Temp Injunction Issued for West Virginia Girls Barred From Competition After Refusing to Compete Against Male in Track
The plaintiffs claimed they applied an unwritten rule known as the “scratch rule,” which bars students from competing if they voluntarily scratch themselves from an event, in their decision to prevent the girls from competing again.
Judge Thomas Bedell issued a temporary injunction in the free speech case regarding four of the five West Virginia girls barred from competition because they refused to compete against a male in a track-and-field meet.
“Even though there was no malice found on either part of the defendants, the plaintiffs have met their burden and the temporary injunction has been granted,” stated Bedell.
Four of the five girls sued the Harrison County Board of Education through their parents for violating their free speech, which is protected under the First Amendment.
The girls silently and respectfully refused to compete in the shot put event against a male named Becky Pepper-Jackson:
The minor student athletes’ protests were silent. They each stepped into the shot put circle, raised the shot put to their chins, and then stepped out of the shot put circle and handed the shot put to the official.
The minor student athletes’ individual protests lasted approximately 10 seconds each and did not disrupt the track meet in any way.
The minor student athletes’ protest did not affect any other competitors.
Pepper-Jackson won the event by three feet.
Bedell said, “If I’m going to make a mistake,” he’d rather err on the side of free speech.
He also made it clear the case is not about males playing in female sports. It’s only about free speech.
Two of the four girls testified in front of Bedell. They said they did not know the “scratch rule,” which bars students from competing if they voluntarily scratch themselves from an event.
Track coach Dawn Riestenberg and Principal Lori Scott claimed athletes are told about the “scratch rule,” which has existed for four years. They also said they apply it across the board, including to two members at the same meet who missed their events.
However, no one has ever put the scratch rule in writing. No athletes ever receive a form or document with it in writing. It’s not in the school or athletic handbook. It is known as an “unwritten rule.”
(Man, the main thing I’ve learned in law school is PUT EVERYTHING IN WRITING!)
The plaintiffs argued an injunction would be “moot” because the school only has two more track meets. They also added that Pepper-Jackson is not competing at the May 4 meet.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Technically they refused to compete in a Field event, not “Track”. “Track and Field” is ok, but not just “Track.”
/pedant
It would like to see an injunction prohibiting dicks from competing in women’s sports.
I think I understand this post, but the use of “plaintiffs” and “defendants” seem reversed. The post sounds as if the coach and school sued the students, but that makes no sense.
But thanks for mentioning the coach’s and principal’s names (Track coach Dawn Riestenberg and Principal Lori Scott). They should be widely shamed.
Yup. Reversed.
https://www.wdtv.com/2024/05/02/students-who-protested-playing-against-transgender-athlete-can-continue-compete-rules-judge/
Also this:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2989889/justice-for-the-pepper-jackson-five/
Reviewing the protest activity, it seems they did not scratch. Rather, they intentionally fouled.
“They each stepped into the shot put circle, raised the shot put to their chins, and then stepped out of the shot put circle and handed the shot put to the official.”
When the athlete steps out of the circle improperly, it is a foul. (USA track and field rule 187.5 (proper exit defined) and 187.1(e) (improper exit is a foul) High school rules may vary.)
Intentional foul is common. If an athete has marks from previous throws, and the latest throw appears to be way short, an athlete might intentionally foul just to save everybody from a pointless measurement.
Perhaps they should have barricaded themselves in the school library with makeshift weapons while defaced tens of thousands of dollars in school property AND THEN asked to be granted a pass on all exams for the rest of the year.
The violence of protest is a sliding scale depending on how much the protestors despise America.
That only works if you want to kill Jews. Otherwise: INSURRECTION!!
So drop the shotput on the ground directly in front of the thrower ring. It will be clear to anyone that you are not trying but it will be a valid throw.
No, the defendants were arguing that. I think this is a typo.
Says a lot when the kids are more adult than the f88king adults!!
All generations rebel against the generation of their parents.
Probably the biggest silver lining to our screwed-up society.
Speaking of unwritten rules, what about the one that says that woke officials are to be bent over and flogged?
I thought it was seized and tarred and feathered. But, either way works for me.
The girls who dropped the shot outside of the circle actually did compete. They accomplished a successful, albeit poor, throw. Next time, they should use the proper form and throw it two feet. “I competed, I didn’t scratch. I just did not try very hard in a kangaroo-court competition.”
What they did was better.
They deprived him of competing against real girls.
Let the contrived consequences surface at their own peril as the entire rat house needs to burn.
There is nothing wrong with a coach deciding an athletic contest is not the place for athletes to exercise free speech. To do so, however, means the coach needs to clearly and unambiguously communicate and enforce that rule in a manner that is not based on the content of the message.
For example, none of us would be excited of if these girls were protesting in favor of Gaza residents.
All that said, the optics of the situation suggests that this is not content neutral. Unwritten rules seldom get deference. Girls unaware of the scratch rule support that (but may be self-serving).
None of the girls “scratched”. To scratch is to withdraw from an event. The girls all participated in the event. They just each registered throws of 0. They had the exact same results as if they had fouled on their throws. Is everyone who fouls out barred from all future competitions? LOL.
This BS “scratch” rule is ridiculous and does NOT apply in this case. Those who tried to push that are lying sacks of s**t. The court’s statement, “Even though there was no malice found on either part of the defendants,” is equally ridiculous. There is no question that there was nothing but malice on the part of the defendants (the school/athletic board) … well, there was malice and there was perversion in pushing deranged sexual practices on children.
Here is the thing about “rules”, unwritten means doesn’t exist. Just saying you “tell everyone” doesn’t mean a darned thing unless you have acknowledgement in some form.
I also question the Judge saying he found “No Malice”? You mean from the coach that there are pictures of hanging with Trans activists?
Well, Trump welcomed Trans Women into his Miss Universe Pageant, He thought Trans were so beautiful, even though they were biological males with swinging dicks and balls, that they should be able to win his Miss Universe Beauty Pegarant. Go figure. Then he hosted an orgy for gay marriage at his resort in Florida. Not that there is anything wrong with that, of course.
Apparently you love you some tranny. You talk about it almost every day.
Drinking the TDS juice again, Junior?
Start their own league. Leave the school leagues to the panzees.
Pepper should reach down in his shorts and scratch his sac.
There. Everyone gets to participate in the scratch rule.
Time to start filing lawsuits.