Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 8
Posted: 2/2/2006 8:42:43 PM EDT
link with pic

Former ETSU cheerleader says she was kicked off squad for being Hooters Girl
Wednesday, February 01, 2006

By SAM WATSON
NET News Service

ETSU freshman Kimberly Sams says her job at Hooters was the reason she lost her position on the ETSU cheerleading squad three weeks ago. Dave Boyd photo.

JOHNSON CITY - A former East Tennessee State University cheerleader contends that she was dismissed from the squad because of her job at a restaurant known for tight-fitting, scanty uniforms.

"I'm 18. I should be able to work where I choose," ETSU freshman Kimberly Sams said of her job at Johnson City's Hooters Restaurant. "Maybe if it was a strip club or something like that, it would be different. If the basketball team can come in here and eat, then I should be able to work (at Hooters)."

Sams, a Carter County resident who graduated with honors from Unaka High School last May, joined the ETSU squad at the start of the fall semester and started working at Hooters in November.

She cheered until about three weeks ago, when squad coach Tammy Bartow called her into the locker room after a basketball game and dismissed her.

Sams said Bartow, wife of head men's basketball coach Murry Bartow, made it clear that her off-campus job was the reason - a "Hooters Girl" was not in keeping with the ETSU squad's image.

"She (Bartow) didn't call me before the game," Sams said. "I had no warning that I was going to be kicked off."

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.

Mullins said department administrators reviewed Bartow's action, departmental policy and squad agreements before upholding the decision.

ETSU asks all student-athletes, including cheerleaders, to sign copies of the department's policy on ethical conduct and sportsmanship. Students must sign a compliance statement regarding such issues as drug use, class attendance and public criticism.

The statement specifies that students will "represent self, family and East Tennessee State University in attitude and conduct that is a credit to each."

Mullins said members of each team also are expected to adhere to policies set by the coach. Bartow's policy includes statements regarding expected behavior for cheerleaders.

"Behavior by a squad member that brings unwanted, unfair, negative attention to the squad can and will result in the member being removed from the squad," the policy reads. "The image and reputation of the squad members as a whole are the utmost importance."

Asked whether the policies addressed what kinds of jobs students could hold or places they could frequent, Mullins said they did not.

"I don't think any of our policies are going to specify certain individuals or companies or institutions," he said.

Sams said ETSU never informed her of any restrictions about places of employment, and she had no reservations about accepting a position waiting tables at Hooters when a classmate suggested that she apply.

"I used to come here all the time on Tuesday nights for karaoke and me and my friends would just come in and hang out," Sams said. "We have little boys have their birthday parties at Hooters. It's a very fun and relaxed environment.

"It's so much fun that it keeps my spirits up at school. I'm not stressed. I'm not working too hard. A Hooters Girl is like an all-American cheerleader."

Sams acknowledged that her Hooters uniform - orange shorts and a white T-shirt containing the restaurant's logo - is revealing.

"But so is my cheerleading skirt. I feel more embarrassed to wear my skirt sometimes at the games than I do walking around in my uniform," she said. "We wear pantyhose (at Hooters). We don't underneath my cheerleading skirt."

Mike McNeil, vice president of marketing for the Atlanta-based restaurant chain, said he had not heard about Sams' dismissal from the ETSU squad prior to a reporter's inquiry, but it sounded as if Sams was defending her position on her own.

"We support the employee and the statements she's making," McNeil said. "I think the best thing they (ETSU) can do is reinstate her to the cheerleading team ... otherwise, it's a black eye."

Sams said although she initially did well in her classes at ETSU, her grades went south over the course of the semester and she wound up failing some classes. Cheerleaders are required to maintain at least a 2.0 grade-point average. Sams said freshmen, however, were not held to that standard, and her grades were not cited in her dismissal.

Sams said she had hoped to bring up her grades this semester, but her academic status was in limbo because of a dispute regarding the return of her uniforms and money owed her for warm-up gear.

Link Posted: 2/2/2006 8:44:14 PM EDT
Hope she gets her spot back.. Thats a load of BS.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 8:46:05 PM EDT
who cares? Maybe she should join the chess club instead
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 8:46:38 PM EDT
Now, now. You can only shake your ass for us.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 8:47:58 PM EDT
Ahh fundamentalism, aint it entertaining. I suspect her spot on the team is no longer worth having so sue if you have grounds for it and move on.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 8:49:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattimeo:
Now, now. You can only shake your ass for us.



Good point!!! Hypocrisy by/in objectification.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 8:50:11 PM EDT
A honors graduate working at Hooters???

Link Posted: 2/2/2006 8:50:41 PM EDT
the error was not stating the grades as the reason....



on a side note.... ?ast hooters i went to had a pregnant girl and some chick that had been beat up ... hooters is no longer on my list....(not cause of this but the fact that the girls were not all that )
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 8:52:04 PM EDT
just goes to show you..
"you cannot run your life the way WE think you should, therefore youre GROUNDED!"
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 4:34:44 AM EDT

"But so is my cheerleading skirt. I feel more embarrassed to wear my skirt sometimes at the games than I do walking around in my uniform," she said. "We wear pantyhose (at Hooters). We don't underneath my cheerleading skirt."




Interesting, which of the faces are school authorities speaking out of?
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:38:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 5:39:46 AM EDT by Phil_A_Steen]
Well, she'll have to get a job at The Jiggly Room now since she has extra time on her hands.



Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:40:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Ahh fundamentalism, aint it entertaining.



What in the hell does "fundamentalism" have to do with any of this??
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:41:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Outsider_10fp:
just goes to show you..
"you cannot run your life the way WE think you should, therefore youre GROUNDED!"



No, it goes to show you that if you agree to abide by certain standards as a condition of participating in a voluntary activity and you decide to violate the standards YOU agreed upon WILLINGLY, then you can expect consequences.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:42:03 AM EDT
Complete BS.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:43:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mattimeo:
Now, now. You can only shake your ass for us.





BRILLIANT!

Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:45:29 AM EDT
probably the best publicity stunt for both the university and the ex cheerleader. No publicity is bad publicity.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:45:51 AM EDT
Wonderful. Wearing a skimpy outfit and dancing? Fine. Wearing a skimpy outfit and serving hot wings? Baaaaaaad.

Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:45:54 AM EDT
Hooters! Hooters! Hooters!
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:46:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Outsider_10fp:
just goes to show you..
"you cannot run your life the way WE think you should, therefore youre GROUNDED!"



No, it goes to show you that if you agree to abide by certain standards as a condition of participating in a voluntary activity and you decide to violate the standards YOU agreed upon WILLINGLY, then you can expect consequences.



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.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:48:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
probably the best publicity stunt for both the university and the ex cheerleader. No publicity is bad publicity.



Having spent some time around university administrators, I have to point out that you are wrong about that. There are LOTS of things that equal bad publicity, and bad publicity is the kind of thing University Presidents fear most.

Remember Marcus Vick? The governor of Virginia called up the president of VT and gave him a right good butt chewing over the way Marcus Vick was representing Virginia...That's why Vick is no longer a player for VT.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:48:47 AM EDT
Besides being intelligent she doesn't seem to be overly qualified to be a Hooters girl.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:50:51 AM EDT
Crock of shit. Some cheerleading uniforms especially the dance teams show more skin than a hooters uniform.

Sounds more like jealousy on coaches wifes part.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:51:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
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?
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:55:02 AM EDT
What exactly violates their code of condact would be relevant here. Does it specifically say "No working at Hooters?" or is an an open-ended deal to be determined by the powers that be?

Oh yeah,
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:56:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
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?



There you go again, bringing up facts and logic...
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:56:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
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?



To me this sums it up.

Asked whether the policies addressed what kinds of jobs students could hold or places they could frequent, Mullins said they did not.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:58:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
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?



1) Hooters was never mentioned in any such thing as being outside the code of conduct.

2) Children's birthday parties are held there (seen them myself), Hooters exists in various malls right alongside other restaurants, etc. with families eating there all the time, so there is no particular reason that one might think it was off limits. If she was a stripper you would have a better argument.

3) The costume at Hooters isn't all that much skimpier than some other waitress costumes I have seen and any woman who wore it on the street would not come close to getting arrested for indecent exposure. In fact, it isn't all that much skimpier than a typical cheerleading outfit. It certainly doesn't come close to what females would commonly wear at a pool or the beach.

Therefore, the decision was arbitrary and did not make much sense. I would guess that the coach probably is a religious nut who is inflamed over the name of the restaurant more than anything else. He is probably afraid that thinking about it might make him want to masturbate.

What is so hard to understand about that?
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:58:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
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?



To me this sums it up.

Asked whether the policies addressed what kinds of jobs students could hold or places they could frequent, Mullins said they did not.



Well, there we go. They told her "Don't do anything we don't like. We'll tell you what we don't like when you do it."
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:59:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
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?



How she damaging the school's image by serving food in a pair of shorts? It's not as if she's pole dancing.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:59:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Outsider_10fp:
just goes to show you..
"you cannot run your life the way WE think you should, therefore youre GROUNDED!"



No, it goes to show you that if you agree to abide by certain standards as a condition of participating in a voluntary activity and you decide to violate the standards YOU agreed upon WILLINGLY, then you can expect consequences.



This is one of the rare times that I must wholeheartedly disagree with you. If she were a waitress at Shoneys (Frish's Bobs big boy whatever they call it in your area, but Shoneys in TN) then there would be no problem. Simply because her work uniform is a T-shirt and short shorts with panty hose underneath seems to be the problem. Based on cheerleading outfits, this policy/action is hypocritical at best and pure stupidity at worst. If the cheerleaders are barred from working there, then all other members of the squad as well as the basketball team should be banned from going there to eat. As an extreme example, is being the customer of a prostitute any worse than the prostitute herself? That is where the greatest hypocrisy exists in this situation.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 5:59:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Outsider_10fp:
just goes to show you..
"you cannot run your life the way WE think you should, therefore youre GROUNDED!"



No, it goes to show you that if you agree to abide by certain standards as a condition of participating in a voluntary activity and you decide to violate the standards YOU agreed upon WILLINGLY, then you can expect consequences.




Standards? It's not like she was stripping. What is the difference in between jumping & shaking in a skimpy cheerleader outfit for the University you attend & waiting tables in another skimpy outfit for the restaurant you work for. She did absolutely nothing wrong, this is a big load of BS.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:01:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PsyWarrior:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Outsider_10fp:
just goes to show you..
"you cannot run your life the way WE think you should, therefore youre GROUNDED!"



No, it goes to show you that if you agree to abide by certain standards as a condition of participating in a voluntary activity and you decide to violate the standards YOU agreed upon WILLINGLY, then you can expect consequences.



This is one of the rare times that I must wholeheartedly disagree with you. If she were a waitress at Shoneys (Frish's Bobs big boy whatever they call it in your area, but Shoneys in TN) then there would be no problem. Simply because her work uniform is a T-shirt and short shorts with panty hose underneath seems to be the problem. Based on cheerleading outfits, this policy/action is hypocritical at best and pure stupidity at worst. If the cheerleaders are barred from working there, then all other members of the squad as well as the basketball team should be banned from going there to eat. As an extreme example, is being the customer of a prostitute any worse than the prostitute herself? That is where the greatest hypocrisy exists in this situation.



Boy! You really are a trouble maker!
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:02:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WyattEarp:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Outsider_10fp:
just goes to show you..
"you cannot run your life the way WE think you should, therefore youre GROUNDED!"



No, it goes to show you that if you agree to abide by certain standards as a condition of participating in a voluntary activity and you decide to violate the standards YOU agreed upon WILLINGLY, then you can expect consequences.




Standards? It's not like she was stripping. What is the difference in between jumping & shaking in a skimpy cheerleader outfit for the University you attend & waiting tables in another skimpy outfit for the restaurant you work for. She did absolutely nothing wrong, this is a big load of BS.



I think the critical difference is that no one ever had a salacious thought about girls in cheerleader outfits.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:08:21 AM EDT
You folks are priceless. She joined a VOLUNTARY organization and agreed to abide by its' standards. This organization decided she was not complying with its' standards and dismissed her. Their club, their rules. If you don't like it, don't join.

No great freedom is at stake. Some of you people are hypersensitive to non-existent infringements of imaginary rights. Get a life.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:13:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
You folks are priceless. She joined a VOLUNTARY organization and agreed to abide by its' standards. This organization decided she was not complying with its' standards and dismissed her. Their club, their rules. If you don't like it, don't join.

No great freedom is at stake. Some of you people are hypersensitive to non-existent infringements of imaginary rights. Get a life.



Yeah. We have rules here. We will tell you what they are after we decide you have broken them.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:19:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
To me this sums it up.

Asked whether the policies addressed what kinds of jobs students could hold or places they could frequent, Mullins said they did not.



The agreements the students sign don't specify every single objectionable behavior or activity, as that would be impossible.

I.E. "The agreement didn't say I couldn't streak on the quad!!"

(Real life example, by the way)

But that doesn't mean the decision to put the streaker off the LaCrosse team was unjust.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:21:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By wolfman97:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
You folks are priceless. She joined a VOLUNTARY organization and agreed to abide by its' standards. This organization decided she was not complying with its' standards and dismissed her. Their club, their rules. If you don't like it, don't join.

No great freedom is at stake. Some of you people are hypersensitive to non-existent infringements of imaginary rights. Get a life.



Yeah. We have rules here. We will tell you what they are after we decide you have broken them.



Your logic seems to be that discretion=wrong. I disagree. There is no possible way that a conduct policy for a VOLUNTARY activity can list EVERY possible violation.

The University has a duty to its' Trustees to protect its' image. The school gets to decide when actions by a student are detrimental to that image. Don't like it? There are thousands of other colleges and universities out there.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:22:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
To me this sums it up.

Asked whether the policies addressed what kinds of jobs students could hold or places they could frequent, Mullins said they did not.



The agreements the students sign don't specify every single objectionable behavior or activity, as that would be impossible.

I.E. "The agreement didn't say I couldn't streak on the quad!!"

(Real life example, by the way)

But that doesn't mean the decision to put the streaker off the LaCrosse team was unjust.



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?
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:22:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 6:23:35 AM EDT by WyattEarp]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
You folks are priceless. She joined a VOLUNTARY organization and agreed to abide by its' standards. This organization decided she was not complying with its' standards and dismissed her. Their club, their rules. If you don't like it, don't join.

No great freedom is at stake. Some of you people are hypersensitive to non-existent infringements of imaginary rights. Get a life.






Asked whether the policies addressed what kinds of jobs students could hold or places they could frequent, Mullins said they did not.



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

Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:22:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
To me this sums it up.

Asked whether the policies addressed what kinds of jobs students could hold or places they could frequent, Mullins said they did not.



The agreements the students sign don't specify every single objectionable behavior or activity, as that would be impossible.

I.E. "The agreement didn't say I couldn't streak on the quad!!"

(Real life example, by the way)

But that doesn't mean the decision to put the streaker off the LaCrosse team was unjust.



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.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:23:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
probably the best publicity stunt for both the university and the ex cheerleader. No publicity is bad publicity.



Having spent some time around university administrators, I have to point out that you are wrong about that. There are LOTS of things that equal bad publicity, and bad publicity is the kind of thing University Presidents fear most.

Remember Marcus Vick? The governor of Virginia called up the president of VT and gave him a right good butt chewing over the way Marcus Vick was representing Virginia...That's why Vick is no longer a player for VT.



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.

Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:23:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
You folks are priceless. She joined a VOLUNTARY organization and agreed to abide by its' standards. This organization decided she was not complying with its' standards and dismissed her. Their club, their rules. If you don't like it, don't join.

No great freedom is at stake. Some of you people are hypersensitive to non-existent infringements of imaginary rights. Get a life.



Yeah. We have rules here. We will tell you what they are after we decide you have broken them.



Your logic seems to be that discretion=wrong. I disagree. There is no possible way that a conduct policy for a VOLUNTARY activity can list EVERY possible violation.

The University has a duty to its' Trustees to protect its' image. The school gets to decide when actions by a student are detrimental to that image. Don't like it? There are thousands of other colleges and universities out there.



Well, if it doesn't list everything that might be bad conduct, then people have to make a judgment call. So you say that she should have known that working at a common restaurant that is found in ordinary shopping malls, where kids have birthday parties and such, would be outside the code of conduct?

Uh-huh.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:26:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
1) Hooters was never mentioned in any such thing as being outside the code of conduct.



I am pretty sure that using a beer bong on the quad is also not specifically mentioned as being outside the code of conduct, but that will also get you ejected from the team. The university cannot POSSIBLY list EVERY objectionable behavior that could bring discipline.

The students are given GUIDELINES, such as the one about reflecting the university's image in a positive light.

There was no explicit rule in Marcus Vick's agreement saying that stepping on another player is grounds for being ejected from the VT team, but there IS a broad statement about sportsman like conduct and not reflecting negatively on the University.



2) Children's birthday parties are held there (seen them myself), Hooters exists in various malls right alongside other restaurants, etc. with families eating there all the time, so there is no particular reason that one might think it was off limits. If she was a stripper you would have a better argument.



Any parent that would hold a kid's party at Hooters is seriously messed up in the head. Hooters is all about the skimpy outfits and the flirty waitresses. The fact that one can be nextdoor to a Shoney's doesn't change that. It may not cross the line, but it certainly gets pretty close to the line.

Schools have the right to define getting close to the line is cause for being dismissed as a representative of the university.



3) The costume at Hooters isn't all that much skimpier than some other waitress costumes I have seen and any woman who wore it on the street would not come close to getting arrested for indecent exposure. In fact, it isn't all that much skimpier than a typical cheerleading outfit. It certainly doesn't come close to what females would commonly wear at a pool or the beach.



Again, not the point.

One cannot point at something that is bad and then go "but it isn't as bad as that" as a justification.




Therefore, the decision was arbitrary and did not make much sense. I would guess that the coach probably is a religious nut who is inflamed over the name of the restaurant more than anything else. He is probably afraid that thinking about it might make him want to masturbate.



Talk about an arbitrary and irrational determination....
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:28:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By triburst1:
How she damaging the school's image by serving food in a pair of shorts? It's not as if she's pole dancing.



So the line that should be drawn is somewhere between dressing up in skimpy outfits and flirting for tips and pole dancing??

And why stop it at pole dancing? Pole dancing is legal, isn't it? Can't you find strip clubs in lots of places? Why should that be barred activity? After all, we pay pop stars millions to do essentially that, don't we?

See how much fun we can have when we start equivocating?
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:28:52 AM EDT
What a crock of shit. That chicky snack needs to move to another school. If I was her paying dad...she'd be GONE!
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:29:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
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.

Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:32:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
1) Hooters was never mentioned in any such thing as being outside the code of conduct.



I am pretty sure that using a beer bong on the quad is also not specifically mentioned as being outside the code of conduct, but that will also get you ejected from the team. The university cannot POSSIBLY list EVERY objectionable behavior that could bring discipline.

The students are given GUIDELINES, such as the one about reflecting the university's image in a positive light.

There was no explicit rule in Marcus Vick's agreement saying that stepping on another player is grounds for being ejected from the VT team, but there IS a broad statement about sportsman like conduct and not reflecting negatively on the University.



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.



Any parent that would hold a kid's party at Hooters is seriously messed up in the head. Hooters is all about the skimpy outfits and the flirty waitresses. The fact that one can be nextdoor to a Shoney's doesn't change that. It may not cross the line, but it certainly gets pretty close to the line.

Schools have the right to define getting close to the line is cause for being dismissed as a representative of the university.



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.




3) The costume at Hooters isn't all that much skimpier than some other waitress costumes I have seen and any woman who wore it on the street would not come close to getting arrested for indecent exposure. In fact, it isn't all that much skimpier than a typical cheerleading outfit. It certainly doesn't come close to what females would commonly wear at a pool or the beach.



Again, not the point.

One cannot point at something that is bad and then go "but it isn't as bad as that" as a justification.



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



Talk about an arbitrary and irrational determination....



No, just based on experience of what I have seen. People who get torqued over the Hooters outfit have (shall we say) "issues".
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:32:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
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.




Nah, that would require her to exercise COMMON SENSE. You will note it is a commodity sadly lacking in Ms. Sams, and in most of this thread.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:33:12 AM EDT
I think the most offensive thing in the thread is those holey pants.

Saying that a cheerleader shouldn't be a Hooters girl...................

Both wear skimpy outfits................ gee I could go on but the difference seems to be the size of the venue., and one will bring you food.................
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:33:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
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.




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?
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:34:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PsyWarrior:
This is one of the rare times that I must wholeheartedly disagree with you. If she were a waitress at Shoneys (Frish's Bobs big boy whatever they call it in your area, but Shoneys in TN) then there would be no problem.



Of course not. Because the waitresses at Shoney's don't have skimpy little outfits and flirting with the customers as a part of their "job". And thank goodness. Juding by the average Shoney's waitress I have seen, such job requirements would result in projectile vomiting.



Simply because her work uniform is a T-shirt and short shorts with panty hose underneath seems to be the problem.



Part of it, I am sure.

If she were to pose in her bra and panties for Playboy, we would see a similar thing. Someone could argue that if she was wearing a bikini at the beach she would be less covered than in the Playboy shoot, but the ammount of skin covered by cloth isn't the point. Posing for Playboy has a certain connotation to it, one that the university wants no part of.

And they have every right to kick someone off the cheerleading team for that, even if it doesn't say "No posing for playboy" in the agreement they signed.



Based on cheerleading outfits, this policy/action is hypocritical at best and pure stupidity at worst. If the cheerleaders are barred from working there, then all other members of the squad as well as the basketball team should be banned from going there to eat.



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


Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 8
Top Top