http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...s-equity_x.htm

IANAL*, but it seems to me that this sounds more like a whistleblower case than a gender equity case.

(And here I thought maybe our season lawsuit was accepted by the supreme court.) ;)

<font size="-2" face="Tahoma">
* I am not a lawyer
</font>

Whatever.

I considered it a public service to post a link that does not incite the Ron Artest fans to idiocy.

Dan_Ref

I wasn't criticizing you or the link you posted by any stretch. Perhaps I should elaborate on my impressions after reading that article.

I feel that while the coach was bringing up what he thought was Title IX issues, his lawsuit seems to be more about being fired for being a whistleblower.

I am also curious what, if anything, was done about the original complaint: girls practicing in conditions that the coach felt were below those the boys practiced in. (Maybe that will be the subject of the next lawsuit).

My original parenthetical comment concerns the lawsuit in Michigan to switch seasons around, especially girls basketball and volleyball. The MHSAA's most recent appeal was rejected and they are planning to appeal to the Supreme Court. So I thought that just _maybe_ the court had decided to hear the case already. I'm anxious to see what happens with this suit since it will impact what I do next fall.

A coach points out that his players are being illegally sent to the side gym, and is fired, and Scalia's biggest concern is that "lousy coaches" might hide behind Title IX? It doesn't happen very often, but for once, I'm speechless.

rainmaker,
I have actually followed this year's Supreme Court docket, which also includes medicinal marajuana (oral argument heard Monday morning).
This case is not about the equity of the practice environment for boys' and girls' teams. It is about whether or not the coach was wrongfully terminated.
This case properly belongs there, not under Title IX.
I was frankly stunned that the high court even agreed to hear it. The case is purely about whether the coach has standing to sue for damages under Title IX. I believe that he doesn't.
I even wrote a letter to my state's attorney general, who I just learned may well be leaving office as he was nominated for federal district judge, about this case.

I was most happy to see this final sentence in the article:

"The National School Boards Association and nine states — Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia — are backing Birmingham."



[Edited by Nevadaref on Dec 1st, 2004 at 05:10 AM]

No need to explain yourself. I knew what you meant, I agree with you and I took no offense.

In NV: volleyball in the fall, basketball in the winter.
I would like to know if this case goes anywhere. I will search for it.
We play s soccer in the fall up north, but the s in the south play in the winter, which makes it impossible to have a state championship for the s. :D
Our boys seasons are fall for both north and south, so they do hold a 4A boys state tourney. The s are starting to grumble that they don't have one too. I think rightly so.

Sorry, rainmaker. Had to do it once! :)

In regards to the MHSAA (MIchigan) Gender Equity lawsuit you can learn about the original issue, commentaries, explanations, discussions, and current status at the state association website. Here is the link for the Lawsuit page and a sample of what you'll find there:

• Main Page http://www.mhsaa.com/news/gesuit.html
• Duke University Law School Opinion http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?53+Duke+L.+J.+223
• What's At Stake? http://www.mhsaa.com/news/gestake.html
• What do the Girls Think? http://www.wmich.edu/wmu/news/2001/0103/0001-227.html
• What the Judge Thinks http://www.mhsaa.com/news/02ruling.html

There are some compelling arguments favoring the MHSAA position that seem to be ignored by the courts. I would encourage you to read ALL of the information presented at this weblink prior to commenting. It is quite an interesting situation that will impact the entire country (relating to high school athletics).

I think it would be interesting to see if one of the girls in Birmingham who does have standing got someone to file a suit.

The interesting thing about this case is that it is a white male who is trying to get the gender equity issue in the area looked at.

I think the Michigan case is interesting, I would be curious what the Circuit court say...

Personally putting girls basketball in a non traditional season seems to relegate it to second class.

The Michigan arguments sound an awfully like the "separate but equal" arguments that eventually fell on deaf ears...

Nevada -- I'm not a lowyer, and I don't play one on TV. But I do understand the concept of standing, and the issue of equity and so on. My thoughts are that the damage to the coach is a direct result of the infraction of Title IX and the school district's unwillingness to face the Title IX issue. Therefore, the firing is indeed a Title IX offense. The "lousy coach" theory is completely bogus. We know for a fact that in the area of race as an example, a plaintiff has to prove his or her case, and all the school district needs to do is show incompetence.

Still I agree with whoever said a player or parent should sue regarding the equity issue. That would definitely be interesting.

That's the problem with message board, you never know how to read the tone of one's posts.

And we have a nice discussion going now :)

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.

If a coach points out that he or she is being relegated to second class facilities, common sense justice (which, unfortunately, fails to exist in most cases these days) from my athletic director's office would dictate the following: Whoever draws the higher attendance and higher concession sales during the season gets first crack at the bigger gym for practice.

Lah me, what a way to balance facility use amongst otherwise equal students.

The fact that this is clearly illegal wouldn't matter to you?

That doesn't wash at the high school level and it certainly isn't justice. Female athletes deserve the same amenities as male athletes. This isn't Taliban controlled Afghanistan is it?

One of the main reasons I also officiate girls basketball is that I think they deserve the same quality officials as boys basketball. I strive to make just as many awful calls in girls games as I do in the boys games. :D

Z

I would like to know exactly why this coach was fired. If he was fired just because he was complaining and raising a ruckus, I think that would just fall under wrongful termination and I don't see how Title IX comes into play there. Has the school even been found guilty of a Title IX violation yet? A Title IX violation didn't cause his firing, he was fired for complaining about the facilities.

Now, if he was fired because he wasn't doing a good job as a coach, then I could see how suing under Title IX could work if he argued that being forced to coach in inadequate facilites, as compared to the boys, affected his success as a coach.

Now, I do think that the school should be punished for what appears to be a clear Title IX violation, but I just don't see how the coach can get compensation from that.

gsf23, you stated that if the coach was fired because he was complaining about illegal treatment of the girls, you would think that it would "just fall under wrongful conviction." In most states, employment is "at will," which means that a person can be fired for any reason, or no reason, as long as it is not an unlawful reason. I assume that the coach did not work in a state with a whistleblower statute and, if that is true, the only potential claim he could make is under Title IX for retaliation. As I understand it, that is what the litigation is all about: Does Title IX provide complainers from retaliation? I hope that helps.

I'm sorry, Bush-O, but I don't find this amusing, even with a smiley at the end. I hope there are lots of others out there who feel as I do, but just won't speak up. Suppose, just for a moment, that the girls team was nationally ranked, went on a travelling tour over Christmas break every year, and won the state tournament 10 of the last 13 years (we have such a team here in the Portland area). Imagine that the girls' team really did get the good gym all the time. Remember, we're not talking about a club here, this is a public high school. Imagine you are the father of a boy on the team, who has to practice in a gym with a warped floor, and bent rims, day after day, week after week, month after month.

Now pretend that you go to the AD and complain, and say you pay your taxes too, and your child deserves to have the good gym at least a day or two a week. So here's the AD listening patiently, notimg some things on paper, and then he says, "Okay, tell you what, we'll let your kids have the gym all the days that don't end in the letter Y. How's that sound?" And then he smiles in a funny way and says, "Just kidding! Ha, ha, that's a good one isn't it? Days that end in Y, get it?" I hope you would go to the principal and complain about this jerk.

There are some things that just don't bear much joking.

Juulie - apparently getting the "good gym" hasn't done them any good this year, since they're not even ranked in our state.

That's too bad, since their performance brings a lot of pride to the entire area - especially since, as you stated, they've accomplished this at a public school.

I understand that part, I guess I just don't see how the connection can be made from Title IX to the firing of the coach.

Like I had said, the only way I could see a connection would be if he was fired for being an inadequate coach, the he could claim the unequel facilities were a factor in that.

But, I guess that is why we have judges.

I agree, rainmaker, that Bushref's "joke" wasn't amusing. I hope we never get to the point where too much of life is "off limits" for humor, so I feel conflicted about coming down on someone for attempting it, even unsuccessfully. The problem is, as you have intimated, that the jokes about girl's/women's sports being less "worthy" contribute to the second class status that often confronts female athletics. It may be true that the boys teams generate more gate and concessions receipts, but the role of an educational entity is to educate. Girls and boys teams deserve equal treatment because girls and boys each deserve the opportunity to be the best that they can be.

This is very well stated, and I think you make a very good point about too much of life been off limits for humor. I think what's off limits isn't the thought itself, but who said it and about whom and to whom. If he had said, "Give the girls all the days that end in Y and the boys the other 25 letters" it would have been funny, because everyone would know he was just being silly and that there was no intent behind it. The way he said it feels like someone who's trying to make an offensive attitude acceptable by couching it in flippant word play.

It may be that BushRef himself doesn't feel this way at all. In that case I think he needs to acknowledge that this can be an emotional subject, and he'd be better off to keep the humor to himself.

Apology I was hoping for? I learned a long time ago that people who "find humor in everything" have the sensitivity of sandpaper, and usually "can't see what all the fuss is about." I wasn't expecting an apology, or even asking for one. It's too bad, though, that you think this is a good way to go through life. Being aware and concerned about the feelings and dignity of others is a good feeling, and makes for some deep and abiding pleasure that cheap humor can never bring. You're missing a great game, ref!

25 years of marriage, 4 living kids, 6 dead kids, 1 grandkid, two parents, three siblings, two step-parents, two parents-in-law, 8 other in-laws living, 25 step-relatives, 1 church elders committee, 1 part time job administrating a non-profit, 4-6 basketball games a week, 7 chronic illnesses to manage (my own plus others'), two cars, a house, a mortgage, college and private school bills, one snake, one dog, one cat, and a very strange next-door neighbor.

So, what am I missing here?

Partridge in a pear tree? ;)

Doggone it, you're right. Do you know anyone who sells them?

No, but I hear JR's got a video I would pay $$$ to see.

No, but I hear JR's got a video I would pay $$$ to see. [/B][/QUOTE]Got a snake in it too. :D

You got a snake? WOW! What kind? Male or female? What's his/her name? Do you take it for a walk?

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 <b>"him"</b> type of teacher too.

Ah, memories.....

Is that a Storeria occipitomaculata in your pocket or are you glad to see me?

She's a ball python. Up to about 6 feet by now. And about three or four mice a week. Not even remotely friendly any more. Pretty much stays in her tank. Except when she doesn't!

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

I at least APPEAR to handle it well. I won't tell you what goes on behind the calm, mature facade!

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

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

Shorter Season
 

I'm still confused about the shorter season claim. The MHSAA allows a maximum of 20 regular-season games for both boys and girls.

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.

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 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]

It matters to me.

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.

Well, there is plenty of doubt (at least in MI) and, YES it can be quite a complex thing to understand.

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.

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.

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!

The long, dark winter getting to you already, BushRef?? Maybe you should think about a trip to Hawaii or something - get that sunlight your body is craving...that way you won't be so grumpy...anybody that can joke about their sister's death shortly after the accident goes WAY, WAY beyond insensitive...

The unfortnate part of the Michigan case is that the system worked well for so long, and then two parents got upset because their girls didn't get Division 1 scholarships so they claim title nine. Personally, I think it is better for the girl's to play in the fall, because then they do get a fair shake at the stick because the college coaches are not in thier season yet. I am anxious to see how this unfolds.

Isn't part of the problem that the girls play before the ncaa coaches are allowed to visit high schools?

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 girls’ 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]

I think most of us on this forum are better officials than attorneys. Title IX has become one of those sacrosanct issues to which nobody will ever agree. I, for one, believe that the boys and girls should play the same season, and I believe that they should get equal time, but I also believe that no one should complain about possible Title IX violations simply because the varsity girls have to play before the varsity boys. That was never the intention of the law. And yes, I know some high schools play their girls in the "prime time" spot because they are more successful and they draw better attendance, and I fully support that as well. Just wanted to clarify that since some posters seemed to take a sensitive position to my earlier remarks.

I agree that doing "the right thing" for girls and boys in high school is what matters most. I think that those in Michigan who see that "the sky is falling" in what the courts are doing are overreacting. If Michigan high school students play sports during the same seasons that students in most other states play, we'll survive. (Yes, I live in MI.) On the other hand, those who see what the courts are doing as "righting injustices" are also, in my opinion, overreacting. Most people who I know love and support their daughters/granddaughters/nieces/etc., want what is best for them ... and also happen to want the seasons to stay as they are. That is, some people think that the current arrangement is best for the girls in our state.

I have followed the case as it has gone through the courts and I ... gasp ... see that there are arguments on both sides. But where the answer is not "clear," and where there is no compelling injustice to overturn, I guess I would like to see the people be able to decide for themselves. (For what it is worth, I don't see this as comparable to the Brown v. Board of Education case at all. Brown overturned a popular "separate but equal" doctrine, but that "popularity" was largely the creation of the majority at the expense of the minority. In the sports season lawsuit, most female high school athletes, most parents, and most school administrators want to see things stay the same. It's not that the boys are trying to keep the girls in different seasons against their will.)

I, too, believe in and am comitted to fairness, justice and equity. I fully support the United States Constitution (although I, thankfully, have never been shot at). I hope that all of us, no matter which side we prefer, will at least acknowledge the other sides' positions and viewpoints and, no matter how the court case comes out, continue our best efforts to give our girls and boys values and experiences that will help them lead fulfilling lives.

I'll stand by comments as they are my opinion.

Let me also say that it was not my intent to belittle anyone's opinion to the contrary so I apologize wholeheartedly if anyone feels that way...sometimes my words do not convey what it is that I am trying to say.

That said, I won't get into dissecting further any of the "facts" since that would be purely speculative.

The courts will decide regardless of what I think.

Thanks for your insightful comments Kelvin :)

Kelvin, the only true harm inflicted upon the girls in Michigan was the fact that their seasons were scheduled around the boys, which perhaps made some girls feel like second-class citizens and, for outdoor sports, subjected them to bad weather.

The MHSAA's trial attorneys did not present sufficient or compelling proofs, even though such proofs exist. There are tremendous advantages to having boys and girls play the same sports in different seasons: the best coaches, officials and facilities are available to both boys and girls. For talented basketball players, the fall season gave them an advantage because they had the undivided attention of college recruiters, since no one else was playing.

The MHSAA, though, gave the girls the "lesser" season in every sport, which was wrong. In the case of outdoor sports where weather is a factor, particularly in northern Michigan (eh, Mick), the spring season is short, cold and miserably wet.

As an official, I enjoyed working a full schedule of girls basketball in the fall, followed by a full schedule of boys basketball in the winter. Now I won't be able to work as many games. No big deal.

For the high school boys and girls, though, many will have worse coaches, worse officials, and worse practice times.

I could be wrong, but I think there is an exception for Michigan.

One of the girls where I do HS Girls BB Stats had D1 & D2 coaches at our games recruiting her until she made her verbal commitment, so there must be some sort of provision for MI.

The bottom line is that the girls and parents who filed suit wanted the same opportunites and privileges that boys had.

Kelvin allow me to throw this out now. Are the parents in MI going to file a lawsuit because now the best officials are working the boys games and not the girls. I live in IN and this is an on going issue in Indiana. Why don't we see the same caliber of officiating in girls that we do in the boys. I feel Michigan did a great job of taking care of that by the fall/winter deal. If we really want to get technical about Title 9 that is the next lawsuit. My girl dosen't get the same caliber of officiating as the boys. Think about it. We can throw this around all day and find many faults in the system of all state associations. All this lawsuit did was creat a mockery of HS basketball and the courts have tied the hands of HS associations. What is next to go to court?

Why is it making a mockery of basketball to insist on girls having the same opportunities and privileges as boys? What makes a mockery of sport in general is pretending to give girls equality, but really not making things equal. Why shouldn't girls get the same caliber of officiating as boys? If they don't get it, why shouldn't they sue? That's what Title IX is for! to give legal footing for girls to insist on treatment equal to boys. Why is that a problem?

Mockery? I think that's a little strong. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that you don't personally like girls. That's your choice, of course, but not the best possible basis for an athletics program at a public high school.

Hey, there are plenty of men who just don't like girls. No biggie. I understand it's even possible for these types of folks to get married in some states these days.

Whatever floats your boat. :shrug:

Then I really don't see the problem I guess.

WEll, that wasn't exactly what I meant. I meant that Bush "doesn't like girls' sports". I meant that just because he doesn't like them doesn't make them a mockery. I meant that girls have the right to equal treatment, and whether Bush likes it or not doesn't matter. Schools must treat girls' teams with the same privileges and opportunities. That's the law.

Why should someone in Washington (the state or the D.C.) have any say when girls basketball is played in Michigan? This was never the intent of Title IX. In fact, these two cases illustrate why the federal government should not have gotten involved. One state is being sued because both sports share the same season, the other because they don't.

The purpose of high school sports is to encourage good health and school spirit through sportsmanship and competition, not to compete for athletic scholarships. The court should look at whether or not athletes have equal opportunity to physical fitness and competition, and not concern itself with extrinsic considerations.

Yes, the girls should be entitled to the same high caliber officiating as the boys. The fact is that there are not enough officials to accomodate "same season" schedules. In reality, the highest caliber officials will be scheduled for the boys and the girls will get the less experienced officials - if they can even get full crews to work their games. So in essecence the girls are getting short changed once again.

Great point here Jim, that is what many MI parents are saying. The real focus seems to have been lost here. The issue of scholarships is one of the main arguements for change when it is not even one of the goals in ANY mission statement for a single HS association in ANY state.

If athletes are striving for scholarship opportunities, there are other ways to get noticed besides activities sponsored by their high school. (i.e. AAU participation or camp attendence).

Statisically, it has been shown that participation levels for girls in MI (via survey of the athletes) will diminish due to conflicts in schedules of the sports that girls choose to play. Many girls play multiple sports under the current configuration. The girls in MI that are worthy of scholarship opportunities still get recruited, that is a fact!

This is NOT about gender equity. Here in MI the system works fine, isn't broken, and doesn't need to be fixed. I would love to see this issue turn into a ballot proposal where the citizens could vote as to their wishes for their own community (state) and get the Fed out of it.

Perhaps the focus should be placed upon the NCAA and their rules for recruiting would that not eliminate the problem for the most part?

Forget Title IX it got left behind in the ashes.

It became an equal protection case. The court case had to be filed in federal District Court since it was originally files as a TitleIX and 14th Amendment Case. The federal Courts had to get involved once there was a suit filed.


Scholarships was only one issue.
Remember this was more than just Basketball, it dealt with soccer, golf, and swimming seasons and which ones were advantagoeus and which ones were not

Jimgolf stated "The court should look at whether or not athletes have equal opportunity to physical fitness and competition" EXACTLY!

The Boys had superior opportunities.

Poor conditions at golf courses, poor soccer field conditions, more injuries, cant play the same out of state games,(or cant play out of state period), BB season is three weeks shorter, less practice time, etc So they did not in fact have equal opportunity for competition!

Robmoz stated "If athletes are striving for scholarship opportunities, there are other ways to get noticed besides activities sponsored by their high school. (i.e. AAU participation or camp attendence)." EXACTLY!!!

but the boys could and girls could not given the way seasons conflicted with many of these opportunities since these opportunies happen in the off seasons...

I guess I do not understand how switiching seasons prevents girls from multiple participation. Girls do it now where I live and have done it for some 25 Years (long with 43 other states)

Why not require the other 49 states to match Michigan's season? Because it would be stupid. As is the court's entire involvement. The Federal government has no authority to regulate state sports. The 14th Amendment was never intended for this purpose. This is junk law being applied to it's absurdity. Judges should go back to letting legislatures pass laws.

More than 82 percent of Michigan schools which responded to the last survey indicated that they opposed this realignment of seasons. Associations of coaches for basketball, tennis, swimming and diving, golf and soccer are opposed. Associations of volleyball officials are opposed.

For example, a coach of boys and girls swimming at one Michigan high school volunteered that if the girls and boys seasons had been conducted at the same time of year, he would have eliminated 600 boys and girls from his programs over the last ten years because of facility limitations.

The group (Communities for Equity, the litigants) will tell you that forcing girls to play volleyball in the winter and basketball in the fall is costing them precious college scholarships.

Hogwash! First of all, it is not the role of the MHSAA to make sure students have the opportunity to receive athletic scholarships. Less than 1 percent of our athletes are going to receive athletic scholarships anyway, so changing the athletic calendar for those few students is sheer lunacy. But pretend for a moment that athletic scholarships are priority No. 1 for the MHSAA. As it turns out, it is doing quite well in that area, thank you.

Last year, the state produced the fifth-highest number of Division I volleyball scholarship athletes in the country and was No. 6 in the nation in women's basketball scholarship winners. This is why: Michigan's high school sporting schedule provides a tremendous advantage to basketball and volleyball players here.

Ask yourself: When is the easiest time for a college coach to evaluate prospects? When that coach isn't coaching his/her college team. College coaches can come here to evaluate players and not have to worry about coaching their team or neglecting their home state in recruiting.

You might say that since volleyball is played in the fall in other states, college coaches are finished recruiting by the time we even begin playing volleyball here. That is not true because college recruiting has become so sophisticated, most college coaches know to whom they are going to offer scholarships before the athlete's senior season even begins. Most coaches spend the school season concentrating on evaluating juniors, not seniors.

Many of the litigants are parents of volleyball players who want the volleyball season moved from the winter season to the fall season, in hopes of increasing their daughters' exposure to college coaches. What such litigation ignores, however, is that even if volleyball players would benefit from such a switch, an equal number of other athletes would suffer. The rearrangement in South Dakota, for instance, shifts girls' basketball to the winter, causing the state's female basketball players to receive less exposure to college recruiters. Worse yet, many girls are forced to choose between two sports that did not conflict in the previous system. Thus, regardless of whether the sports seasons are rearranged or the current schedule remains in place, it is unavoidable that some girls will feel as though they are denied the opportunities and exposure that other girls receive.

In more than half of the states in which both girls' and boys' basketball are scheduled for the same season, freshman or junior varsity squads have been eliminated! This was done in order "to accommodate [increased] demands on facilities, coaches and officials. With the current scheduling, Michigan averages 30 girls' basketball players per school, far more than in other states. For example, Missouri and Iowa average 24 players, Ohio averages 23 players, Florida averages 21 players, Alabama and Oklahoma average 15 players, and Tennessee averages 14 players per school. Judge Enslen used Kentucky to illustrate that a state can schedule boys' and girls' basketball during the same season. However, Kentucky has only 5,950 girls playing basketball, well surpassed by the 21,000 girls playing basketball in Michigan.

Equal opportunity? You want equal opportunity?

If the lawsuit filed against the MHSAA seeking to switch when some sports are played does produce that result, try this for some equal opportunity:
[list][*]Boys and girls will both have a greater chance of being cut from a team. [*]Those who make the team will not have as much time to practice their skills. [*]They will have a chance to play under coaches of lesser quality than they do now. [*]They will get to have their games worked by inferior officials. [*]They can even play in front of smaller crowds and draw less attention from the media. [*]All in the name of what has sadly become the holy grail of high school sports the college scholarship.

Sounds like a winner, doesn't it? NOT!

Robmoz:

That last post is from a Mick McCabe article, isn't it? (I remember when it first came out, and I love how outspoken he is).

AAU?? Camps??

The last thing I want between my kid & a ncaa scholarship is an AAU coach or someone running a big time summer camp.

From what I see the ncaa is going out of their way to reduce & eliminate the power of AAU coaches & summer camps.

Yes, I incorporate excerpts from various articles including Mike's. I made it a point to get information from news organizations around the state.

Maybe so Dan, but I see college coaches at camp every year and the AAU program (at least in S.E. MI) is so strong that many coaches cannot help but to come see the talent. This is not just true for basketball but you should see how nuts it is for volleyball!

I still don't understand the facilities argument. Isn't volleyball an indoor sport that also requires a gym? How is it not a problem with VB and Basketball but a problem for basketball and basketball? Where I was at, we only had one gym so it didn't matter how the seasons were aligned, there would be a facility problem either way.

The officiating seems to be a state problem. The way I have seen in worked, the boys and girls play double-headers. One crew of officials work BOTH jv games and then antother crew works BOTH varsity games. In that case there is no argument about quality because it is the same refs for both.

That is not the case in my state. Boy's play on one night, girls play on another night. Officials here do not want to work both side or are not capable of working both sides. There are a lot of officials that would not want to work both. And many places do not want their officials to work two games a night. Whether that is a JV/Sophomore game first and a varsity game second or a varsity doubleheader. I just would not go over well here. And you cannot make officials do what they have no desire to do.

Peace

You mean two games a night if one of them is a varsity game, right Rut? Because us lower-level guys do two or three games at a time all the time. :)

You work them because you have to. I had to. All varsity officials had to at some point. I can tell you there is a big different in doing two freshman games than doing a Girl/Boy doubleheader.

I work a lot of games during the summer at one time. Four games are not out of the question during one setting. But we do not switch on every foul. We do not run to the reporting area if report the fouls formally at all. And those games are not in the paper or on the radio or affect playoff consideration. There is quite a difference. ;)

Peace

Did we all forget this as well as the parents, it was not the MHSAA who set these standards of when the sports were played it was the schools. So if anyone is going to go to court and be suied it should be the schools and coaches associations. The MHSAA left it up to its memeber insitutions and they( THE SCHOOLS)said play Girl's Basketball in the Fall and Volleyball in the winter/spring. The only reason the MHSAA is involved is because they are the state association. People need to research things before they get sue happy.

MHSAA was the correct defendant. They were ruled a state actor because of their involvement. This was based on the Supreme Courts decision on how Tennesse's Activities Association worked.

If they were not the correct defendant the case would have been tossed.

Part of the MHSAA's position is that Michigan Law prohibits school districts from ceding their power (regarding athletic matters) to the MHSAA. Is anyone aware of the exact statute in question?

Michigan Supreme Court changed it.
 

* The Michigan Supreme Court rejected the argument that the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving the Tennessee High School Athletic Association which made the Tennessee organization a state actor automatically makes the MHSAA a state actor; and it rejected the argument that a state actor must be automatically subject to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act.

http://www.mhsaa.com/news/05michsupreme.htm

Gym Space
 

Last I checked you could fit 2 volleyball courts on one basketball court thereby allowing two team to practice at the same time. Whereas basketball teams used the basketball court 1 at a time. Unless your basketball courts are smaller.

Re: Gym Space
 

Still don't see the problem. The last school I coached at had only one gym, one court, six baskets. We just had to split it up, each team got half a court. It was the only thing we could do. Because of the harsh winters here and the number of rural students, the school didn't want up to practice late at night or early in the morning.

The way we worked it out was the boy's team would watch film for the first half hour-45 minutes of practice, that way the girls would have full court at the beginning of practice, then we would have 45 minutes at the end when the girls went to watch film.

Re: Re: Gym Space
 

With that limited amount of practice and that excess amount of film, would you say your team had successful records?
mick