Dr. Bailey,

To quote you, "It's certainly true that a Texas grand jury failed to indict the basketball player or other two alleged assailants". It's called Due Process and every American has the right to it. The fact that you aren't happy with the outcome doesn't mean it's unfair or wrong, it just means that you don't like it. The finding that there wasn't even enough evidence to justify taking these charges to trial tells any fair minded person that justice was done. You would do well to remember that the young man deserves justice too.

The fact that she accused him doesn't make him guilty. If fact given the outcome he could very well have been falsely accused. You don't know and neither do I, but taking the position that this cheerleader is a victim after the legal system has run it's course in this manner is a bit of a stretch even for a women's studies professor.

If you wonder why some of your positions frequently don't gain either traction or respect in the real world this is a classic example.

Finally, I would think there are plenty of blogs out there that want to lower the legal burden of proof for sexual harassment, complain about the patriarchy and advocate gender feminist positions. I thought this one was to promote the positive aspects of women's athletics, not to bang the feminist drum.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 3:27pm EDT

Certainly the grand jury's failure to indict says nothing about guilt or innocence. The veracity of the charges remains an open question. But the school system's decision to deny the young woman her right to express her OPINION about the matter by remaining silent is--regardless of how anyone views the sexual assault case--an issue of free speech. This right is central in our country and was the very point of the post.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011 at 2:49pm EDT

The short of it is, high school students do not have full first amendment rights. Numerous court cases throughout the years have sided with school districts and their right to censor student speech that may be deemed as destructive or distracting. Obviously in this case the circumstances make such a rule appear somewhat cruel. But in a larger context it does prevent students from activities such as profane speeches or inflammatory articles in school papers that would distract the learning process, or by extension, school sanctioned activities. My guess is they determined that her act of free speech infringed on other students' right to watch or participate in a school activity without distractive actions of another.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011 at 5:25pm EDT

Actually that is not true. The grand jury's failure to indict specifically means they did not find enough evidence to even take the charges to trial. While they did not specifically determine innocence their refusal to indict very much reflects the inadequacy of objective proof of the charges being brought. The grand jury didn't think the charges were an open question, they decided they were inadequate, period.

The 5th Circuit was crystal clear, this girl voluntarily participates in cheerleading and as such she didn't have the right to take the action she took in that forum. No one said the girl didn't have a right to express her opinion as a citizen generally.

Most readers of this blog have voluntarily participated in team activities and by doing so they have implicitly agree to the team rules and standards. If they don't want to adhere to the rules they don't get to participate.

This girl and her parents brought the lawsuit and forced the school district to defend itself. The district did so admirably and their actions were affirmed at two levels of our legal system at considerable expense to those of us that pay taxes.

I'm certain your worldview is standard fare at Wellesley but not so much in the real world where facts, proof and law trump feminist dogma, at least for now.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011 at 5:33pm EDT