they were victims rather than perpetrators of the photo-sharing hasn't even been addressed.
Sorry about previous comment... at least according to some commenters, the cheerleaders distributed the photos. Didn't see that in the story.
There has to be some clue as to who distributed...like, for the principals to know about it definitively (i.e. not just a rumor), THEY would have to have SEEN the pictures. Which means they would have to have been sent them by someone. A few lines of questioning can trace it back to a student distributor. Furthermore, I know my high school and others did not hesitate to say "If you don't tell us who gave this to you, your punishment will be worse." Logically, it seems like they didn't try all that hard....
From this online article http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/388940_bothell22.html
It says:
One of the photos was taken three years ago, according to court documents. Showing the girl topless, it was sent to her then-boyfriend's phone in the summer of 2005. Later that summer, the picture accidentally was distributed to other Bothell High students, according to her lawsuit.
The other teen's photo was taken in June, when she and a fellow cheerleader used their cell phones to each snap photos of themselves naked, according to her lawsuit. Those photos were later accidentally sent to other Bothell High students, though King said it was unclear how that happened.
I do think whoever "accidently" sent them out the first time should be punished (be ii the women in question or others). But, I don't think being removed from the cheer squad is an appropriate punishment.
The athletic code that the young women and other athletes must agree to abide by can be found here:
http://schoolcenter.nsd.org/education/sctemp/2a0b3332a4852e76b4a2a396934cb747/1227648636/athletics_code.pdf
The salient passage would seem to be this:
"Any athlete in a District-sponsored athletic activity who willfully performs any act that substantially interferes with or is detrimental to the orderly operation of the District's athletic programs shall be subject to discipline. As participants in extracurricular programs, students are faced with choices. If a student's choices interfere, impede, hinder their personal or group/team performance or render the individual as unfit to serve as a representative(s) of the district's schools, they forfeit the privilege to participate. Misconduct by participants in the athletic program at any time, on or off campus, school related and/or non-school activities during the season of participation and between consecutive seasons of participation constitutes cause for discipline including denial of participation in and/or removal from the athletic program."
i don't know why everyone seems to think these girls are facing some horrible punishment. admittedly, my internet is craptastic at the moment, and i can't click on the links, but in the above post, it indicates that the girls lost their positions on the cheerleading squad, they weren't expelled or suspended from classes. they had the privilege of representing their school at athletic events, and, IMHO, the school can decline their services whenever they want. and, again IMHO, being publicly naked in a sexualized pose when one is underage displays at the very least questionable judgment and i consider it reasonable that a school would no longer want that person representing them. same goes for someone who gets poor grades, etc.
now, i think that if it's legally possible for the school to find out which boys sent the photos around (i'm no legal expert, so i leave that to those who know more about that stuff), they too should lose their position on the football team. and if these girls faced real punishment that interfered with their academics, i would be singing an entirely different tune. but losing one's place on the cheerleading squad is not anything i can get enraged about. they can do whatever they want in their sexual awakenings...but the school is reasonable to not want those people representing them.
i DO think it's interesting that, in the other cases mentioned in the post, the sexual behavior is finally the tipping point that gets the cheerleaders removed from their squad. from what i read of those other two cases, it seems like they were wreaking havoc for a while, and, again, IMHO, deserved to lose the privilege of being a cheerleader long before.
i don't know why everyone seems to think these girls are facing some horrible punishment. admittedly, my internet is craptastic at the moment, and i can't click on the links, but in the above post, it indicates that the girls lost their positions on the cheerleading squad, they weren't expelled or suspended from classes. they had the privilege of representing their school at athletic events, and, IMHO, the school can decline their services whenever they want. and, again IMHO, being publicly naked in a sexualized pose when one is underage displays at the very least questionable judgment and i consider it reasonable that a school would no longer want that person representing them. same goes for someone who gets poor grades, etc.
now, i think that if it's legally possible for the school to find out which boys sent the photos around (i'm no legal expert, so i leave that to those who know more about that stuff), they too should lose their position on the football team. and if these girls faced real punishment that interfered with their academics, i would be singing an entirely different tune. but losing one's place on the cheerleading squad is not anything i can get enraged about. they can do whatever they want in their sexual awakenings...but the school is reasonable to not want those people representing them.
i DO think it's interesting that, in the other cases mentioned in the post, the sexual behavior is finally the tipping point that gets the cheerleaders removed from their squad. from what i read of those other two cases, it seems like they were wreaking havoc for a while, and, again, IMHO, deserved to lose the privilege of being a cheerleader long before.
We could eliminate a lot of problems by eliminating both cheerleading and football from schools.
Seriously, what value do either of them add to education?