GV 2 Whistle, ACLU Stepping in

[Butterfly182310]

From that article, "In a prepared statement ACLU attorney Jessie Rossman said, "by treating student-athletes differently based on gender, the Downriver League is sending a troubling message to our young people that girls are inferior and are therefore less valuable."

Shouldn't the ACLU be working on the evening news to give as much air time to the D-1 women's game as they do the men's game, for the same rationale quoted above?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Butterfly182310

From that article, "In a prepared statement ACLU attorney Jessie Rossman said, "by treating student-athletes differently based on gender, the Downriver League is sending a troubling message to our young people that girls are inferior and are therefore less valuable."

Shouldn't the ACLU be working on the evening news to give as much air time to the D-1 women's game as they do the men's game, for the same rationale quoted above?

Methinks the ACLU focuses on the battles that they can win.

[Adam]

I knew this would eventually start happening in areas that use 2 for girls but 3 for boys. It's the same reason schools that have double headers are starting to rotate the order of the games. The same reason Michigan had to end their tradition of fall ball for girls. Had Iowa not ended their 6 player game 18 years ago, they would have likely seen a lawsuit eventually as well.

I understand you don't always need 3 officials on a GV game (even though it will always provide the best coverage), but that isn't always the overriding concern in our society.

I will say the savings estimated seems about right; $500 per season per varsity team.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by snaqwells

i knew this would eventually start happening in areas that use 2 for girls but 3 for boys. It's the same reason schools that have double headers are starting to rotate the order of the games. The same reason michigan had to end their tradition of fall ball for girls. Had iowa not ended their 6 player game 18 years ago, they would have likely seen a lawsuit eventually as well.

I understand you don't always need 3 officials on a gv game (even though it will always provide the best coverage), but that isn't always the overriding concern in our society.

I will say the savings estimated seems about right; $500 per season per varsity team.

shhh!!!!

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Butterfly182310

From that article, "In a prepared statement ACLU attorney Jessie Rossman said, "by treating student-athletes differently based on gender, the Downriver League is sending a troubling message to our young people that girls are inferior and are therefore less valuable."

Shouldn't the ACLU be working on the evening news to give as much air time to the D-1 women's game as they do the men's game, for the same rationale quoted above?

If they were rational, they would admit there is a deference between boys' and girl's basketball and acknowledging that difference is in no way, shape or form a statement of any kind on the quality or value of girls.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If they were rational, they would admit there is a deference between boys' and girl's basketball and acknowledging that difference is in no way, shape or form a statement of any kind on the quality or value of girls.

There's even a difference.

But good luck if this goes to court being able to prove in legal or civil terms how those differences equate to only needing 2 officials for girls but 3 for boys.

Eliminating 1 official from girls varsity to save $500-700/school per year is probably not the brightest decision. How could those in charge not anticipate that this would create litigation? All those savings and more will now be going to lawyers.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

There's even a difference.

But good luck if this goes to court being able to prove in legal or civil terms how those differences equate to only needing 2 officials for girls but 3 for boys.

Eliminating 1 official from girls varsity to save $500-700/school per year is probably not the brightest decision. How could those in charge not anticipate that this would create litigation? All those savings and more will now be going to lawyers.

Which is why the schools will back down before it goes anywhere.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

There's even a difference.

But good luck if this goes to court being able to prove in legal or civil terms how those differences equate to only needing 2 officials for girls but 3 for boys.

Eliminating 1 official from girls varsity to save $500-700/school per year is probably not the brightest decision. How could those in charge not anticipate that this would create litigation? All those savings and more will now be going to lawyers.

It's quite possible that it was known (even obvious?) to the PTB that this would create "an issue" and therefore, they'd relent and also revert VB to 2 officials, saving even more money.

[bigdog5142]

I will say that this is the only league that has considered this (to my knowledge) in Michigan. At least it hasn't been brought to any of the associations with which I am a part of. I sincerely hope this isn't where baskeball is going here in Michigan...the cost savings is so minuscule compared to the benefits. However, the bottom line is getting to be a political thing as opposed to a practical thing. It's more about grandstanding as opposed to actual solutions.

[Terrapins Fan]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If they were rational, they would admit there is a deference between boys' and girl's basketball and acknowledging that difference is in no way, shape or form a statement of any kind on the quality or value of girls.

But then what would they do with the WNBA?

NBA Draws about 17,0000 plus per game.

WNBA draws 7,800 ( which shocks me that it's that high) ( I bet they give a lot of tickets away free)

There IS a difference.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan

But then what would they do with the WNBA?

NBA Draws about 17,0000 plus per game.

WNBA draws 7,800 ( which shocks me that it's that high) ( I bet they give a lot of tickets away free)

There IS a difference.

My guess is they will sue all Americans in an attempt to require us to attend more women's basketball games but will actual end up with a legal cap on men's basketball attendance equal to the the attendance at the last women's game. (It's as logical as most of their arguments.)

The ACLU doesn't care that there's a difference. They think it's possible to make women men and vice versa if only they can find the right person to sue.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

My guess is they will sue all Americans in an attempt to require us to attend more women's basketball games but will actual end up with a legal cap on men's basketball attendance equal to the the attendance at the last women's game. (It's as logical as most of their arguments.)

The ACLU doesn't care that there's a difference. They think it's possible to make women men and vice versa if only they can find the right person to sue.

Possibly that rationale came from:

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Of course there is a difference - the NBA and WNBA are entertainment businesses. And they would and should be handled differently than an optional activity in an educational setting.

Given that there is such a huge disparity, I'm sure you would tell the ticket takers, janitors, and concession workers that if they work at a WNBA event, they should also expect less of an hourly wage? Does their concession stand uniform cost less? Do they somehow drive a lesser distance to the game, even if the game is in the same arena?

Let's move that same argument to the school setting - does the janitor get paid a lesser wage for cleaning up after a girls' game? Should the table crew get paid less, because there is a difference in attendance between a girls' vs. a boys' game? How should the attendance at a game affect the number of officials used for that particular game?

I think the answer to all of these questions is most likely (or most likely should be) yes. Athletics at the school level should be self-supporting. It is quite likely, given the disparity of paying fans, that girls basketball doesn't bring in enough money to pay for three officials. I'd go further and say that most girls programs are probably subsidized by the boys program in the first place.

I know a lot of members of this forum think $500 a year is insignificant, but if it's $500 a year the program doesn't have, it is a big deal.

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Possibly that rationale came from:

Touche.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I think the answer to all of these questions is most likely (or most likely should be) yes. Athletics at the school level should be self-supporting. It is quite likely, given the disparity of paying fans, that girls basketball doesn't bring in enough money to pay for three officials. I'd go further and say that most girls programs are probably subsidized by the boys program in the first place.

I know a lot of members of this forum think $500 a year is insignificant, but if it's $500 a year the program doesn't have, it is a big deal.

Touche.

So scholastic sports should be available based upon the attendance of the events?

And only schools who can self-sustain sports should field teams? So if a child is from the projects, or a rundown trailer park, or is female they shouldn't have scholastic sports available to them in public schools?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

My guess is they will sue all Americans in an attempt to require us to attend more women's basketball games........

That will never happen. It's a direct violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution for imposing cruel and unusual punishment.

Oh, the humanity, the humanity.......