Chai's Analysis

Cheerleaders are being discriminated against? Bring it On!

Answer "yes" or "no" to the following questions:

1. In highschool, did you loathe the cheerleaders?
   
2. Did you try out for cheerleading? If yes, did you make it on the squad? If not, were you disappointed?
3. Did you try out for junior varsity or varsity athletic teams?
4. Did you party in highschool?
5. Were cigarettes and/or alcohol part of the party?
6. Did you take pictures of people at the party?
7. Did you post those pictures on a website?
8. If you were a cheerleader or athlete, whose pictures were sent around the school (or via website), did you get suspended?

Well, if you were Jaimee Bruno, a highschool cheerleader, attempting to party but never partook in the drinking and smoking, and still got suspended after pictures of you and your squad mates ended up on myspace.com, would you be angry?

I sure would.

Jaimee Bruno, 17, one of the five cheerleaders suspended from the Leland High School squad, and her mother, Denise Bruno, allege that educators selectively suspended the female cheerleaders for attending the 2005 party, but took no action against the male athletes. The Santa Clara County Superior Court lawsuit says the San Jose Unified School District violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act and seeks an unspecified amount in damages and reimbursement for attorney fees and other costs. [link]

There are two reasons why I think this lawsuit is interesting. First, Leland allegedly never suspended the male athletes who were at the same party. I don't understand how school districts can make, in my eyes, blatant mistakes like this. Granted, I know the counsel for the District has arguments to justify the administration's stance on why only the five female athletes were suspended, however, it just doesn't seem right. Let's look at the law the plantiff cited that the defendants allegedly violated: the Unruh Civil Rights Act. This Act states,

"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." Civil Code section 51(b)

And, yes, accomodations covers public agencies, which means the District cannot (intentionally) violate this Act.

The second interesting point of the article and the lawsuit is the alleged contract that the cheerleaders and athletes had to sign. I find this interesting on so many levels which I can't help but bullet point.

• A minor signing a contract is probably not valid. Depending on the age of majority in California, these athletes may have been younger than that age. Well, maybe the parents signed for their child, but still, quite fishy.
  
• The contract allegedly states that athletes cannot be drinking and smoking. Okay, fair enough. But shouldn't they be promoting that to all the kids in their school, not just athletes?
• Finally, if there was a contract that stated the above provision, wouldn't the male athletes be in as much of a violation as the suspended cheerleaders?

And, on a last note, Bruno's mom sounds like quite the saavy parent. According to this article, it sounds like she exhausted her administrative relief and is now, prior to the statute of limitations for the Act, she filed a lawsuit on behalf of her daughter. It is so rare that you meet a parent who doesn't want to jump into the lawsuit circuit before exhausting administrative remedies. I guess I shouldn't be that surprised. We are talking about Leland here, a really well-to-do area, with many resources. Anyway, I got my popcorn ready to watch the drama unfold. As we (non-cheerleaders say about anything cheerleading) say, "Bring it ON!"



p.s. Hot damn! The poor girl doing the bridge!

Update. Thanks Wonkette for linking to this site. Also, the Mercury News did an editorial piece on this story.

posted by Chai at 1:14 PM