cheerleader kicked off squad for working at hooters - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - cheerleader kicked off squad for working at hooters (Page 2 of 8)

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:34:22 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So, in your view, she should have known that working in a restaurant that is found in ordinary shopping malls would be just as wrong as running through the streets naked.

Is that correct?

She should have had sense enough to know that since an important part of her cheerleading training was specifically on reflecting the University's image in a positive light, that working at hooters might not be consitent with such an obligation.

I hope they kick every ball player who goes into a hooters restraunt off the team. Want to make sure their patronage of such a restraunt does not hurt the schools image.

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:34:33 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
So, if Hooters is at the mall with the other restaurants, how is one supposed to know that this restaurant is off limits, as opposed to any other?

Have you BEEN to hooters before?

If you have, then the answer to that question is obvious.

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:36:59 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
No, it goes to show that people with authority can be arbitrary and make no sense. There are consequences -- but they are primarily the result of stupid people who think there ought to be consequences for no good reason.

Again, let us examine the facts.

Chick wants to be cheerleader.

Chick passes tryouts.

Chick is told that she is now a representative of the SCHOOL'S IMAGE and signs an AGREEMENT where she VOLUNTARILY recognizes that she will abide by AN ESTABLISHED CODE OF CONDUCT.

Chick promptly violates the agreement SHE WILLINGLY SIGNED.

The college is not harming her rights in ANY way whatsoever. She AGREED to abide by a certain standard when she became a cheerleader. In violating that standard, SHE THREW HERSELF off the team.

That simple.

She can still work at hooters. She can still attend college. But she cannot be a chearleader if she is not willing to abide by the rules established for cheerleaders.

What is so hard to understand about that?

So what part of the Code of Conduct did she violate? Where did it say what job she could and could not have?

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:38:16 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So, if Hooters is at the mall with the other restaurants, how is one supposed to know that this restaurant is off limits, as opposed to any other?

Have you BEEN to hooters before?

If you have, then the answer to that question is obvious.

Yes, I have been many times. My boss at the job I held a year ago would schedule all our off-site meetings there. There was nothing about the costumes that you couldn't see equally well anywhere else, and it was located in a major shopping mall so apparently the local community didn't think it was anything special.

But, uuuuh, if it gets you excited, then maybe . . . . .

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:40:14 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Of course, in this case, we are talking about a simple waitressing job not conduct which is recognized by everyone to be bad behavior. So your comparison fails.

No it doesn't. BOTH actions, in the view of the respective universities, NEGATIVELY impact the image of the University in the opinion of the university, thus the university has every right to act to protect their image in accordance with their policies.

Well, there have been kids in there every time I have been there and if you think they are seriously messed up in the head then maybe you ought to look at a 100,000 mile tuneup yourself. There is nothing there that you can't see on the street on any warm day.

Your point being?

Yes you can see lots of naked flesh walking around. That still doesn't mean it is a good idea for a parent to DELIBERATELY put their children in that kind of environment.

It certainly is if you are claiming this behavior is so unusual and against society's rules that it merits discipline.

Not society's expectations of behavior, the UNIVERSITY'S expectation of behavior. Drinking in your apartment is perfectly normal in society. Drinking in your dorm room can get you kicked out. The university has the right to regulate student behavior, ESPECIALLY when it comes to voluntary extra-cirricular activities.

No, just based on experience of what I have seen. People who get torqued over the Hooters outfit have (shall we say) "issues".

Sure.

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:41:37 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Give her a damn warning before you kick her off the team.

A reasonable idea.

But how do we know she was not privately approached about this previously? My experience has been that usually softer methods are tried before a full on ejection. The ejections usually only come after repeated warnings or no result from the softer methods.

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:43:05 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
While I agree they do not cover every aspect. I think the dismissing her went to far. If they had a problem with it they should have given her the option first to either quit the job or the squad. Not just walk in and dismiss her.

I agree, but we don't know if that happened or not. We also don't know if this girl has had trouble breaking rules in the past.

I don't see anything in the story to say that she has, but I do know that universities usually try softer methods because they don't like contraversy about stuff like this.

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:43:48 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Actually I don't. You could be right about the University but I tend to doubt it. Remember Bob Jone's University getting all the bad publicity about being racist and discrimitory against Catholics? It boomed from the publicity.

No other university in the nation perceives things the way that Bob Jones does, I can assure you....

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:44:02 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course, in this case, we are talking about a simple waitressing job not conduct which is recognized by everyone to be bad behavior. So your comparison fails.

No it doesn't. BOTH actions, in the view of the respective universities, NEGATIVELY impact the image of the University in the opinion of the university, thus the university has every right to act to protect their image in accordance with their policies.

In case you didn't catch it earlier, the difference is that a reasonable person would expect some unnamed conduct (like running through the streets naked) to be on the list. A reasonable person would not expect a waitress job at the local mall to be on the list.

Get the difference?

Your point being?

Yes you can see lots of naked flesh walking around. That still doesn't mean it is a good idea for a parent to DELIBERATELY put their children in that kind of environment.

It doesn't mean that any reasonable person would expect such attire to be outside the code of conduct, either.

Not society's expectations of behavior, the UNIVERSITY'S expectation of behavior. Drinking in your apartment is perfectly normal in society. Drinking in your dorm room can get you kicked out. The university has the right to regulate student behavior, ESPECIALLY when it comes to voluntary extra-cirricular activities.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. The point is that people with authority can get stupid and unreasonable. Bottom line, that is what happened.

No, just based on experience of what I have seen. People who get torqued over the Hooters outfit have (shall we say) "issues".

Sure.

Maybe you just have to look at it from the other side of the chicken sandwich.

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:44:50 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Well, she'll have to get a job at The Jiggly Room now since she has extra time on her hands.

www.timesnews.net/AllSites/gnpics/166891.jpeg

Not the Hustler club?

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:45:36 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
While I agree they do not cover every aspect. I think the dismissing her went to far. If they had a problem with it they should have given her the option first to either quit the job or the squad. Not just walk in and dismiss her.

I agree, but we don't know if that happened or not. We also don't know if this girl has had trouble breaking rules in the past.

I don't see anything in the story to say that she has, but I do know that universities usually try softer methods because they don't like contraversy about stuff like this.

Well, that was my first assumption, too. She must have been guilty of something or they wouldn't have punished her. Right? Who cares if it was this particular thing?

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:45:37 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
I hope they kick every ball player who goes into a hooters restraunt off the team. Want to make sure their patronage of such a restraunt does not hurt the schools image.

I agree.

The school, if they simply kicked the girl off the cheerleading team the minute they discovered she worked at hooters, has painted themselves into a corner. People can (rightly) look at what the football players do and start demanding that they be held to an equal standard.

That is precisely the reason that I think the school tried other softer means of persuasion before ejecting her.

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:46:36 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I hope they kick every ball player who goes into a hooters restraunt off the team. Want to make sure their patronage of such a restraunt does not hurt the schools image.

I agree.

The school, if they simply kicked the girl off the cheerleading team the minute they discovered she worked at hooters, has painted themselves into a corner. People can (rightly) look at what the football players do and start demanding that they be held to an equal standard.

That is precisely the reason that I think the school tried other softer means of persuasion before ejecting her.

Just curious. Are there any other restaurants in the mall where grabbing a sandwich should get you kicked off the team?

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:47:05 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
So what part of the Code of Conduct did she violate? Where did it say what job she could and could not have?

The agreement probably didn't state "Thou shalt not work at hooters!!", but it DOES have a clause about reflecting the image of the university in a positive manner, which can be used to discipline for all sorts of actions. It is a built in discretionary clause for the University.

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:48:50 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
While I agree they do not cover every aspect. I think the dismissing her went to far. If they had a problem with it they should have given her the option first to either quit the job or the squad. Not just walk in and dismiss her.

I agree, but we don't know if that happened or not. We also don't know if this girl has had trouble breaking rules in the past.

I don't see anything in the story to say that she has, but I do know that universities usually try softer methods because they don't like contraversy about stuff like this.

Well, that was my first assumption, too. She must have been guilty of something or they wouldn't have punished her. Right? Who cares if it was this particular thing?

Perhaps you should bone up on your reading comprehension skills. We have only the dismissed Ms. Sams' word on the cause of her dismissal. Per the article:

Citing federal laws regarding students' privacy, ETSU Athletic Director Dave Mullins declined to comment on the specifics of Sams' dismissal, including whether she was dismissed because of her job, other than to say she violated athletic department policies and agreements between coach and student.

Of course, no one in Ms. Sams' situation would ever shade the truth about what led to her dismissal.

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:50:13 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
While I agree they do not cover every aspect. I think the dismissing her went to far. If they had a problem with it they should have given her the option first to either quit the job or the squad. Not just walk in and dismiss her.

I agree, but we don't know if that happened or not. We also don't know if this girl has had trouble breaking rules in the past.

I don't see anything in the story to say that she has, but I do know that universities usually try softer methods because they don't like contraversy about stuff like this.

Well, that was my first assumption, too. She must have been guilty of something or they wouldn't have punished her. Right? Who cares if it was this particular thing?

Perhaps you should bone up on your reading comprehension skills. We have only the dismissed Ms. Sams' word on the cause of her dismissal. Per the article:
Citing federal laws regarding students' privacy, ETSU Athletic Director Dave Mullins declined to comment on the specifics of Sams' dismissal, including whether she was dismissed because of her job, other than to say she violated athletic department policies and agreements between coach and student.

Of course, no one in Ms. Sams' situation would ever shade the truth about what led to her dismissal.

Well, until we have another explanation from the people involved, which one are you going to go with? Hers, or the one you concocted yourself?

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:50:25 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So what part of the Code of Conduct did she violate? Where did it say what job she could and could not have?

The agreement probably didn't state "Thou shalt not work at hooters!!", but it DOES have a clause about reflecting the image of the university in a positive manner, which can be used to discipline for all sorts of actions. It is a built in discretionary clause for the University.

How is being a Hooter's Girl worse then being a cheerleader?

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:50:53 AM EDT

[#18]

Why is it anyone's business?

I've heard stories about another girl at some school in CA getting kicked off because she worked at a strip club. A woman's kid(also in CA) got kicked out of a Christian school because the kid's mom worked at a strip club. (These stories are old, I don't have any links)

It's not anyone's business. What she does after school and after her extra-curriculars is her business.

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:54:03 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what part of the Code of Conduct did she violate? Where did it say what job she could and could not have?

The agreement probably didn't state "Thou shalt not work at hooters!!", but it DOES have a clause about reflecting the image of the university in a positive manner, which can be used to discipline for all sorts of actions. It is a built in discretionary clause for the University.

How is being a Hooter's Girl worse then being a cheerleader?

A Hooter's girl wears a skimpy outfit and jumps up and down a lot enticing men to think highly sexual thoughts. That doesn't happen with cheerleaders.

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:54:49 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
While I agree they do not cover every aspect. I think the dismissing her went to far. If they had a problem with it they should have given her the option first to either quit the job or the squad. Not just walk in and dismiss her.

I agree, but we don't know if that happened or not. We also don't know if this girl has had trouble breaking rules in the past.

I don't see anything in the story to say that she has, but I do know that universities usually try softer methods because they don't like contraversy about stuff like this.

Well, that was my first assumption, too. She must have been guilty of something or they wouldn't have punished her. Right? Who cares if it was this particular thing?

Perhaps you should bone up on your reading comprehension skills. We have only the dismissed Ms. Sams' word on the cause of her dismissal. Per the article:
Citing federal laws regarding students' privacy, ETSU Athletic Director Dave Mullins declined to comment on the specifics of Sams' dismissal, including whether she was dismissed because of her job, other than to say she violated athletic department policies and agreements between coach and student.

Of course, no one in Ms. Sams' situation would ever shade the truth about what led to her dismissal.

Well, until we have another explanation from the people involved, which one are you going to go with? Hers, or the one you concocted yourself?

Again with the abysmal reading comprehension. Federal privacy laws preclude the University from giving its' side of the story. All we KNOW at this point is that Ms. Sams was dismissed from the cheerleading squad for violating athletic department policies. We do not know if the Hooters job was the cause, if she had been previously warned, etc. YOU are the one who has jumped to conclusion after conclusion.

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:55:50 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

No arguement here. If hooters reflects badly on the university, then no hooters for the representatives of the university.

No offense bro, but how does it reflect badly on the university? It's not anyone's business.

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:57:21 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
.

But how do we know she was not privately approached about this previously? My experience has been that usually softer methods are tried before a full on ejection. The ejections usually only come after repeated warnings or no result from the softer methods.

We don't. I think (cough cough) conveniently(cough cough) the article doesn't mention it.
Edit-yes we're missing the story here, but it's privacy laws.

Posted: 2/3/2006 6:57:56 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Again with the abysmal reading comprehension. Federal privacy laws preclude the University from giving its' side of the story. All we KNOW at this point is that Ms. Sams was dismissed from the cheerleading squad for violating athletic department policies. We do not know if the Hooters job was the cause, if she had been previously warned, etc. YOU are the one who has jumped to conclusion after conclusion.

I understand Federal privacy laws, thanks. As for jumping to conclusions, I didn't make any conclusions about any prior conduct. You brought that up.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:00:15 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:

No arguement here. If hooters reflects badly on the university, then no hooters for the representatives of the university.

No offense bro, but how does it reflect badly on the university? It's not anyone's business.

Because the University's image is its' main recruiting tool. It has control of what reflects well or poorly on that image. Ms. Sams' VOLUNTARILY AGREED to abide by the University's standards of what constitutes acceptable conduct in order to participate in a VOLUNTARY, EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITY. It certainly is none of YOUR business what happened between her and the university.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:01:46 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

No arguement here. If hooters reflects badly on the university, then no hooters for the representatives of the university.

No offense bro, but how does it reflect badly on the university? It's not anyone's business.

Because the University's image is its' main recruiting tool. It has control of what reflects well or poorly on that image. Ms. Sams' VOLUNTARILY AGREED to abide by the University's standards of what constitutes acceptable conduct in order to participate in a VOLUNTARY, EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITY. It certainly is none of YOUR business what happened between her and the university.

So Susie is walking through the mall looking for a job to pay school expenses. How does Susie know which jobs are OK with the school and which aren't?

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:03:27 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

No arguement here. If hooters reflects badly on the university, then no hooters for the representatives of the university.

No offense bro, but how does it reflect badly on the university? It's not anyone's business.

Because the University's image is its' main recruiting tool. It has control of what reflects well or poorly on that image. Ms. Sams' VOLUNTARILY AGREED to abide by the University's standards of what constitutes acceptable conduct in order to participate in a VOLUNTARY, EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITY. It certainly is none of YOUR business what happened between her and the university.

Do we know exactly if she were sort of "advertising" the fact she worked at hooters after school/extracurriculars?

If she were, and she got warned that she were violating policy, then yes she should get kicked off.

If she didn't make it known she were working there than WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?!

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:04:56 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

No arguement here. If hooters reflects badly on the university, then no hooters for the representatives of the university.

No offense bro, but how does it reflect badly on the university? It's not anyone's business.

Because the University's image is its' main recruiting tool. It has control of what reflects well or poorly on that image. Ms. Sams' VOLUNTARILY AGREED to abide by the University's standards of what constitutes acceptable conduct in order to participate in a VOLUNTARY, EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITY. It certainly is none of YOUR business what happened between her and the university.

So Susie is walking through the mall looking for a job to pay school expenses. How does Susie know which jobs are OK with the school and which aren't?

I guess working at a Victoria Secret or Fredricks at the mall would result in dismissing.

This whole deal smells of someone who is imposing their own religous/moral views than so called protecting the universitys image.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:05:50 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

No arguement here. If hooters reflects badly on the university, then no hooters for the representatives of the university.

No offense bro, but how does it reflect badly on the university? It's not anyone's business.

Because the University's image is its' main recruiting tool. It has control of what reflects well or poorly on that image. Ms. Sams' VOLUNTARILY AGREED to abide by the University's standards of what constitutes acceptable conduct in order to participate in a VOLUNTARY, EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITY. It certainly is none of YOUR business what happened between her and the university.

Again how is jumping around in a skimpy outfit in front of thousands of people so much better than serving a burger and fries to customers in a skimpy outfit?

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:06:40 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

This whole deal smells of someone who is imposing their own religous/moral views than so called protecting the universitys image.

What gave it away?

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:06:56 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
But, uuuuh, if it gets you excited, then maybe . . . . .

I haven't been to another restaurant where the waitress is wearing skimpy outfits (at least not THAT skimpy) and flirting with me for tips.

That is rather unusual behavior.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:07:51 AM EDT

[#31]

I don't see how it would cause the university to have a bad image, it's just a restaurant. Anyone who sees Hooters as some kind of highly sexual environment needs to have their head examined. It's girls in shorts serving food.

One thing I don't understand about these kinds of things is that people pay to go to these schools, and then they're treated like it's a privilege to go there. I don't see how a university isn't a business like any other. Maybe someone can point out to me why it's not, I honestly don't know.

Why don't other businesses mandate who can buy their product or service based on the image it would give them? What would people say if Ford refused to sell trucks to some people because they didn't like how they looked, or lived, or who they associated with because it might affect the Ford "image?" While I think Ford should have the right to do that, it seems like a stupid thing to do.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:07:55 AM EDT

[#32]

Why does everybody make a big deal over Hooters? Hell, my wife will eat there. It's women in short shorts (sometimes pants) and tight fitting shirts. Some of them are flat chested, for Pete's sake. They serve wings. What in the world are people getting worked up over? I don't get it.

Cheerleaders routinely show their panties while kicking their legs up. Cheerleaders wear skirts that are every bit as revealing as a pair of shorts at Hooters. Cheerleaders wear form fitting tops that are every bit as revealing as a shirt worn by a girl at Hooters. Cheerleaders bounce up and down, and shake their asses. Hooters girls bring food to you on a plate.

WTF?

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:08:06 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

No arguement here. If hooters reflects badly on the university, then no hooters for the representatives of the university.

No offense bro, but how does it reflect badly on the university? It's not anyone's business.

Because the University's image is its' main recruiting tool. It has control of what reflects well or poorly on that image. Ms. Sams' VOLUNTARILY AGREED to abide by the University's standards of what constitutes acceptable conduct in order to participate in a VOLUNTARY, EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITY. It certainly is none of YOUR business what happened between her and the university.

So Susie is walking through the mall looking for a job to pay school expenses. How does Susie know which jobs are OK with the school and which aren't?

She could exercise that rarest of commodities AND ASK THE UNIVERSITY. Nah. Too easy.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:08:41 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Well, until we have another explanation from the people involved, which one are you going to go with? Hers, or the one you concocted yourself?

I am going with the one I have formed after dealing with students on matters of adjudication and discipline for several years.

How's that??

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:09:14 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

No arguement here. If hooters reflects badly on the university, then no hooters for the representatives of the university.

No offense bro, but how does it reflect badly on the university? It's not anyone's business.

Because the University's image is its' main recruiting tool. It has control of what reflects well or poorly on that image. Ms. Sams' VOLUNTARILY AGREED to abide by the University's standards of what constitutes acceptable conduct in order to participate in a VOLUNTARY, EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITY. It certainly is none of YOUR business what happened between her and the university.

Again how is jumping around in a skimpy outfit in front of thousands of people so much better than serving a burger and fries to customers in a skimpy outfit?

It is the UNIVERSITY who gets to decide what is and is not acceptable behavior. If you disagree GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:10:02 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

No arguement here. If hooters reflects badly on the university, then no hooters for the representatives of the university.

No offense bro, but how does it reflect badly on the university? It's not anyone's business.

Because the University's image is its' main recruiting tool. It has control of what reflects well or poorly on that image. Ms. Sams' VOLUNTARILY AGREED to abide by the University's standards of what constitutes acceptable conduct in order to participate in a VOLUNTARY, EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITY. It certainly is none of YOUR business what happened between her and the university.

So Susie is walking through the mall looking for a job to pay school expenses. How does Susie know which jobs are OK with the school and which aren't?

I guess working at a Victoria Secret or Fredricks at the mall would result in dismissing.
.

And that's a problem? Unless the school SPECIFICALLY SAYS you can't work here or there, than WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL?

If any of the girls I know happened to work at Hooters, that's none of my business or the schools.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:10:21 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
So Susie is walking through the mall looking for a job to pay school expenses. How does Susie know which jobs are OK with the school and which aren't?

If Susie doesn't understand that working at hooters might be incompatible with her obligations via the image of the university clause, then Susie is too stupid to be in college in the first place.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:10:47 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
But, uuuuh, if it gets you excited, then maybe . . . . .

I haven't been to another restaurant where the waitress is wearing skimpy outfits (at least not THAT skimpy) and flirting with me for tips.

That is rather unusual behavior.

You really need to get out more. I have seen outfits just as skimpy.

As far as "flirting" goes, my take on it is that they encourage the girls to be friendly and talk to the customers because it is just good business. If that gave you a boner or lewd sexual thoughts, I am sorry, but it didn't for me. I wasn't under any misimpression that I was ever going to get anything more than a chicken sandwich and fries from those girls.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:12:16 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So Susie is walking through the mall looking for a job to pay school expenses. How does Susie know which jobs are OK with the school and which aren't?

If Susie doesn't understand that working at hooters might be incompatible with her obligations via the image of the university clause, then Susie is too stupid to be in college in the first place.

Well, in case you didn't notice, you completely failed to answer the question. How exactly is Susie supposed to understand the difference between Hooters and any other restaurant in the mall -- especially if you can't seem to explain it yourself?

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:12:22 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Why does everybody make a big deal over Hooters? Hell, my wife will eat there. It's women in short shorts (sometimes pants) and tight fitting shirts. Some of them are flat chested, for Pete's sake. They serve wings. What in the world are people getting worked up over? I don't get it.

Cheerleaders routinely show their panties while kicking their legs up. Cheerleaders wear skirts that are every bit as revealing as a pair of shorts at Hooters. Cheerleaders wear form fitting tops that are every bit as revealing as a shirt worn by a girl at Hooters. Cheerleaders bounce up and down, and shake their asses. Hooters girls bring food to you on a plate.

WTF?

I think the obvious solution is to make the cheerleaders wear a burka when they're not on the field.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:12:44 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
I guess working at a Victoria Secret or Fredricks at the mall would result in dismissing.

This whole deal smells of someone who is imposing their own religous/moral views than so called protecting the universitys image.

One can work at Victoria's secret without parading around in the wares that Victoria's Secret sells, at least in an obvious way.

If a condition of working at Victoria's Secret was wearing a lacy teddy and flirting with passing men to get them into the store to buy stuff for their "girlfriend", then you can bet that there would be a problem.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:13:44 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, until we have another explanation from the people involved, which one are you going to go with? Hers, or the one you concocted yourself?

I am going with the one I have formed after dealing with students on matters of adjudication and discipline for several years.

How's that??

Well, as long as you are declaring that you are assuming things that are not at all in evidence here, that's OK. We shall judge your opinion accordingly.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:14:49 AM EDT

[#43]

I wonder how this would play out here if a student was expelled because his ownership of an evil "assault rifle" was a bad reflection on the image of the school.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:14:53 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
I don't see how it would cause the university to have a bad image, it's just a restaurant. Anyone who sees Hooters as some kind of highly sexual environment needs to have their head examined. It's girls in shorts serving food.

One thing I don't understand about these kinds of things is that people pay to go to these schools, and then they're treated like it's a privilege to go there. I don't see how a university isn't a business like any other. Maybe someone can point out to me why it's not, I honestly don't know.

Obviously you have never done budgeting or regulation at a University.

Trust me: They are most certainly NOT a buisness "like any other" by any stretch of the imagination.

Why don't other businesses mandate who can buy their product or service based on the image it would give them?

This isn't about who is buying a product.

This is about who you have SELLING your product. Buisnesses have every right to regulate who works for them and represents them.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:16:37 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Why is it anyone's business?

I've heard stories about another girl at some school in CA getting kicked off because she worked at a strip club. A woman's kid(also in CA) got kicked out of a Christian school because the kid's mom worked at a strip club. (These stories are old, I don't have any links)

It's not anyone's business. What she does after school and after her extra-curriculars is her business.

I remember the one in CA, the reason why she was discovered was the football team went to the strip club and saw her working there, but she was the only one displined. It was ok for the team to go and pay strippers, but not ok to be a girl working as one.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:18:21 AM EDT

[#46]

Is it allowable for cheerleaders to go to the beach, or go swimming?

Is it against the rules for the football, baseball, basketball, or hockey team members, or the faculty to patronize Hooters?

Still only seeing hypocracy, and bad jeans.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:19:19 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Obviously you have never done budgeting or regulation at a University.

Trust me: They are most certainly NOT a buisness "like any other" by any stretch of the imagination.

No, obviously I haven't. That's why I asked. What's so different about a university? I honestly don't know why it's not a business like any other and no one has ever explained to me why it's not.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:19:30 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
And that's a problem? Unless the school SPECIFICALLY SAYS you can't work here or there, than WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL?

If any of the girls I know happened to work at Hooters, that's none of my business or the schools.

Again, as always happens with these types of threads, we are going into tangental matters here.

The school is not obligated to spell out EVERY SINGLE possible violation of a conduct agreement any more than YOUR employer is. The company manual, for instance, may not say that driving the company car without any pants on is a violation of policy punishable by termination, but rest assured that the company is well within their rights to fire you for doing so.

And also remember this:

The girl is not being thrown out of college. She is simply being removed from a position as a REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIVERSITY. Athletes/cheerleaders/fraternities/sororities/ARFCOM all have rules of conduct that they are expected to live by if they wish to participate in that activity/community.

When one signs up to be a part of that activty/community, they are AGREEING TO OBEY THE RULES.

If they fail to obey those rules, then they are subject to discipline.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:19:31 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what part of the Code of Conduct did she violate? Where did it say what job she could and could not have?

The agreement probably didn't state "Thou shalt not work at hooters!!", but it DOES have a clause about reflecting the image of the university in a positive manner, which can be used to discipline for all sorts of actions. It is a built in discretionary clause for the University.

How is being a Hooter's Girl worse then being a cheerleader?

DING DING DING!

Facts:
1. Hooters is not a bar. They do not serve mixed drinks.
2. When working at Hooters, more of her body is clothed then while in a cheerleader's outfit.
3. Hooters is a family restaurant. I have seen many families eating there.
4. People working at Hooters are good people (most of them).
5. Hooters has a strict behavior policy.

Posted: 2/3/2006 7:20:25 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Well, in case you didn't notice, you completely failed to answer the question. How exactly is Susie supposed to understand the difference between Hooters and any other restaurant in the mall -- especially if you can't seem to explain it yourself?

I have explained it.

No other restaurant is organized around having scantily clad waitresses flirt with the customers.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - cheerleader kicked off squad for working at hooters (Page 2 of 8)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us