Dear Editor,
May I address your handling of an alleged wrong? Can your newspaper please try for at least an appearance of impartiality?
The headline “Cheerleader booted for working at Hooters cries foul” (Monday, Feb. 6, Pg.1) is only ONE side of the story.
The headline should more properly have read “Cheerleader claims she was booted for working at Hooters, cries foul,” which is what you actually know for sure.
There are TWO sides to this story. The athletic director has said there are “several issues [about] Kim’s dismissal.” You could just as logically have called the story “Cheerleader booted for several issues.”
Unfortunately, the university is prohibited by law from discussing any issues, grades or disciplinary actions, which enables Ms. Sams to trumpet her story to the media without fear of having additional details (whatever they may be) of her situation publicized.
Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency inherent in her claim that “she’s not looking for publicity … just wants to know what the standard is.” Does she expect us to believe she went to the press because she was not looking for publicity?
We have no way of knowing whether or not Ms. Sams has actually followed any appeals process with the university, which could provide answers – just not on Jay Leno’s show, or with her picture on Channel 11 news and in the papers.
If the university has behaved improperly, then of course we all (including the AD and the cheerleader coach, I’m sure) want to prevent injustice. I’m just saying we don’t know yet whether an injustice actually has occurred. The accusation is all we have.
Anne Koehler
English Department

Author