|
Thu Dec 02, 2004, 02:52pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I kept some snakes for pets when I was a kid. Seriously. Just garter snakes, little copperbellies, like that. Useta catch them ourselves- easy to do in the spring. Took a couple to school with me once inside my shirt- around the 2nd grade. Teacher saw them and ran out of the room screaming. That would be a "him" type of teacher too. Ah, memories..... 
|
|
Thu Dec 02, 2004, 03:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg
|
|
Thu Dec 02, 2004, 06:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Fri Dec 03, 2004, 04:12pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Juulie,
Just wanted to register one more vote of support for you. You handled Bush-jerk's insensitivity a lot better than I would have. In fact, you're handling it a lot better than I actually AM handling it. But whatever. You do great credit to the cause of social justice. John
|
|
Fri Dec 03, 2004, 05:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Fri Dec 03, 2004, 06:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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
|
|
Fri Dec 03, 2004, 08:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kelvin,
Thanks for your input and detailed thoughts. I would be interested in your thoughts about the Duke Law School review of this case situation. Duke University Law School Opinion http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?53+Duke+L.+J.+223
__________________
"We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done." Chris Z. Detroit/SE Michigan 
|
|
Sat Dec 04, 2004, 08:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
Shorter Season
Quote:
If the claim is that the winter season has more calendar days, that's only because the Winter season encompasses a holiday break (for Christmas and New Years), and a mid-semester break during which no schools (or very few) play any games.
__________________
"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." – Dalai Lama The center of attention as the lead & trail. – me Games officiated: 525 Basketball · 76 Softball · 16 Baseball
|
|
Sun Dec 05, 2004, 02:20am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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 MHSAA’s 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 girls’season, 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]
|
|
Sun Dec 05, 2004, 01:23pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I don't enjoy working girls games as much as boys games -- I'll admit that right away. But I do work them and give them every bit of effort as the guys get from me. Separate but equal is 19th century law (Plessy v Ferguson) that was found unconstitutional in the 1950s (Brown v Board of Education). There is no doubt that playing girls' basketball in the fall relegates the girls to second-class status based solely on their gender. How the MHSAA can even think that this is a good idea and helps anyone is beyond me. If 48 states can play simultaneous seasons so that nobody feels disadvantaged, so can Michigan. It's members are public schools, so they are a quasi-public organization and should expect to have to follow Federal law.
|
|
Mon Dec 06, 2004, 11:42am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Suffice to say that MI girls will be forced to follow the rest of the nation and will do so without dwelling on the downside. The battle was lost but they still have their spirit.
__________________
"We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done." Chris Z. Detroit/SE Michigan
|
|
Mon Dec 06, 2004, 12:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would not say it " forced to follow the rest of the nation". I would say they ae required to follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution that the rst of the country follows. I would say they have to follow the law.
|
|
Mon Dec 06, 2004, 01:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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!
__________________
"We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done." Chris Z. Detroit/SE Michigan
|
|
Mon Dec 06, 2004, 01:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Mon Dec 06, 2004, 01:40pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
