[Kelvin green]

Originally posted by Robmoz

Circuit Court refused to hear the case on a full panel appeal and the MHSAA has taken it to the US Supreme Court.

I strongly encourage you to read the information posted at the MHSAA website (noted in above replies}. In fact, letting the non-traditional season to continue actually elevates the girls from second class by giving them their own season.

Granted, some people have strong opinions on this topic but many are misinformed about the facts, circumstances, logistics, and effects that exist regardeless of what direction the case concludes.

As an official, I urge you to please take the time to read up on this important issue so that you can be informed when others come to you for your opinion.

I will still reaffirm my statement that having girls play in the fall in a non-traditional season relegates them to second class. The 6th Circuit did hear the case and ruled!

I did not read the all MHSAA stuff but did read the actual opinion by the judge. It actually soldified my belief that is this case the girls were being short changed or at least did not get treated equally. The arguments about college recruiting did not affect me much but the fact that

-The girls season was shorter
-The girls play on Tuesday and Thursday (affecting homework) as opposed to Boys Tuesday and Friday-
-the Court found that girls were originally scheduled to play basketball in the fall to avoid inconveniencing the boys' basketball team, and that kind of historical stigma should be erased.
-The girls cannot play bordering out of state teams LIKE THE BOYS since the neighboring states play concurrent seasons. etc, etc, etc

(If the own season is so important ask the Boys to play in the fall and see what response they'd get not withstanding the fact that boys do play football and basketball.)

MHSAA's witness "But Ms. McGee also
acknowledged that it is true that if MHSAA moved the girls' basketball season to the winter, Michigan girls would
be placed on an "equal footing" with Michigan boys and girls in the rest of the country. " [quoted from decision... MS McGee was testifying on behalf of MHSAA about elevated status...]

I think it is ironic to note that although MHSAA says it is elevated status and separate identity the girls would be not be on equal footing with the rest of the country.

I also found the arguments about girls golf in the spring compelling, girls soccer in the spring compelling, I also found the the volleyball issues reasonably compelling.

If you did not know the Department of Justice (yes the conservative Bush Administration who wanted to look at Title IX) has filed amicus briefs for the Girls in this case all along and have never changed thier position. In fact they are filing amicus briefs for the guy in the other case in Birmingham.

Prior to the last round of litigation 44 states had concurrent seasons. South Dakota was sued and Lost, so was Montana, and Virgina, and North Dakota adopted change voluntarily. In this case 44 (now 48 states cant be wrong)

Michigan had the burden of proof and failed to meet it. It only provided anecdotal information. It would be difficult to provide anything different since most states are aligned the same way as the compliance plan.

In fact "The Department of Justice noted that “the proposed Compliance Plan would perpetuate sex discrimination by requiring more than three times as many girls as boys to play in disadvantageous seasons and by addressing only sports, with the exception of boys’ golf, offered by less than half of MHSAA’s member schools.”

In August of 2002, the district court rejected MHSAA’s proposed plan as not achieving equality. The court offered MHSAA three options:

(1) combine all sports seasons so both sexes’ teams play in the same season . . . and move girls’ volleyball to its advantageous season of fall; or (2) reverse girls’ basketball and volleyball; and in the Lower Peninsula, reverse two girls’ seasons with two boys’ seasons from among golf, tennis, swimming, and soccer; and in the Upper Peninsula, keep combined seasons in golf and swimming and reverse seasons in either tennis or soccer; or otherwise treat the Upper Peninsula the same as the Lower Peninsula; or (3) reverse girls’ basketball and volleyball; and in both peninsulas, combine seasons in two sports, and reverse seasons in one of the two remaining sports at issue.

MHSAA selected the second option in the amended Compliance Plan that it filed with the district court in October of 2002. The amended plan was approved by the court the following month.

MHSAA did not file an amended Notice of Appeal following the district court’s rejection of the initial Compliance Plan. We therefore conclude that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider MHSAA’s argument concerning the rejection." 2004 FED App. 0241P (6th Cir.)

The standard for review was for legal issues denovo but any findings of fact would be reviewed at the "clearly erroneous" standard.

It also appears that MHSAA did not even do their appeal correctly and lost on procedures as well

The 6th Circuit issued thier ruling and refused to hear it or recionsider enbanc. It looks like to me the 6th Circuit did not think the judge was out of line in making his decision nor were there any substantial constitutional issues to be raised. In fact it does not appear they thought it was in conflict with the OCR and previous rulings Given the consistency that has happened in SD, MT, ND, and VA and it does not appear there is a split in circuits, the SC would have to find a big strtch to hear it... in fact I doubt they will look at this based on the District Courts fact finding since most of his opinion was fact.

I just dont think there are many effects on logistics when most of the states including the states who are the most poor (many come to mind) and sparce (say where I live in Utah and Nevada, AZ, WY etc)still handle it the way the judge ruled.

Like I said before separate but equal doesnot cut it... I wonder what some of the arguments were when Rosa Parks tried sitting in the front of the bus.. The back seats are the ones that are more comfortable? The front seats are harder because no one sits there very often?

I agree with this judge, and I believe that his decision was rational and well-presented. I may be biased towards MHSAA but certainly not misinformed on the merits or procedures that were followed...

Just my thoughts