Michigan High School Forced To Tear Down Boys' Baseball Bleachers Due To Inequality With Girls'

[alp227]

A high school in Michigan is being forced to tear down bleachers funded by parents for their boys’ varsity baseball team after the U.S. Education Department for Civil Rights said that they are nicer than the girls’ softball bleachers, thus making the two sets of seats “no longer equal.”

Plymouth High School in Canton is cooperating with the government’s demands, but officials say they will keep the brand new bleachers until they’re able to renovate the ones for the softball team. Right now, school superintendent Michael Meissen says that there are no funds to enhance the quality of the girls’ bleachers, but that they are doing all they can to try and get them on par with the boys’ bleachers.

According to reports, the Education Department started an investigation into the equality of the bleachers after receiving an anonymous complaint. The boys’ bleachers were put up six years ago by a group of parents who raised funds to get the upgraded, elevated seats so that they could see the baseball games without having to look through a chain-link fence.

full: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/michigan-high-school-forced-tear-down-boys-baseball-bleachers-due-inequality-girls-video

Another local source is here: http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/25095169/the-battle-over-bleachers-do-high-school-sports-facilities-have-to-match

I saw this story on a sports forum i use. Right wing media is framing this story as "GOVERNMENT OVERREACH" and "FORCED FAIRNESS".

At Huff Post, a former Univ. of Michigan professor who knows the area has more insight.

[BeyondGeography]

1. Well it is pretty fucking dumb

I wouldn't spend a moment defending it.

[Throd]

2. And another piece of my soul just died.

[JJChambers]

3. What the fuck

Why don't the parents of the softball team pay for the new bleachers if then don't like them, like the parents of the baseball team did? FFS

[alp227]

4. The Huffington article I linked has the inside story.

Comparable fund-raising was not pursued by women's softball boosters and there is no public money available for renovation of the softball bleachers. There was also a complaint that the bleachers were not handicap compliant; easily remedied. Another complaint, a new scoreboard was constructed; there are plans for a new women's softball scoreboard.

The federal government issued the citation to the school system ordering them to tear down the new bleachers, claiming unequal facilities for like-sports... and tear them down they did without further ado.

According to Plymouth High School Superintendent Michael Meissen, "the school will hold onto the new bleachers until they can come up with a plan that adheres to strict government rules and is "fair to everyone." But the locals are looking for what is "fair" and why there is no challenge to the decision.

The lingering message: by federal mandate your fund raising efforts, while well intentioned, may result in ill consequences for the very school district and athletic program you intend to help. But the fact is that all athletic booster programs are not created equal. Some work harder and smarter and have better success. Some don't raise funds at all. Is there parity between men's and women's athletic supporters? Not necessarily.

[FreakinDJ]

79. Too fucking Lame

Instead they sue expecting a Free hand out

[Shankapotomus]

141. Better yet

Why didn't they just take half of the boys bleachers and give them to the girls?

[Elwood P Dowd]

5. This sounds like an extreme interpretation of Title Nine.

There has always been far more fan interest in baseball than softball. Are they next going to make colleges tear down their 50,000 seat (or larger) football stadiums to match the girl's 3,000 seat soccer stadiums?

[alp227]

6. At my college the soccer teams play on the football field.

Don't know how many colleges have separate football and soccer fields.

[Elwood P Dowd]

14. Almost all larger colleges have seperate football and soccer stadiums.

Soccer has very little fan interest in this country at the college level and brings in very little revenue. There are dozens of FBS football programs that bring in tens of millions of dollars a year in revenue -- some close to 100 million a year. Football profits and football booster contributions often fund all the other sports combined.

[wercal]

26. Artificial turf makes this possible

I designed a renovation of a university's football field...and I added a dashed line around the perimeter to mark out a soccer field. The soccer coach said he would never use the field...but he was the first to use it, and all of their games ever since have been played on that field. It doesn't hurt the field one bit, since its field-turf....so that one university definitely has a dual use field.

I think the delineating factor is..."is this a big time Division I program". If it is, they probably have separate fields. If not, however, I would say most colleges have a dual field.

[TransitJohn]

64. Almost all of them. There might

be one or two at Division I (both FBS and FCS) that play soccer on the football field. One or two out of hundreds.

[goldent]

70. Some football stadiums can't accommodate a soccer pitch

and so the soccer field is made narrower than regulation, and it interferes with the game.

[petronius]

10. I wonder if colleges are where this sort of strict interpretation is really aimed, and applying

it to a HS is a matter of consistency more than anything.

It seems that there is often a push at the college level to move a lot of expenses (coaches' compensation, facilities, etc) into private funding, which on the face of it seems like a good deal for the school, but those privately funded facilities still have an impact on state-funded operations (campus infrastructure, staff time, for example). So I think there's a case that private donations should still be considered in the equal-opportunity balance - maybe not dollar-for-dollar, but included...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. Are baseball and softball fields different dimensions?

If not, can't they merely schedule games in a fashion to alternate play at each field, so the softballers get equal time at the better field until upgrades are made to 'their' diamond?

(And I've got to say, I thought the Title 9 stuff applied to public monies spent on providing 'equal' facilities, not on private 'booster' fundraisers.)

I don't blame the folks who consider this 'government overreach'. If the school had deliberately done this at public expense, then sure, title 9 violation.

[alp227]

9. yes, softball fields are smaller.

softball



baseball

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

13. Oh well, so much for the 'alternate' idea. nt

[dsc]

27. I wondered the same thing

[msanthrope]

8. This was the top feature on Glenn Beck's website. Of course...no one has actually seen this "order.

[etherealtruth]

61. I live and work in the area (sort of)

One of "our" hydrogeologists/ engineers lives there .... his kids attend high-school there ... I will wait until I talk to him in the A.M. before I formulate an opinion.

[llmart]

72. Well, then maybe you also noticed as I did......

that Plymouth High School isn't in Canton; it's in Plymouth

[etherealtruth]

73. Isn't it that weird giant school complex ....

I believe they call it "the Park" .... whatever it is ....I need to ask my very liberal colleague about this

[dembotoz]

11. sometimes things are done with a carrot and a stick--ignore the carrot... you get the stick

bottom line there needs to be baseline standards somewhere

[bpj62]

12. Equal Facilities

My daughter is a High School Lacrosse player and she recently played against the High School that I went to. The school had been completely rebuilt and next to the track and football field was a brand spanking new girls softball field. I was told by the athletic trainer that Title 9 required that girls sports require the same access to the fields that the boys use or that a similar field/stadium has to be built. Back when I was in High School the girls played Varsity Softball at a park that was no where near the High School while the boys walked across the street to a beautifully maintained baseball field. In our area booster money is used to help facilitate the completion of these fields because many of them are also used by the local youth sport programs on the weekends. its not about the size of the field but is about the fairness.

[hack89]

15. But in this case the funds were raised by the parents

there was no tax payer money spent. The proper response should have been directed at the parents of the softball players - "get off your asses and raise some money like the baseball parents did.".

[Elwood P Dowd]

16. This! (NT)

[kcr]

21. THe proper response was to tell the parents there can't be unequal facilities.

Since when is the proper response to unequal and inadequate funding, "Get off your asses!"

[hack89]

22. The school didn't have the money for either

What is stopping the softball parents from raising money?

[kcr]

24. The proper response to inadequate funding is to address inadequate funding

The question isn't what's stopping the softball parents from raising money. The question is why isn't there proper funding to begin with. The answer isn't to allow willy nilly self funding that leads to unequal facilities. Unequal facilities aren't allowed, however they are funded. And if the citizens of the community insist on remaining taxphobes, then they have to self fund equally.

[hack89]

25. Ok. Nt

[dsc]

28. maybe because the school decided to spend the money on things like teachers

and books, you know the things schools are actually supposed to be spending their money on.

[kcr]

30. That's fine

But that doesn't change the fact that unequal facilities aren't allowed. Either the community insist that the facilities be funded, or if the parents want to fund it themselves they have to fund them equally. Raise enough funds to make sure facilities for both are equal.

[dsc]

145. I agree with that

but the notion that the school system should just fund this stuff when they are laying off teachers etc seems to be a bad idea.

[wercal]

32. Well I have to say that I don't want to fund either baseball or softball bleachers

Somewhere we went off the reservation with sports in high school.

Most states have an 'activities association'. All the extracurricular spectator events that charge admission (football games, school plays, etc) fund this 'activities association'. And the association uses this money to fund the facilities. Not 100%...but as an example:

Its normal for a high school to have a softball field, so students can play softball in PE. But its not normal or 'necessary' to have spectator bleachers. Having spectators is not a requirement for PE class. So the school may pay to build a field....but who pays for the bleachers?.....

The spectators - through gate fees.

Not me. As a taxpayer, I'm fine with paying taxes for a proper education...including physical education. Heck, I'm even fine with supplying extracurricular teams with uniforms. But a spectator amenity is in NO WAY necessary for the kid's education.

If parents want to watch their kids play, bring a lawn chair (I did this for many years watching city league baseball). Or pay higher admission prices at the gate.

It sounds like the baseball parents figured that out, and took the initiative. The softball parents should have done the same. And leave me out of it.

[kcr]

34. So, you think as long as parents fund it

It's okay for them to set up unequal facilities? I don't. I don't give a crap whether or not it's anything I or my kids are even remotely interested in supporting or participating in. I don't want them going to a school that fosters a learning environment where the girls have access to inferior facilities, whatever it's for.

[wercal]

36. You completely missed the point of my post

This does not apply:

"where the girls have access to inferior facilities"

I am all for building a nice softball field, just as good as the baseball field.

But if the parents (of both genders btw) don't like the bleachers....they can figure it out, WITHOUT using school funding.

School funding is for the students - it is not for the comfort of helicopter parents who want a better view of their burgeoning star. If they don't like looking through a chain link fence to watch their vicarious selves (per the article), they are on their own to solve that. The bleachers have nothing to do with the quality of the facility that the girls are playing on....and as I stated before, the bleachers are usually paid for with gate fees...paid for by the people who are actually using them.

[kcr]

37. No, they can't

If they want to fund it themselves, they still have to make them equal.

[wercal]

39. Well we disagree

I don't view a spectator amenity as part of the functionality or 'niceness' of a facility, as far as the actual game play is concerned.

BTW, we are having a rather abstract argument, since this is a very unusual interpretation of Title 9. It is usually a matter of funding levels, not a side by side comparison of facilities.

[kcr]

41. It doesn't matter whether you consider it a part of the facility. The law does.

I don't understand why you don't. It's not logical and doesn't make any sense. What is your argument for not considering them part of the facility? And you are mistaken about title 9. It is not solely about funding.

[Throd]

47. Then it is a poorly written law.

despite its intentions.

[kcr]

48. How so?

Why should girls and women get inferior facilities?

[Throd]

49. They aren't getting inferior facilities.

People are donating their time and money to support activities of their choice.

If the school district was playing favorites, that would be a different matter.

I'm the father of two young girls. I will donate my time and money to support girls activities. I don't see how my doing so puts boys at a disadvantage.

[kcr]

51. Schools cannot have unequal facilities per title 9

I'm sorry, but I can't muster up enough sympathy for the fundraising crowd to cut off title 9 at the knees. The solution is to quit being tax phobes in this country.

[Throd]

53. The net result of your moral victory is that people will stop donating. Hooray.

[kcr]

55. Yes! Hooray!

Yay for taxes and society. Let's actually have a society that cares about all of its citizens equally and quit being so damn individualistic. But then again I'm not a conservative.

[Throd]

59. You are ignoring the reality on the ground.

People are going to donate money when the results of that donation can be easily quantified.

[kcr]

96. I'm not ignoring anything

The reality is the law doesn't allow for it. Seems to me you're the one ignoring reality. And believe me, I'm all too aware that there is a philosophy that donation should be sufficient to take care of the needs of society. I don't subscribe to it. That isn't ignoring reality. It's called not being a regressive conservative. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against charity per se. I donate to charity myself. But the argument that we should turn over the functioning of our basic infrastructure to charity in order to bolster charitable donation is right wing hogwash.

[Throd]

114. You are contending points I never brought up. I guess it is easier that way.

[kcr]

116. You didn't bring up the concern that people would stop donating?

I'm sorry, but I can think of no other reason for that concern. I apologize, but the only time I've ever come across that talking point is from the charity as social safety net philosophy. Otherwise why do you care? What's the big concern if needs are being met? The only logical conclusion I can draw is that you think that's the way needs should be met.

[Throd]

124. I did bring up such a concern.

I am not proposing that charity should supplant social safety nets provided by government programs. But if people can't donate something without going through a morass of red tape and headache, they will just give up eventually.

As I said before, I am the father of two young girls. If others in my community want to spend their time and money towards something that exclusively benefits boys, I would feel like a total a-hole trying to thwart such an effort.

[kcr]

127. I think that would be a good thing, honestly.

I'll tell you a story of two distrcits I used to live near. The poorer districts actually funded their sports programs better. The parents didn't have to pay for anything. The district knew a large percentage of parents couldn't and wouldn't be able to fund raise to the extent the richer suburbs could and so they somehow made room in the budget. The richer district knew the parents would and so they didn't budget for it. I honestly don't know why the parents in the richer district don't insist on the schools budgeting for it. Every one of them should hold out and insist on a budget for it. But they don't. It wasn't just sports, either. They would fund raise their buns off for things the poorer district paid for in their budget. Things like smart boards. I thought they were fools for not insisting their schools pay for things like that. Discouraging that mentality would only benefit in the long run. I'd be willing to bet if there were road blocks to fund raising, school board meetings for funding would fill up and demands would be met. That would be a good thing.

[kwolf68]

152. Based on your logic

If I bring snacks to my son's baseball game I have to supply the girls with snacks too? Ridiculous.

I support Title 9, but if it's taken to this illogical extreme where ever single assist I give to my son's team has to be countered with a directive to also support the girls team (which I may have no connection to) in the exact same way is going to be the death of that law, if it's allowed to be applied in such a way.

If I was forced to donate to the boys team in conjunction with my support of my daughter's softball team I'd be equally as pissed.

[clffrdjk]

40. So how do you divide it up and still get the parents to donate?

If the parents stop donating, high school teams will die out. How do you both equally split the donations between all the sports and keep the parents interested in donating when the kids will only see a small fraction of the money raised?

Donor: Hi I would like to give you some bleachers.
School: thanks but we can't accept them unless you give us two.
Donor: I can't give you two but I have this one right here that you can have.
School: Sir you are going to have to take that away we don't want it.

School: hey everybody it's fund raising season all donations welcome and anything you can give would be greatly appreciated
Donors: yea just like the bleachers I wasted my money on, you aren't getting another dime from me.


This is horrible implementation of a good rule and and as was said above no good came of it only bad.

[kcr]

43. What good comes from scrapping title 9? n/t

[clffrdjk]

44. Who said anything about scrapping it?

I am just wondering why I am not allowed to build a set of bleachers and give it to a team?

[kcr]

46. You are allowed as long as you do it equally

The argument that you should be able to build better facilities for the boys is the argument that title 9 should be ignored and therefore essentially meaningless.

[clffrdjk]

50. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

My argument is that any donor should have the ability to donate directly to any team. My example is a person who can provide useful material but in a limited amount, and was only able to give to one team and not both. If title 9 truly reads that all things need to be equal then it needs to be amended to limit it to things provided by the school.

I notice that you have avoided the main point of my post entirely, how do you manage to keep the donors donating? How long will it be before the kids would rather play for clubs like the Europeans? Then title 9 becomes moot and will have done far more harm than good, how do you stop that?

[kcr]

52. I'm not putting words in your mouth.

I'm disagreeing with you. There is a difference. Donors do have the ability to donate. No one is telling them they can't. But schools cannot have unequal facilities. That shouldn't change just so donors can do as they please. I think donors should shift their efforts to funding the way it should be done, through the tax base. Horrors!

[clffrdjk]

62. Yes the difference is when you try and twist what I say rather than try and argue a point.

Donors do have the ability to donate.
Tear down those bleachers, yea that's some ability to donate

No one is telling them they can't.
Tear down those bleachers, I am pretty sure someone just did and very loudly

But schools cannot have unequal facilities. That shouldn't change just so donors can do as they please.
So tear down the bleachers and make everyone equal, that will really encourage people to donate to their local school teams. A basic level of quality is the important thing, what the school provides for the teams should be equal. But if a team wants to raise money outside of the school and school facilities, they should be able to use it towards their own facilities. If a group of parents gets together and wants to donate their time and effort to their child's team they should be allowed to.

I think donors should shift their efforts to funding the way it should be done, through the tax base. Horrors!
Just how do you suggest they do that? And if a person wants to go beyond their tax obligations what then?

[kcr]

97. I'm not twisting your words.

I'm merely pointing out where you're wrong. Taking down the bleachers isn't telling donors they can't donate. Sorry, but it isn't. Do you think you can donate money to build a sky scraper in the middle of your town's park? You have the money after all. You can donate it. They should put a sky scraper with your name in lights on it! Because you donated! You think they'll do it?

[clffrdjk]

103. The twist

"The argument that you should be able to build better facilities for the boys is the argument that title 9 should be ignored and therefore essentially meaningless."

The unrelated straw man
"Do you think you can donate money to build a sky scraper in the middle of your town's park? You have the money after all. You can donate it. They should put a sky scraper with your name in lights on it! Because you donated! You think they'll do it?"

The only thing related to my post
"Taking down the bleachers isn't telling donors they can't donate."
Oh really tell me what is it telling them?

But hey as I said before this will all be moot when the schools cancel sports due to lack of funding and interest as the kids switch to club teams. It will be interesting to see how the opportunities and facilities compare then.

[kcr]

106. Why does the law suddenly become irrelevant just because they're donating money?

Does an entity have to accept your money and do what you want with it just because you're donating? All laws and rules can no longer apply? No, it isn't telling the parents they can't donate. The law is the law.

[clffrdjk]

109. So here you are saying no means yes

"Does an entity have to accept your money and do what you want with it just because you're donating? No, it isn't telling the parents they can't donate. The law is the law."

Are you arguing that the law is the law, or are you arguing that the law is right? We know there is a difference.

The school should provide support equally but as I said above when the students or parents get together and raise money they should be able to put it towards their team.

[kcr]

111. If the team is private, then fine.

But it isn't. The team doesn't belong to the parents. They don't get to make all the decisions just because they donated money. You're arguing title 9 the law is wrong? Before the law far fewer girls played sports. The law changed it. It shouldn't be destroyed just so people can throw their money around however they like. There are ways to get what they want. They can raise even more money. They can convince the school to increase the funds to provide equal facilities for both to the standards they wish.

[clffrdjk]

117. I grow tired of you trying to speak for me.

The team doesn't belong to the parents. They don't get to make all the decisions just because they donated money.
Build that straw man high before you light it.

You're arguing title 9 the law is wrong?
If title 9 says that students and parents can't raise money to support their team then yes it is wrong and needs to be changed.

Before the law far fewer girls played sports. The law changed it. It shouldn't be destroyed just so people can throw their money around however they like.
I never said it has not done good things or that it needs to be destroyed. But this was not a good thing.

There are ways to get what they want. They can raise even more money. They can convince the school to increase the funds to provide equal facilities for both to the standards they wish.
Sure you can have your bleachers you just need to pay twice wait the wrestling team needs new mats, four times as much, let me know how that goes.

[kcr]

119. Has no one ever disagreed with you before?

Are you just not used to it or something?

[clffrdjk]

121. No it happens all the time, I just don't care for it when people misstate my opinion

For their own gain.

[kcr]

122. Except I don't think I did

I just think you're wrong.

[pnwmom]

132. One favorite tactic of fundraising is matching gifts.

Let them match the boys' bleachers with bleachers for girls.

[TransitJohn]

66. They want to use the money the baseball parents raised to build softball bleachers

it's pretty obvious.

[pennylane100]

29. Yes, maybe the parents should have done more.

However, that is besides the point. Public education must offer the same experiences and opportunities to both sexes. The fact that they had inferior facilities is not OK, regardless of who paid the bill. The school should have been more proactive in dealing with the problems upgrading the facilities for only boys before the fundraising began.

Regardless of how stupid the decision was to tear the bleachers down, we cannot in this day and age continue to allow young girls to continue to receive unequal educational experiences. A little bit of pre planning by the school, maybe asking for a joint fundraising group from both groups or some other idea would have helped.

This is not a good situation but maybe it will be a learning experience for the future.

[kcr]

33. I think you might have meant to reply to someone else because I agree with you 100%

It isn't okay for the girls to have inferior facilities no matter who funds it, which is why that rule is in place. The parents broke this rule and the facilities have to come down if matching facilities can't be built.

[pennylane100]

108. Sorry,

I meant to reply to Hack89. It seems that you and I are in total agreement.

[Renew Deal]

82. Are the games equal?

Especially in terms of spectator interest?

[kcr]

98. Really?

You think parents and families aren't as interested in their daughters?

[pnwmom]

90. What would the proper response be if a group of parents wanted to buy

new chairs and desks for all the kids in their kids' fifth grade classroom? But not for the other classes?

No taxpayer money would be spent. And the other classes would still have their old chairs and desks. (Which is more than the bleacher-less girls got.)

Or what if the parents in one class wanted to fund all new math books that the district wouldn't pay for. Just for their class.

Would this be okay?

[hack89]

129. No

Academics are a core school function. Sports are not. The reality in many towns is that without parent financial support there would be no sports at all. In many towns in MA. kids have to pay a fee just to be able to play a sport.

[pnwmom]

131. New desks and chairs can hardly be considered a core school need.

If a class of parents wanted to upgrade the furniture for their own kids, while leaving perfectly serviceable chairs and desks for the other classrooms, what would be wrong with that?

[hack89]

136. In my state it is against the law

Education is a state function. Private funding for academic programs has to go through established organizations like the PTO. The PTO could raise funds for desks but it cannot be restricted to a particular class.

Sports are different. They are not a core government function. They absolutely depend on parent funding to survive. As the father of a high school hockey player I can tell you that I have spent hundreds of dollars supporting the hockey team.

[pnwmom]

137. I think it's outrageous that some kids can't participate in a school team

unless their parents can pay. That should be illegal.

If they want to play, let them do it on a parks department team or a private league. But if a team uses the school facilities they shouldn't discriminate.

[hack89]

142. ok nt

[Xithras]

17. Whenever I see a story like this...

...I secretly suspect that some Republican government employee has done this on purpose in order to create a fakeroversy and smear well-intentioned liberal laws as "abusive".

[tenderfoot]

54. You aren't the only one.

This has my bee-ess detector going too.

[etherealtruth]

67. Right wing nuttery is heavy in that area

It's Thaddeus McCotter's old district

[dembotoz]

18. if you are going to have some vestige of equality between boys and girls sports at some point

you need to have some vestige of equality

no matter who paid for the damn thing

[GeorgeGist]

19. It's about good parenting ..

and sometimes the government has to be the parent. Tough love.

[Blue_Tires]

20. Why can't the proper solution be to

put one of the new bleachers over on the softball field, and move one of the old bleachers to the baseball field?

[WillowTree]

23. Just one more example of how something so well-intentioned.......

.......can be carried to an extreme that benefits no one. And this benefits no one. Really sad.

[FarCenter]

31. Wonder how Title IX will work after the men's football and basketball teams unionize?

College Players Granted Right to Form Union

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/sports/ncaafootball/national-labor-relations-board-rules-northwestern-players-are-employees-and-can-unionize.html

[Dr. Strange]

74. That's a very good question.

[Niceguy1]

35. now thats

Fucking stupid.

They should fundraise for the girls instead to destroying what the other team raised funds for.

[BlueCheese]

38. The author of the Huffpo piece makes an interesting point.

She points out that the bleachers were built for the benefit of spectators, not athletes, so in this sense the facilities used by the two teams are the same.

Something just seems weird that people can't fundraise to support an athletic team.

[goldent]

71. This is what I wondered

I'm no expert, but I don't think the game of baseball or software involves use of bleachers. I think if players were using the bleachers, they would not be playing the game correctly.

[bigwillq]

42. That's dumb (nt)

[CreekDog]

45. does anyone smell BS? i do

[Nine]

77. Yep.

I'd like a few more details here.

[sl8]

56. So, now the girls have softball bleachers, but the boys have no baseball bleachers.

Will the school be ordered to tear down the softball bleachers now? Then no one would have bleachers - can't get much more equitable than that.

[LisaL]

60. Exactly. Now boys have less than girls.

They will have to tear down girls bleaches now. It will never be fair until it's all torn down.

[dionysus]

126. finally, they will have to salt the ball fields, so no one can play!

[Nye Bevan]

57. Can they just beat the bleachers up a bit to make them less comfortable

instead of completely removing them? Perhaps someone could get to work on them with a sledgehammer, under the oversight of a judge, until the judge was satisfied that the bleachers were no longer "too nice"?

[davidn3600]

58. Oh yeah...this is going to teach the baseball boys to respect girls.

[Gravitycollapse]

63. If all it takes is the tearing down of some bleachers to make them disrespect women...

They didn't respect them before.

[3catwoman3]

65. At the high school our sons attended...

...a very nice shelter was built at the soccer field so the players would have a place to be protected during halftime on inclement weather days. We live in the greater Chicago area, so there are quite a number of inclement weather days during a typical soccer season.

I was built by volunteers and funded solely by donations. Someone complained that it did not meet codes because it was not wheelchair accessible, nor did it have heat of air conditioning. This was true. There were no soccer team members in wheel chairs, and it was intended to be used only to get out of the rain in the late fall and early spring. The building was never used, and after sitting empty for several seasons, was torn down last year. What a waste.

Makes me sad every time I see the empty space.

[Logical]

68. Some laws are stupid. n-t

[liberal_at_heart]

80. Wow. I thought democrats were suppose to champion minority groups, not demonize them.

First girls, then the disabled. Sad.

[Throd]

83. That's what you got from that post?

I got that laws can be ridiculous and arbitrary in practice despite the intent upon which they were founded.

[liberal_at_heart]

101. Laws are there because the minority need them to be there. My husband has had to utilize

those laws many, many times.

[3catwoman3]

107. I am not demonizing anyone, and I certainly have no...

...issue with access laws for buildings open to the public.

The structure of which I spoke was constructed as a weather shelter for the members of the soccer team. It was not open to family members, students, the local press- no one else. It seemed a shame to tear down a facility created to be of benefit to athletes because it was not accessible to some who would never be using it because it was not ever intended to be a public access building.

[muntrv]

69. I thought Title 9 applied to federal funding, not funding by parents.

[lumberjack_jeff]

115. If the school accepts federal funding, it can't discriminate.

I think that the fact that baseball and softball are different sports should have made a difference, but I guess not.

[cherokeeprogressive]

75. Destroying things in the name of "equality" seems somehow misguided.

This does absolutely nothing to "lift up" the girls to same level as the boys. All it will do is foster resentment.

[pnwmom]

92. I don't think they were permanently destroyed. Just taken apart and stored somewhere.

Presumably till they can purchase bleachers for the girls.

[dlwickham]

76. the school allowed a private group to raise funds on behalf of the school

knowing that these funds would be used to improve school owned facilities for the baseball team while not improving facilities for the softball team

I'm thinking that the school administration was hoping that no one either noticed or cared about the improvement to the baseball facilities

they, not the boosters, fucked up

they should have known better

[Renew Deal]

84. and why weren't the lacrosse, bowling, and rifle range improved?

This is a travesty!

[dlwickham]

150. your outrage is duly noted

[Miigwech]

78. Why?

Just add to the girls bleachers! So there is money to tear down the boy's bleachers? Does not make any sense. There has to be more about this story..... smells of BS

[Renew Deal]

81. Baseball and softball are not equal

There seems to be a strong assumption that baseball, softball, and their on and off field requirements are the same. They are not. This isn't like soccer or basketball where the field dimensions are the same. Setting that aside, spectator areas should somewhat correlate to the need. If the baseball facility is unsafe or unpleasurable for the spectators, then it should be fixed. Same for the softball field. But demanding that the baseball field be degraded to the supposed substandard quality of the softball field seems counter productive.

[pnwmom]

85. It sounds like parents watching either sport couldn't see very well.

And that's what the boys' bleachers were supposed to fix.

[Renew Deal]

86. That's the way I read it as well.

[gollygee]

139. The rule isn't that they have to be identical

just that they can't be of substantially different quality. It doesn't even say they have to cost the same because different sports have different expenses.

[pnwmom]

87. From what I understand, they haven't destroyed the bleachers, right?

Just stored them somewhere?

Why can't the parents do another fundraiser for the girls and let everyone have bleachers?

[1000words]

88. Exactly

Nothing is stopping softball boosters and parents from doing something about it.

I find it cowardly, the complaints came anonymously.

[pnwmom]

91. And nothing is stopping baseball boosters from helping to raise that money, too.

What if parents in one fifth grade classroom wanted to pitch in for all new books and supplies -- but just for their classroom. Would that be okay?

[kcr]

105. Let's take it even further

And make it more analogous. What if parents wanted to donate money for textbooks that have creationism and biblical verses in them. They're donating the money, after all. Apparently, according to the logic of some, that's supposed to be good enough and the school should accept it, because it's money being donated by parents and they should have that right and the law doesn't apply to them.

[clffrdjk]

110. And what harm did the bleachers cause?

We all know the idiocy of teaching creationism in school and the harm it can cause. But bleachers how does that compare?

[kcr]

112. It broke the law. An important law.

I certainly wouldn't like my children going to a school where the boys had better everything, no matter how it got that way. I'm glad title 9 exists. I don't care how that law got flouted, I'd want it rectified. Some think that parents throwing their money around is a good eough reason to let them ignore the law. I don't. Good on whoever reported it. I'm not surprised they had to do it anonymously. But I'm glad the school did the right thing.

[clffrdjk]

118. So even you see your comparison is bullshit.

[kcr]

120. Um. No.

[clffrdjk]

123. Then why avoid the question?

[BainsBane]

89. Here's a radical idea

Why don't the boys and girls use the same facility? Why do they need separate bleachers? Can't they alternate game days?

[kentauros]

94. See post #9

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4760180

Some good graphics showing why that can't work (softball fields are about a third smaller than baseball fields.)

[pnwmom]

95. Someone said they couldn't because the regulation fields are different sizes. nt

[pnwmom]

93. A simple, no-cost solution.

Co-ed baseball and softball teams, kids' choice.

[1000words]

99. Participation awards and trophies for everyone will be expensive

[pnwmom]

100. Who needs 'em?

Having fun is its own reward.

[JEFF9K]

102. Why would any non-moron believe what they read ...

... on a right-wing website?

[cheapdate]

104. It's about damn time.

I'm sick and tired of football and baseball getting all of the attention and resources while women's sports and kids who choose soccer, frisbee, tennis, track and field, cross country, band, latin club, etc., etc., etc., are practically ignored.

It's gotten sickening how the competitive pressure for men's headline sports has moved down to the high schools.

The cheerleaders and football team at my daughter's high school are treated like fucking royalty by the administration. They have privileges and resources galore while other teams and activities are fucking on their own.

It's about damn time.

[A Little Weird]

143. +1

I really think sports should not be a part of public education at all. There should be community leagues for kids that want to take part in sports. School should be about learning - not athlete worship.

[lumberjack_jeff]

113. Abolish the girls softball team and field a girls baseball team instead.

There's no less crying in baseball and both teams can then use the same stadium.

Problem solved.

[pnwmom]

133. Abolish the boys' baseball team,

and the girls' softball team.

Allow anyone who wants to play to be in either one.

[Nevernose]

125. So many people missing the point: this is discrimination based on sex.

If a group of private citizens, mostly parents, wanted to raise funds for a whites-only locker room, would you be okay with that? Of course not. In the hypothetical, let's assume that there are far more white kids on the team, that they make more money for the school, that their parents did a better job of fundraising: does that make seperate-but-unequal facilities acceptable?

Of course not. The only difference is that in this case, instead of skin tone, people are discriminating (albeit accidentally) based on genitals.

The optimal solution, for me, would be to get public schools out of the athletics industry. Barring that, they should be ordered to build new bleachers for the girls.

This all presupposes that the information we're getting from Glen Beck is accurate, though.

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. At worst, it's discrimination based on the sport.

Field a boys softball team and a girls baseball team and the problem is solved.

Show of hands; how many believe that the school would have been instructed to tear down the softball bleachers had they been improved?

This isn't about "equality", it's about "ladies first".

[Nevernose]

148. Title IX gets complicated

But for the law as written, girl's softball and boy's baseball are equivalent sports. Football, for instance, is specifically exempted because it's full contact; there is no equivalent sport.

[lumberjack_jeff]

149. Logically, sports that require different playing fields aren't equivalent.

It is also not reasonable to expect every school to update all their various sports facilities simultaneously.

[bluestateguy]

128. Title IX is a good law that is not always interpreted the right way

I better just leave it at that.

I'm not in the mood tonight to get screamed at.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

134. When combined with the "zero tolerance" attitude of some administrators ...

... then dumb things can happen.

Pyrrhic victories.

[Recursion]

130. I believe strongly in high school athletics

Which is why I don't believe in funding them.

Schools (hell, towns) should have extensive athletic infrastructure all people can use.

Tear the court down. You don't win games by a good stadium. You win by practicing every day on your driveway court.

[DCBob]

135. I think thats a misinterpretation of the law.

[B Calm]

138. Is this what the future is in the United States? I think

we need to go back to a tax structure like we had in the 1950's. Egads we're having to raise funds for bleachers!

[Nine]

140. So I'm looking at the official government site for the Office of Civil Rights...

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/index.html
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/complaints-how.html

I don't see where they issue "citations." I do see where the office "provides technical assistance to help institutions achieve voluntary compliance with the civil rights laws that OCR enforces," including developing "creative approaches to preventing and addressing discrimination."

I also note from the original article that these seats were also not handicapped-accessible. I also think "voluntarily dismantled and stored" might be a better description of what happened to this seating than "torn down," which suggests destruction.

I'm disappointed so many DUers are buying the right-wing spin on this.

[Scout]

144. why do they have boosters for specific teams?

why not boosters for all the teams? find out what all the teams need, and start raising money then.

or won't parents do that, support teams in addition to that of their own snowflake?

better yet, make all the sports teams community based, rather than in the schools.

[CTyankee]

146. why can't the school have a rule that funds raised by parents be split 50-50 for both

girls and boys sports?

[missingthebigdog]

151. I suspect that this is an ADA issue, not Title IX

Watched the news report- they say the school agreed to remove the seats, not that they were ordered to. The report just makes a passing mention of the lack of handicap accessibility, but it IS Fox.....

Accessibility for people with disabilities is non-negotiable. That's why there is no attempt here to share the field, or move half of the seats, or come up with another practical solution.

The school does not have the resources to make the deck accessible. It doesn't appear that would even be possible, looking at the set up.