Quote:
Originally posted by Robmoz
Well, its worked in MI for over 50 years. Two parents, (lawyers I might add) file a suit when their DD did not get a scholarship at her 1st choice school. The EPC of the Constitution was violated here? Please. This was not a class action procedure, this was not about "fixing" a broken system, it wasn't even about gender equity. Now it has taken on the spin of the Fed telling the State what to do under the guise of Title IX and the EPC, viewed as being quite over-judicious by most MI citizens.
It may be the proper enforcement of a Fed law but it sure smells like a fishin expedition to let the courts control what was a rather benign issue that did not need to progress to the level some want to push.
Kelvin, you are quite eloquent with your responses and they "sound" intelligent but your legal training seems to have de-colored your eyeglasses with a haze that forces you to see things in black and white, selectively. This is not about the law although shamefully it has evolved to that.
I love my country but I fear my government!
|
I am going to disagree with you wholeheartedly. first off I am not flaming liberal or a bleeding heart liberal, but I do believe in the US Constitution, fairness, and equity. Needless to say I have been shot at defending the Constitution and the legal principles that mark its very existence.
You need to get your facts straight.
**Its worked in MI for over 50 years? Girls basketball was not introduced in MI high school sports until the 1970's. so it has not worked for 50 years.
(I am sure that was an argument in Brown v board of Education too. Separate but equal has worked for 100 plus years so why change it now. I am sure all those people in the deep south thought it was over-judicious when the desegregation orders were signed. )What matters most is not the public opinion but was it THE RIGHT THING TO DO!
**This was a certified class action suit.
**One parent (Madsen) who filed suit on behalf of her daughters is a teacher in Grand Rapids. Dont know what the other one is (Roberts-Eveland). Dont know what their spouses may be, BUT They both had daughters in high school playing both sports and members of the affected class.
**It was an Equal Protection issue. MHSAA was found to be a state actor and the girls were not getting equal protection UNDER THE LAW. The 6th Circuit clearly stated that "the scheduling of girlsÂ’ sports seasons in Michigan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment".
To have disparate treatment of boys and girls there must support a legitimate government obkective and that the discrimination employed must be related to those goals. Clearly MI cannot show that this is a legitimate government objective to treat boys and girls differently
It was obviously about fixing a broken system that treated girls differently than boys. It was about gender equity and girls being treated differently.
**The States have been told what to do under the 14th Amendment since it was passed. That's how the Bill of Rights was extended to the states and extended to you the fundamental rights in a state contect.
**Have you ever read the findings of fact? The facts from the court decison were never challenged and have never been challenged. They must be substantially true or they would have been challenged more! There is more to this than just one season but even with that one season (basketball) The season was all about not being able to fit it in..
The bottom line is that the girs and parents who filed suit wanted the same opportunites and privileges that boys had.
This was an emotional issue that polaraized Michigan High school sports when it should not have. MI has known for over 14 years that there has been unequal treatment and did not take steps to mitigate it and unfortunately it took a federal judge to remedy it. People did not want or were not ready for this change and they don like it...
You wanted my opinion on the Duke article and then BELITTLE my opinion as hazed over, selective and only seeing things in black and white.
You imply that my opinions were not informed and only "sound" intelligent. You ask me to read- I did, only to have that discounted.
My opinion does not match your is one thing but to belittle and discount.
You asked everybody to be informed but it appears to me that a dialogue dealing with this issue was not what you wanted. I presented information that conflicted with yours and you did not like it due to the emotional nature of the case. So it appears to me you only wanted people to be informed on YOUR POSITION!
___
[Edited by Kelvin green on Dec 6th, 2004 at 03:04 PM]