General Discussion

Nine

(1,741 posts) Wed Apr 2, 2014, 11:49 AM Apr 2014

More about those bleachers the right wing media has been yammering about...

The story, as popularly known, is that the big bad fed stuck their noses in, decided that a high school had better bleachers for boy's baseball than girl's softball, gave the school a "citation" and ordered them to rip up the boy's bleachers so that everything would be equal. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024760003

Here is the official d0cumentation from the Dept of Education's Office of Civil Rights:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/15131020-a.pdf (general info)
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/15131020-b.pdf (resolution submitted by the district)
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.html (case processing manual)

Here are some excerpts from these documents:

This is to notify you of the disposition of the above-referenced complaint, which was filed on October 19, 2012...

In accordance with the Policy Interpretation, OCR compares the boys’ program and the girls’ program on an overall basis, not on a sport-by-sport basis (such as, for example, baseball vs. softball).

Although OCR usually has no authority to investigate independent booster clubs, recipient school districts must ensure that equivalent benefits and services are provided to members of both sexes. Therefore, when booster clubs or other fundraising organizations, which may or may not be sponsored by the district, provide benefits or services that assist only teams of one sex, the district must ensure that teams of the other sex receive equivalent benefits and services.

Prior to the completion of OCR’s investigation, the District expressed an interest in resolving this complaint pursuant to Section 302 of OCR’s Case Processing Manual (Manual). The District submitted the enclosed resolution agreement, described below, to resolve the complaint.

The softball coach also told OCR that the perception might be that the District values baseball more highly than softball because of the seating patio at the baseball field.

The baseball field also has a raised patio with fifty additional seats that was paid for and built by the Plymouth High School Baseball Boosters... One of the District’s (two) athletic directors told OCR that the seating patio was constructed about six years ago, before he started in his position... He said that he is not particularly happy with the seating patio, and he would not mind if it were removed. He noted that it is above the fence line, in the line where foul balls could be hit. He said this raises safety concerns.

Here's what I take away from this:

First, the resolution was submitted by the high school, not by the OCR. The school needed to become compliant with the law but they had a number of options for doing so. So, why did they choose to dismantle the bleachers (seating patio)? I would guess that the strongest reason is that one of the school's two athletic directors said he didn't like them. He considered them a safety concern. The seats were taken down and are being stored. Perhaps they will sell them or use them somewhere else. It appears to me that the seating was built without much thought put into it. The seats weren't handicapped-accessible according to some reports. They were deliberately built to sit higher than the fence line - the fence that is meant to prevent foul balls from hitting spectators. The seats and the scoreboard together created a clear violation of Title IX, which the school really should have known. The "high-quality, inning-by-inning" scoreboard is not being torn down according to what I have read; instead, they are planning to get a better scoreboard for the girl's softball field. The current one is "below average."

Second, the patio seating was built six years ago. The Title IX complaint was filed with OCR a year and a half ago. I suspect, though don't know, that there were probably complaints made to the school itself before someone decided to get OCR involved. In any case, the school has had plenty of time to recognize and address this issue before now. Although the seats are still a school asset, the raised patio itself is probably a loss. Is that a shame? Sure. But that's the risk you take when you build things that don't comply with the law. Structures are torn down all the time for not complying with building codes or zoning rules or other regulations. The main reason the school probably chose to dismantle the seating rather than spend money to add equivalent seating on the softball field is that the seating was problematic to begin with.

I think the reason this story has captured attention is that it seems to represent the spirit of, "If I can't have it, no one else will." But is that really what's going on here? There's a reason Title IX exists. If you say it doesn't matter if one group gets more, you're also saying it doesn't matter if one group gets less. And you're also saying that the inequality, in and of itself, isn't a problem. But it IS a problem. It sends a strong message that girls' activities are not as important as boys' activities, and by extension that girls themselves are not as important as boys. That's a harmful message. Putting up those seats didn't just make the boys better off, it made the girls worse off. If you can't see that, let me ask you this. What if a school had a nice, modern drinking fountain that said "white" and a run-down fountain that said "colored" and (for some reason) the only options were to either tear down the nice fountain and make everyone use the run-down one, or leave things as is? Would you still be making the argument that leaving both fountains is the better solution? Or would you recognize that the message being sent by the disparate fountains is the more important issue at stake?