School Not Allowing a Woman Official
 

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/487355.html

Kooks. Does this happen often? Or just in my home state?

My mother would have a ball telling that AD off.

Being a theology connoisseur, I quickly found that the school is run by the Society of St. Pius X. They beat to a different drum in many ways, away from the CC.

A woman is perfectly able to officiate a boy's sporting event. Just as long as she is qualified. But being female doesn't unqualify her.

I would never work a game at this school and neither should any licensed officials. Disgusting school and policies.

How ironic, the school is St Mary's.

Yeahbut she doesn't ref games there so it's OK.

I officiated at St. Mary's back when I was in college.

Wow.

Hopefully there's a reasonable resolution to this in the end...

She is more than qualified. I'd worked with her before and she is a charm. Great official and would love to work with her again.

funny, this St. Puis X Academy is the school I just posted about this mornng about adding them to my blacklist of schools I won't work at. Presently they are the only one.

Priest is the coach, principal, priests dad is the AD, not associated with any state associations. It's their way or the highway.

Oh and they pay $35 for a Varsity Boys contest and still use a 2 man crew


http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...t=41811&page=2

I fully expect either their policy will be changed/clarified to allow female officials or they will be removed from the KSHSAA's list of approved schools, leaving them unable to compete against any full-member KSHSAA schools.

If one of those two things isn't the outcome, I'll be very disappointed.

If, as several of the officials at this game did - refused to work, that would also go a long way to solving the problem! Pretty sad...........

Do they employ female teachers at this school? :confused:

Yep. Says in the article that women even teach some of the boys' classes. That's what makes this worse...it seems quite inconsistent.

Did you read the article?

Does that affect whether they employ female teachers? :confused:

Using a tennis term here but...

"Stupidity won in straight sets!!"

Only to the extent that your exact question is addressed in the article which you may want to read.

You are talking about a different school then the specific one in the article, right?

You said that the school you are talking about is in Illinois.

Just wanted to clarify for anyone that didn't pick up on that.

corrent I am talking about a St. Pius X Academy in IL. I think there are only a handful nationwide and all follow the same practices.

While I think this action is ridiculous, I'm not sure it makes the school "kooks". They certainly are different, but they are entitled to their stances - like them or not. Since they are not full memebers of the KSHSAA, is there really anything the KSHSAA can do to the school as a result of this?

The thing that really grabbed my attention from the article is the lady official's responses - what a class act! She seems like the type of person I would ref with - or walk off the court together with - any day of the week.

Yes, the KSHSAA can remove them from their list of approved schools. This would then prevent any full-member school from playing against St. Mary's Academy without some sort of fine/discipline.

Secondly, agree completely about the official - she's definitely handling this well and with a ton of class. I most likely wouldn't have as much.

If they recieve *any* public funding I think this action makes them outside of the law.

And yes they are kooks. Face it, we live in a world with kooks, religious and otherwise. These people are just more of the same.

I don't believe SMA receives any public funding, Dan. From what I know about the school, they'd be in violation of quite a few laws if that were the case.

OK, then they're just a bunch of kooks.

Good to know

:cool:

Year's ago when I was still officiating H.S. fut bol (soccer) the soccer officials association to which I belonged assigned games for State Line Christian H.S. which was located just across the state line from Toledo in "that state up north" (that is Michigan for all of you people who are not familiar with the greatest college football rivalary in the histor of the game). State Line H.S. is what we called an outlaw school because it did not belong to the MichiganHSAA, but they did play basketball and soccer using NFHS rules.

One year they played host to Lansing (Mich.) Christian H.S., which traveled about 140 miles to play the game and I was assigned as the R in a three-man crew to officiate the game. As we were meeting at the center of the field for the coin toss, the SLHS principal/athletic director walked into our meeting and informed us that the one co-captain for LCHS could not play because she was a girl and this was a boy's soccer game. We all stood there speechless (I know, me speechless) for a moment. And then I told him that he had no control over who LCHS put on the field of play and that we (the game officials) were going to let her play. He said that he would no allow his team to take the field against LCHS if she played. I asked him if that meant he was refusing to play the game. He said yes. I said fine and since we had already received our game checks we would be leaving right now. He said we couldn't leave and if we did he would stop payment on the checks. I told him that if he stopped payment on the checks, we just wouldn't take him to small claims court we would file criminal charges for theft of services against him and the school. That changed his mind pretty quick. We played the game and I never officiated soccer there again.

MTD, Sr.

I don't want to read it, which is why I asked the question. Since nobody will answer it, and I can't be bothered reading about a bunch of kooks, I'll just excuse myself from this thread.

The funny thing, Scrapper, is that I'm certain you've now spent more time posting and responding to posts about this subject than it would have taken you to simply skim the article and find all this out. :D

Also, your question was answered a couple times after your first post (read post #12), yet you posted again asking basically the same question.

A little restraint, please
 

When I make a call and a fan in the stands disagrees with my call - and perhaps I'm in the minority, but this seems to be the case with some regularity - I wish they would recognize the fact of our disagreement without resorting to name calling.

I'd like officials, even officials posting on web sites, to extend the same courtesy. As a result, I'd like to request - recognizing that I don't have any power or authority in this matter - that we refrain from calling people "kooks" if we disagree with them.

Personally, I not only disagree with the school's position, I can't understand it. I support the choices of the officials who walked off with Ms. Campbell and the officials who will choose not to work at this school because of a policy with which they disagree. The school made a choice apparently due to a sincerely held belief; we officials can make choices (e.g., not to work at that school) due to our sincerely held beliefs. Ad hominem and ad populum attacks are not helpful.

And I'm talking my ball and going home too.

So there.

This is 2007 and we live in America (most of us). Refusing a woman official is abhorrent and "kook", IMO, is a kind way of describing these people.

What lessons are they teaching? Do they have less respect for female police officers, for example, because it's a woman in a position of authority?

In violation of law? I don't think so.

We're independent contractors. No school has to hire any of us. They can choose not to use any official, just as they can choose not to use a certain plumber or electrician.

They're kooks but they haven't done anything illegal as far as I can tell.

She had a contract and they broke it because she's a woman. I'll bet she's had a dozen calls from lawyers. It's called discrimination.

You don't have time to read but you have time to constantly type the same question over and over? :rolleyes:

__________________________________________________ _____________

I wonder what the school in question does/has done/will do if a female official is assigned to an away game? I certainly hope the female official was paid for showing up to her assigned game.

wouldn't the fact that her name is michelle give it away before the game ever came close to starting??..:confused:

My response was in reference to quite a few of their practices that would place them in violation of statutes governing entities that receive federal funding.

Refusing a female official with whom the school has a signed contract (or, in this case the association that assigns the official) would definitely violate these federal statutes.

My point was simply that the school doesn't receive any federal (or state) money and is therefore able to discriminate in ways any public school (or private school that receives any sort of public funding) cannot.

Really? Let's suppose they receive federal funding. Please tell me what federal statutes are being violated because they choose not to hire someone as an independent contractor.

Any public high school in my state (and in most others I'm sure) are free to hire or not hire any independent contractor they choose. We are not employees, therefore laws concerning employees do not apply to us.

I have no book of statutes readily available with which to provide the appropriate citation. Are you saying that a school receiving federal funds has the right to discriminate based on gender without violating the terms under which they received that funding?

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, as an independent contractor as you mentioned, you're not subject to the same discrimination laws. I do however think she has a case with a contract that was broken because of gender.

I doubt federal funding if received would play into this.

I think this is the same Saint Mary's that forfeited a football game because the opponent had a girl on the team...boo

"Any public high school in my state (and in most others I'm sure) are free to hire or not hire any independent contractor they choose."

That said, if it was proven that they wouldn't hire or in this case break a contract due to gender is asking for a heap of trouble.

It is - this was also referenced in the article.

I am not a lawyer either, but I do believe that you can fire a contractor for any reason. It doesn't matter why.

Who said she had a contract? Where does it say a contract was broken? or are you just assuming?

Well in that case, I think you're a nut-job for thinking that they are kooks. In the name of diversity (or at least your version of it) you are dismissing their diverse worldview as not fitting your worldview. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black, doncha think??:rolleyes:

Anyway, I really don't think the school handled things well, and I am tremendously impressed with Ms. Campbell's response to the whole thing.

Discriminate when hiring an employee? No. BUT SHE IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

It's no different than picking up a phone book, calling a plumber, and then refusing to let her do the work because she's a woman. They are pefectly within their rights to use or not use anyone they choose.

Oops..that'll teach me for doing three things at once...maybe multitasking is for the young...

doubtful they use contracts. The Pius X Academy I used to work for never did.

A private company generally can (though there are still breach-of-contract issues to resolve).

An entity receiving public funding generally must comply with a whole host of additional regulations. I am an independent contractor in my "regular" job as well as my officiating. I understand I am not protected in pretty much any way, outside of the contract I have with a client.

That said, it is my advised understanding that a school or a government entity or a private entity operating with government funding cannot "fire" me or not allow me to fulfill my contract based on gender, race, age, etc.

They certainly are. But not if they are a government agency or operating with government funds. That's why it matters.

The public grade school cannot call up a plumber, have that plumber arrive with all necessary licenses and credentials, and then refuse to allow him to fix the drain because he's black. They just can't do it.

And, verbal contracts are enforceable in many states - Kansas included. I would be very surprised if, first of all, they didn't go ahead and pay her, and if not that she couldn't force them to do so (though it certainly woudln't be worth the hassle).

Probably........

Are you assuming she didn't?

Do you have a written agreement for your varsity games or higher?

In this case an oral agrreement would suffice.

The point is she was dismissed for being a woman.

They can claim anything they want why she was refused the right to work and probably get away with it.

There you go again. Trying to tell everybody how to post. You're cut from the same mold as the people who run that school.

Feel free to mind your own damn business and not ours.

Again, cite the statutes you say you been advised on that would effect independent contractors.

No, I've never had a written contract for any game I've ever worked. I've worked in Tennessee and North Carolina. So obviously not every state/school requires a contract. Games are assigned through a booking association sanctioned by the state association. There is no contract. The school does NOT have to accept any official the booking agent chooses to send and can refuse one for any reason.

When all is said and done, we know they are a private entity. IF there's a contract, (which I seriously doubt since they would already have known a woman was being sent to work the game), there could be a breach of contract and she could sue them for damages. But absent that, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The issue of government funding is very simple. Any, and all money an entity gets for the government comes with a laundry list of rules and regultations. One of those is that, THAT money cannot be used in a way that is discriminatory in any way.

This also works for companies that work with government contracts -- like defense contractors and what not. IF you rely on government money to run an organization then you HAVE to adhere to their standards or risk losing the funding.

As to calling these bozos kooks, it is perfectly acceptable practice to reference anyone who still discriminates based on gender, sex, race, ethnicity, etc. a kook. However, taking them to court to get what's yours is not going to change them. What should be done is remove the children from that environment and allow them to experience a world where they are allowed to equally hate anyone they want based on their biases and prejudices, as opposed to their parents and teachers.

She Could Be My Parter Anytime ...
 

I'm sure that his female could do anything as well as, or most likely, better than, most males.

http://re3.mm-a6.yimg.com/image/3460234243

I'm an avid Title IX advocate and supporter, but unless there have been federal rulings that I'm not aware of in the last 4 years, I don't believe it applies - counter-intuitive as it may seem - as long as, if taken to court, the school could prove that part of its official religious "tenets" specifically involve preventing this type of situation.

This is direct language from the law:

That being said, this school's practice is nauseating, as is any that deems (let alone teaches young minds that) one class of human is above another.

Same in Texas
 

It probably happens in Texas all the time where coaches can scratch
refs, if they don't want women guess what a scratch.

No, it doesn't.

I just wonder. Have they ever heard of a woman called Mom?

We also need to understand that independent contractor laws vary form state to state. So what might be in issue in one state might not be an issue in another.

And based on what I know of this case, I am not sure there is much this female official can do but sue and that might mean other consequences to her officiating career. And I can tell you that many officials are not going to boycott this school because they do not want to subject repercussions themselves.

Peace

Thank you, counselor. Could you give us more infomration regarding independent contractors?

I worked for a Tennessee association for 3 years. And the contract is between them, essentially, and the school.

I know the association I worked for would not have stood for this and would've sent a woman (or 2 women) to all the games this school had. I've been in a similar position where they didn't want me back because I stood up to the home coach - I went back the next three games they played.

Worst case, the association tells the school to pound sand and doesn't send anyone.

Call them whatever you want. They have a set of beliefs that they adhere to, they don't consider it "hate" and the parents that send their kids there accept that. If you don't like it, don't work there or don't send your kids there.

Kudos to the other 2 officials who walked off the court with her.

Believe me, I'd never, ever dream of working there or ever letting my kids go there.

The Klu Klux Klan has a set of beliefs that their members adhere to also.

Who's running the place? Father Torquemada?

Just a note here on verbal contracts. If there is consideration tendered by both parties then there is a valid enforceable contract. In other words, Party A says "I'll pay you $35 to officiate" and you agree to officiate, then you have a contract, whether it's written or not. Whether a contract has been broken or not is up to the courts to decide.

Source: Judge Judy, of course.

Adolf Hitler and a bunch-o-people called the nazi's had what you would call a set of beliefs that they adhered to. And like you say, they didnt consider it "hate", and many parents accepted it and so did many kids, and adults. I dont think just NOT sending your kids there is enough.

This is not about whos flying sphagehitti monster is right or wrong, but open discrimination. No matter what your beliefs there are basic rights and wrongs that *should* be recognized by all groups. This one, apparently, is wrong.

Sheesh...this is what they teach these kids? That a woman can't be an authority figure? theri mothers must love that concept. What about an adult having authority over a child? Doesn't that trump the gender issue?

This is Kansas, though, the land of Creationism as public policy.

There is a certain officials association here in IL. I will not list them. Rumor has it they will not let in any members who are of african american decent. This is a very eleite organization.

The joke is they are the "white coats"

Its not funny what they do though. If true... Its just sad.

Let me say the I feel all African Americans are decent.

If you're referring the the association that wears white jackets you're mistaken.

Like I said... its a rumor. I hence why I'm not pointing out who, but I've heard of a few situations now that were..... disturbing. I will also say that these situations happened a while ago so...

As I said.. rumor, but if true.. very disappointing.

Many people might have many things to say about that group, but your impression is incorrect. There is currently more than one African-American in that organization.

Peace

I'm glad to hear it... all I've heard are bad things. Thanks you for enlightening me.

And, in America, the KKK has the right to be an organization and hold to those beliefs just as this school does (minus gov't funding) no matter what you think about those beliefs.

If the roles were reversed, say they didn't allow men to be in positions of authority over women and banned men officials, well, let it be what it is. I guess I wouldn't get any assignments there.

I don't have a problem working with women officials or seeing them work at any school but I'm not in charge of this school and believe the greater good is served to allow them to decide (as a private school) what they allow and what they don't. Apparently you don't, which is your right.

Jurassic, this is now the second time you have suggested that I "mind [my] own damn business." I don't see how or why an appeal for us to refrain from name calling would be bothersome to you, but even if you disagree with my point, why is in inappropriate for me to express my opinion?

I'm cut from the same mold as people who believe women should not have positions of authority over boys because I think it's important to treat people with civility and because I don't like name calling?

Ah, the obligatory Hitler reference. I'm sure St. Mary's is spawning the next Adolph himself.

It is not open discrimination to them according to their beliefs. And, as a private organization, they make the rules in that case. I believe the First Amendment as freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion but I realize not all hold that interpretation. If the court wants to intervene in this case and settle that interpretation for this specific instance, send your money to the ACLU and they might take it up.

Nope
 

BearfanMike intoned:

" . . . wouldn't the fact that her name is michelle give it away before the game ever came close to starting??.."

Your "American Side" is showing.

I went to high school with Michelle Lau (Gender Male).

Regards,

touche'

http://www.hi.com.au/touche/images/anim1.gif

If *your* beliefs get in the way of *my* rights then we have a problem. You can agree with that, no?

Not necessarily. Depends on what your "rights" are or what you want them to be. Seems to be a broad continuum in the rights argument. Everyone wants to define what their own rights are but the courts might decide differently and usually redefines this daily whether it be related to job opportunities or not. I believe I have the "right" to freely practice my beliefs. If it interferes with YOUR rights, whose right will triumph?

BTW, I have a female official as a partner tonight and she is the R, a position of authority over me. I have no problem with that.

I'm having a difficult time embracing stupidity today, so pls bear with me...

In THIS particular case CLEARLY (pls tell me this is clear to you...) this group has discriminated against an individual based on nothing but gender. In what country do you live where a group's religious belief trumps a person's basic right to not endure discrimination based on gender? (I am still assuming you agree this might be a basic right... maybe not, you tell me.)

Dan, we don't have a right not to be discriminated against.

We have a right not to be discriminated against in certain employment situations and by certain government entities or government-supported entities.

But nowhere do we have a right not to be discriminated against.

I don't have a problem with you or anyone expressing your opinion. However, that doesn't mean that you have the right to tell anybody what they can post or not post. Plain and simple, that's none of your damn business. That's up to the people that own this site, and the people that they appointed as moderators. You completely fail to see that point.

And it appears that the KKK and the Society of St. Pius X share the exact same value system. Or do you think that refusing to let a woman officiate is really any different than if they refused to let an African-American officiate?

What would they do if a Muslim showed up to officiate? Get out a cross and 3 nails?

Sad, Rizzo, sad.

Jmo

Ugggg...I am agreeing more and more with JR recently

The United States of America - where we have the privelege of deciding who we hire for Church or religious-related positions based soley on our religious beliefs. That's not discrimination. The government can not do that, but this private school can - whether we like it or not. For the record, I don't like it, but that's neither here nor there - the fact remains that they can do what they did.

Maybe. It doesn't make any difference to my point anyway. These clowns are lower than whale sh!t, whether they can legally get away with it or not.

I guess you're missing the point I was making in that post, which was that this is a CLEAR case of gender discrimination, not a fuzzy boundary where we need to figure out where your rights end and mine begin. And I know you're not sayng that the hiring of a game official is the same as who they hire for a religious-related position.

If you're saying she is exempt from protection under equal rights laws because she's a contractor... I'm pretty sure I disagree. There have been many cases where corporations have been forced by the government to show they let subcontracts on an equal opportunity basis, which is entirely different from how they hire employees. I know this first hand. We agree that a church is not a corporation... but the government has control over even churches based on the amount of federal money they get. But taken to the extreme, it is simply not true that a religious group can do whatever they wish. Ask the mormons.

The schools are members of the TSSAA. There is no contract that a specific official works at a specific school.

What church receives "federal money?" Our church would like to build a family life center with a gym. Some federal assistance would be great!

The schools cannot refuse a particular official, though. Schools are tied to particular assigning organizations (sanctioned by the state) for a certain amount of time and can't just contract with another assignor willy-nilly.

The assignor I had when I lived there would send two women to that school every game until he no longer had to deal with the school at all.

What is sad and why are you condescending? Did I defend the KKK? Did I defend this school? I'm just saying, under our laws, they have this right! Do I have to show complete righteous indignation to get a gold star from you or something?

Rizzo, I've told you my view of you. I'll stick with what I've posted so far. No need to add anything further.

I live in the United States of America, thank you very much, and the courts here in the United States of America MAY regard, in this situation, a greater weight to a group's RIGHT to practice their religious beliefs over a person's basic RIGHT as you've described it. I don't believe this is CLEARLY a slam dunk.

BTW, the Catholic Church does not allow women employment as a priest. Does this mean none of you here displaying all this indignation never step foot in a Catholic Church? I'd say the compensation from that job is a bit more than $35 for a night's work.

Then we agree that this is a clear case of gender discrimination and could possibly be prosecuted under the existing laws, regardless of what money flows where.

btw...

http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.o...date.cfm?id=16

Then I guess the gold star is out of the question...

This is CLEARLY gender discrimination. But if you seperate your tolerance for religious kooks from the facts then you'll see that as well.

How the courts decide is outside of my ability to predict.

So you're equating a game official with a RC priest?

Um, yeah. They are both denied employment based on gender at a religious institution. One is simply on a much larger scale than the other but the same principle.

You need to talk to other officials, there are some great guys and terrific officials in that group.

Sounds like sour grapes from someone.

I'm not really sure how this all got compared to the KKK (but I'm thinking our buddy who's going straight to hell might have had something to do with that), but since the comparison was made...the KKK, as a PRIVATE group can deny membership and employment based on racial, gender, religious, sexual-orientation, etc. basis - if they choose to. This school, as a PRIVATE group, can do the same. The fact that this does not fit your worldview (or mine for that matter) doesn't change those facts - and denying that private group the ability to do so would be every bit as wrong as you are saying the school was.

Editorial note: I disagree strenously with what the school did, but (as I said in an earlier post) in the rush to defend "diversity",we often trample all over other people's diverse views that don't fit our defintions of what is acceptable diversity.

IOW...word.

I see.

As I already said I'm having difficulty embracing stupidity today so I'll just get out now.

That's not very diverse of you.:o