Why do we, myself included, still make this statement??? I was reading it and clicked to me that the type of thinking that we're discussing was just as wrong in 1914 as it is in 2014. It was accepted much more widely then, but so was slavery in 1814. That didn't make slavery right then either. The problem isn't that people haven't gotten with the times, it is that they haven't gotten the message at all.

That rant aside, there are really two ways to deal with this:
1. The court of public opinion - go to the news with it. or
2. The court - a decent law student could probably handle the case

People still today (women included) believe that women have a place and that is not something you have to go back to the 1800s to find. Heck there are people that feel that women's main job is to be a mom and when you expect more from them, there is a social problem with suggesting they get a job and work like anyone else. So why would we think there is not a disconnect with how and who works games when both genders are treated so differently by those that participate in one or the other.

And unless we know the correspondence of what is requested by people that are independent contractors, we really need to take a step back. I do not see anyone suing college conferences that clearly have not hired any women on the Men's side and hire men all the time Women's college basketball. Even then I believe a lawsuit would be hard if there was a court case in either situation and I doubt there is much of a paper trail to prove that women are not hired systematically. Part of what we do is tribal and people tend to make a business decision as to where they spend their time away from home.

Peace

In the OP, the "request" was made without any way of documenting it. So, in 1, it's going to be the word of one group against the word of another. No one likes the refs, everyone loves teachers.

In 2, there's no way to document anything. If the schools are already negotiating a switch to another association, then there'd be no way to prove "why" they switched.

Chances are, they may switch even if the new association doesn't even discuss it. It would simply be a way to punish the first association. It would be great if the leadership in the new association decided to follow through on our suggestions, however, and ensure the schools had a steady stream of female officials: even if those officials weren't quite ready for varsity schedules.

Based on my experiences and knowledge of the backroom, off-the-record negotiating that goes on around these parts, it wouldn't surprise me at all that the assertion is 100% true. Whether it is provable or actionable, that's an entirely different story.

But I'm the type who would bring this out in an association meeting so the rumor would either have to be verified or discounted.

I am sure this is true on some level, but might not have been communicated in the manner it was here. It is like when people here say, "You are a girls official, I will not hire you for boys games." Now that has been said to people in my area multiple times. I am just wondering if there was more to the comment than "We just do not want to see any women officiating our boys games." And the biggest problem, this is a he said, she said situation. Even if you have this as a court issue, you have to prove more than what someone said to another. You have to have some things documented.

Peace

I understand what you are saying, but VHSL sanctioned organizations don't have "girls" or "boys" officials, and the VHSL's leader has made that very clear throughout the years. So any conference who made such a request would have to do so "off the record".

Like I said earlier, if this were my association I would stand up in the middle of a meeting and bring this to full light by asking for an official response concerning the rumors. It is either true or it is false.

There are no rumors... the Commissioner stood up in the meeting and reported the request.... it's in the minutes.

So, is your association willing to do the right thing?

And I understand that. There are many places across the country that are like that where you work both no matter what. But here you will get in a lot of trouble if you do both if you are not capable to understand the differences. It is just one of those differences we see across the country of how games are assigned. This would not be an "association" decision, it would be a conference decision and no one but the assignor and the schools would know what took place. And there is no one bidding for a contract either.

Peace

If, by "the right thing", you mean Associational Suicide (which would be the result of disregarding the "request" from the Schools) then I would think not.

So you're going to comply? Do you really think this will preserve the relationship with the schools? Do you really think the officials in the association will be ok with this?

[QUOTE=DRJ1960;944402]If, by "the right thing", you mean Associational Suicide (which would be the result of disregarding the "request" from the Schools) then I would think not.[/QUOTE

Here's my take on "associational suicide".

1. -tell schools women are qualified and we are sending them...no more or no less women than in past years. Seems like the right thing to do. But if you do the schools may change associations.

2. Go along with schools and tell your women officials they're qualified but not going because they are women. See Covington v IAABO. Can be found on net. Covimgton, woman official, claims discrimination for not being assigned mens games. Maybe your women will just walk away and forget it. However, if they don't, your association will be a defendant since you have involvement in assigning.

The commissioner has put you folks in quite a trick bag. I think I'd try door number one if I were you...actually see earlier post on what to do. And do it because It is the right thing to do...

If they would leave because of that, then they are going to go anyway.

I agree. And if they wanted to they just should have done it without saying this in the minutes of a meeting. Commissioner has put schools in the same trick bag...

The school didn't say it in the meeting. The schools still maintain plausible deniability. Frankly, if one must do business with people like this to stay in business, it's probably not worth the headache. You can't trust them.