I dont think the article was that compelling. It may have made a few valid arguments about OCR rules and policies under Title IX, However the article was written in 2003. The 6th Circuit Ruling was issued in July 2004 and presumably addressed these issues. I have not seen all the briefs but did read a couple of amicus briefs by DOJ.
The difficulty with the article is that it addressed the college recruitng issue and I think it focused on it too much. It did not address issues like golf in fall for boys was moved do they would have better access to courses. So why would the girls fight for courses in the spring but not have the boys fight to get them them.
It does not take into account the finding that "In 1981, the Representative Council decided to schedule boys and girls soccer together in the fall, based on the survey of schools, as well as the financial advantage to schools in conducting the sport during the same season for boys and girls.
Even though there ws financial advantage in and schools wnated it... determined that, beginning with the 1982-83 school year, a Boys Soccer Tournament would be
scheduled in the fall and a Girls Soccer Tournament would be scheduled for the spring. Looks like Girls take second chair again...
The director of the MHSAA qutoed in decision "John Roberts, the MHSAAs current executive director, has written, Boys sports were in[MHSAA member] schools first and girls sports, which came later, were fitted around the pre-existingboys program. While this allowed for the best use of facilities, faculty and officials, it also led to an
imbalance of girls athletic opportunities across the three seasons of the school year. (Tr. Exh. 81 at
1 (John Roberts, Sports and Their Seasons, 1990-91 MHSAA Bulletin).)
Once again sounds like non equal footing to me and they were fit in and they are justifying iy with now anecdotal evidence that does not substantiate the claims.
Another flaw in the Duke artcile "scheduling of games also will be optimized. When boys' and girls' basketball teams play in separate seasons, both teams are able to schedule games in the more desired evening slot." However the court found this to be untrue. It appears that the desired playing slot is Friday night for Basketball (boys play Tuesday and Friday) the girls have to play on Tues and Thurs to avoid conflicts with football...
The court found "Playing against teams in neighboring states can also lessen travel burdens." which seems to comport with one of the arguments under the CFR analysis and Title IX
The Duke article contends that "if the sport-specific needs -- such as coaches, facilities, equipment, amount of games and practices -- are equivalent, one difference such as scheduling can be considered negligible and justified." in claiming separate seasons are legally permitted..."
However the court specifically held that "The boys high school basketball season is approximately three weeks longer than the girlsseason, giving boys a greater opportunity to practice and play." This argument the court laid out seems to erase that standard. The court obviously considered this more than negligble...Even if there is the possibility of an extra out of state game, or extra practices in those three weeks the courts findings would be sound.
The Duke article also quotes CFR "Under the current system, at all times, both girls' and boys' teams practice in the same quality of facilities, and both enjoy "[e]xclusiv[e] . . . use of facilities provided for practice and competitive events." BUt we know this is most likely not true because the girls volleyball teams are playing in the winter...
Michigan thought this was not a problem when they initially proposed both boys and Girls soccer in the fall, and other combined seasons... Prseumably there may be some competiton for some locker facilities or weight rooms etc would be impacted by the basketball/football/soccer in the fall...
The Duke article states" Additionally, with respect to publicity, there is no danger of a disparity in coverage in school papers, local papers, or attention given to one team over the other by the school. In addition, the MHSAA only contracts to televise an equal number of girls' and boys' sporting events. 135 Thus, teams in separate seasons do not have to compete for attention." However the court did find there was competition for publicity. Including the fact that girls soccer did not get the inschool publiciity because the tournament was played after the end of school...
So Overall I think the Duke article tries to adequately deal with the subject I believe some of the logic was flawed. The 6th Circuit obviously did not buy any of these arguments, and presumably neither has the courts in SD, ND, MT, and VA.
It is interesting to note that only Hawaii now (after MI complies with suit) is only state in union that the season is different. Apparently girls play in spring... My guess is that it wont be long before Hawaii looks at this or moves to it...
The last thing the ^th Circuit actually did not address the Title IX Claim. They upheld it on the grounds of 14th amendment (Equal Protection) so most of the Title IX arguments are moot anyway... The 6th circuit stated that the District Court used the correct standard as laid out in the VMI Case...And if you look solely at Equal protection and forget about Title IX the the girls in recruiting, playing ball in other times of year with other groups etc, etc etc dont give them equal protection and are treated disparately...
So now you know my thoughts on the Duke article
[Edited by Kelvin green on Dec 5th, 2004 at 03:00 AM]