quote:

---

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Kansas activities officials are investigating a religious school's refusal to let a female referee call a boys' high school basketball game.

The Kansas State High School Activities Association said referees reported that Michelle Campbell was preparing to officiate at St. Mary's Academy near Topeka on Feb. 2 when a school official insisted that Campbell could not call the game.

The reason given, according to the referees: Campbell, as a woman, could not be put in a position of authority over boys because of the academy's beliefs.

---

I hope that the Kansas State High School Activities Association, upon finding these facts are true, revokes the private school's status as an 'accepted school'. I don't think there's any room in our taxpayer-funded athletic association to support schools with such harsh discriminatory policies. (It's a private/non-profit organization, but I'm going to put my money in this spot, because I'm willing to bet the funding comes from public schools, which are taxpayer-funded.) I'll check this with my dad, who is a Superintendent and K-8 principal, tomorrow, just to be sure.

I would also support any area referees' associations in boycotting the school's athletic events (provided they can do so without breaking contracts.) The association mentioned in the article, the Topeka Officials Association, provided sound bites that indicate they might choose to take such action. Ya know, it's kind of hard to run a basketball program without referees for games...

In defense of the school, they have the right to make this choice, and they have the right to accept any consequences that result from that choice. I fully support their right to choose this way.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Yikes.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
How is a private school getting federal funds for their athletic program? Maybe things are done differently in this country but the private school I went to was totally dependent on tuition and fund raising.
 

---

Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
 
I didn't say they were getting federal funds, and I don't recall seeing that in the article. Correct me if I'm wrong...

I specified that a taxpayer-funded entity organized for athletics should not contain as an 'accepted member' a private school that discriminates on the basis of sex.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tstorm:
I didn't say they were getting federal funds, and I don't recall seeing that in the article. Correct me if I'm wrong...

I specified that a taxpayer-funded entity organized for athletics should not contain as an 'accepted member' a private school that discriminates on the basis of sex.

---

quote:

---

The reason given, according to the referees: Campbell, as a woman, could not be put in a position of authority over boys because of the academy's beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

The reason given, according to the referees: Campbell, as a woman, could not be put in a position of authority over boys because of the academy's beliefs.

---

hurrrrr welcum 2 St. Mary's Academy: ur gateway 2 teh 18th censury

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tstorm:
BlackBlade, I'm going to ask my dad, tomorrow, where the KSHSAA funding comes from. They have to get money to operate, and I hope to find out their source. Does that answer your question?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tstorm:
Yes, and I've quoted that in my original post. Your point?

My point is, I'm going to find out if their funding comes exclusively from member schools (public schools, in this case), or if there's another source.

---

quote:

---

The Activities Association said it is considering whether to take action against the private religious school. St. Mary's Academy, about 25 miles northwest of Topeka, is owned and operated by the Society of St. Pius X, which follows older Roman Catholic laws. The society's world leader, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, was excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in the late 1980s.

---

quote:

---

Hey here's an idea, try condescending just a little more. If you reach a certain threshold I hear it will convince anybody that they should stop arguing with you.

edit: I suppose that was a bit more rude then I intended it to be and for that I'm sorry. For some reason that comment just rubbed me the wrong way, as certain beliefs I have are considered backwards by some.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tstorm:
I specified that a taxpayer-funded entity organized for athletics should not contain as an 'accepted member' a private school that discriminates on the basis of sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Hey here's an idea, try condescending just a little more. If you reach a certain threshold I hear it will convince anybody that they should stop arguing with you.

edit: I suppose that was a bit more rude then I intended it to be and for that I'm sorry. For some reason that comment just rubbed me the wrong way, as certain beliefs I have are considered backwards by some.

---

There are certain things in this world that I'm inclined to roll my eyes furiously at and one of those is saying you can't have female referees because 'women can't be put in positions of authority over boys.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
I think it would be a different situation if the school only accepted students of a certain gender and only had teachers of a certain gender, but allowed outside organizations to which they belonged to operate freely while on their grounds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Juxtapose:
I've never really thought about it before, but can anyone explain to me why single sex schools aren't discriminating?

The best I can come up with is "they are discriminating, but that's okay."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
Yeah, I was curious-- does that mean their mothers can't tell them what to do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
Yeah, I was curious-- does that mean their mothers can't tell them what to do?

---

Where do you think the phrase "Wait until your father gets home!" came from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
To clarify I too think some ideas are so patently false that they are deserving of ridicule.

But where some draw the line occasionally skirts awfully close to territory that is not so well defined.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
BB,
Are you supportive of the idea that women should not be allowed to be referees over boys or that they shuoldn't hold authority over males in general?

That doesn't seem to skirt anywhere near a line I'd draw between things that are deserving of ridicule and not. I'm sort of surprised that it does for you.

---

quote:

---

To clarify I too think some ideas are so patently false that they are deserving of ridicule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:

quote:

---

To clarify I too think some ideas are so patently false that they are deserving of ridicule.

---

I'm not sure what justification you could have that anything could possibly deserve ridicule. Ridicule is fun and all, and it is sometimes insightful, but I don't think you could say it is something one ever deserves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tstorm:
Actually, rivka, I think KQ summed it up well. I have no issue with private, same-sex institutions.

---

Thanks for clarifying.
 

---

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:

quote:

---

To clarify I too think some ideas are so patently false that they are deserving of ridicule.

---

I'm not sure what justification you could have that anything could deserve ridicule. Ridicule is fun and all, and it is sometimes insightful, but I don't think you could say it is something one ever deserves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Juxtapose:
I've never really thought about it before, but can anyone explain to me why single sex schools aren't discriminating?

The best I can come up with is "they are discriminating, but that's okay."

---

It would not be okay in a public school (IMO.) In a private school, they can certainly choose who to serve-- only boys, only girls, only Orthodox Jews, only Scientologists, whatever.

They just can't then expect public funding.

---

Ah ha. That shouldn't have been so difficult to figure out. I think I was making it more complex than it had to be. Thanks for helpin' out the slow kid.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 

quote:

---

Campbell, as a woman, could not be put in a position of authority over boys because of the academy's beliefs.

---

I think whenever I am playing that team, I would be a Ravenist. Ravenism is an egotistical religion where I believe that I was the only one created truly in God's image, that I am his prophet and ultimate religious leader on this planet. (Please send contributions to....) Only Dan_raven is allowed to have authority over me. As the only Dan_raven, and the only Authority, I declare I win.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Only because it is the only way you CAN win.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Oooooh, smackdown!

*gets out popcorn*
 

---

Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tstorm:
Actually, rivka, I think KQ summed it up well. I have no issue with private, same-sex institutions.

---

Thanks for clarifying. [Smile]

---

You're welcome. I consider it important to clarify that I don't have any trouble with the concept of 'freedom of association'. It's rather fundamental, at least to me. Also, I'm glad this thread didn't descend into arguing. So thank you, too.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tstorm:
I consider it important to clarify that I don't have any trouble with the concept of 'freedom of association'. It's rather fundamental, at least to me.

---

quote:

---

Um... so you're saying that Fred Phelps isn't deserving of ridicule?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:

quote:

---

To clarify I too think some ideas are so patently false that they are deserving of ridicule.

---

I'm not sure what justification you could have that anything could deserve ridicule. Ridicule is fun and all, and it is sometimes insightful, but I don't think you could say it is something one ever deserves.

---

quote:

---

It would not be okay in a public school (IMO.) In a private school, they can certainly choose who to serve-- only boys, only girls, only Orthodox Jews, only Scientologists, whatever.

They just can't then expect public funding.

---

quote:

---

I dunno I think the idea that women can't be put in authority over boys (or men for that matter) is worth some condescension and mockery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:

quote:

---

It would not be okay in a public school (IMO.) In a private school, they can certainly choose who to serve-- only boys, only girls, only Orthodox Jews, only Scientologists, whatever.

They just can't then expect public funding.

---

Actually there are gender separated public schools. The difference is that they justify the practice by arguing that girls and boys learn better in a single sex environment, and there is significant evidence to back up the claim. I think there must be an opt out clause if students (or parents) want to have a co-ed environment.

---

quote:

---

The holding of Runyon is that the defendant private schools were free to express and teach their views, such as white separatism, but could not discriminate on the basis of race in the provision of services to the general public. So, if the plaintiff African-American children wished to attend such private schools, and were clearly qualified in all respects (but race) and were able to pay the fees, and were willing to attend despite the fact that the school's professed principles were inconsistent with admitting them, then the schools were required by Section 1981 to admit them. The general rule to be drawn is that the First Amendment protects the right to express a viewpoint, including expression of a preference for racial discrimination, but people may not practice such ideas even within private associations.

---

quote:

---

If that is true, I wonder if gender or religious-based schools can legally discriminate when picking their potential students or not i.e. if a male applied for a female-only public school, could they legally turn him away?

---

The constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, creed or color, it does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Really? Thats interesting, I didn't know that. Ours explicitly includes gender as a prohibited basis for discrimination.

So what legal basis do feminists use in the United States when they argue for equal rights?
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
In the 1970s and early 80s there was an amendment proposed to the US constitution which would have guaranteed equal rights for women, it did not receive ratification from 2/3rds of the states. To this date, the US constitution does not guarantee equal rights for women. Some individual states do have constitutional prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of gender others have laws prohibiting or proscribing it, but in general women in the US have no legal recourse against descrimination.

When feminists in the US argue for equal rights it is on moral and ethical grounds not legal. Most commonly they are arguing for additional laws protecting women's rights.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
(Just to let you know, I've read that and have nothing *useful* to add except for a surprised "really?" I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the ramifications of "no legal recourse against discrimination"
(not that its necessarily bad, I'm just surprised that there is a difference like this))
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Ah, but come now, why would women need protection from discrimination based on gender? That's just crazy talk.




^
I
I
I
I

---

[I know this is on the topic of private discrimination, not public, but the sentiment is not so proscribed as that, unfortunately.]
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Mucus, I believe there were concerns raised that such an amendment to the US Constitution would force everyone to use the same toilet, or some such.

No, seriously.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
I know the CA state constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender (at least that's what I was taught in school...) I wonder how many states have constitutions that do not?
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
CT (response to your first post actually, which I thought was a response to mine): Sorry, I just didn't want to give off the "superior Canadian" impression by implying that our system was automatically better by having a equivalent of a constitutional clause prohibiting discrimination based on gender.
But by trying to avoid offence on these grounds, also know that I mean no offence to women including you either.

(I've just never previously considered the fact that the US has no constitutional protection for women, I just kinda assumed that it did)

Hmmmm, I don't know if that rambling is any better ...
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

The constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, creed or color, it does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender.

---

quote:

---

Some individual states do have constitutional prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of gender others have laws prohibiting or proscribing it, but in general women in the US have no legal recourse against descrimination.

---

quote:

---

In 1971, for the first time in our Nation's history, this Court ruled in favor of a woman who complained that her State had denied her the equal protection of its laws. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 73 (holding unconstitutional Idaho Code prescription that, among " `several persons claiming and equally entitled to administer [a decedent's estate], males must be preferred to females' "). Since Reed, the Court has repeatedly recognized that neither federal nor state government acts compatibly with the equal protection principle when a law or official policy denies to women, simply because they are women, full citizenship stature--equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities. See, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455, 462-463 (1981) (affirming invalidity of Louisiana law that made husband "head and master" of property jointly owned with his wife, giving him unilateral right to dispose of such property without his wife's consent); Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S. 7 (1975) (invalidating Utah requirement that parents support boys until age 21, girls only until age 18).

Without equating gender classifications, for all purposes, to classifications based on race or national origin, [n.6] the Court, in post-Reed decisions, has carefully inspected official action that closes a door or denies opportunity to women (or to men). See J. E. B., 511 U. S., at 152 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (case law evolving since 1971 "reveal[s] a strong presumption that gender classifications are invalid"). To summarize the Court's current directions for cases of official classification based on gender: Focusing on the differential treatment or denial of opportunity for which relief is sought, the reviewing court must determine whether the proffered justification is "exceedingly persuasive." The burden of justification is demanding and it rests entirely on the State. See Mississippi Univ. for Women, 458 U. S., at 724. The State must show "at least that the [challenged] classification serves `important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed' are `substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.' " Ibid. (quoting Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co., 446 U.S. 142, 150 (1980)). The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females. See Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 643, 648 (1975); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199, 223-224 (1977) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment).

---

 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
No, darlin', it's fine.

I am venting a nearly lifelong frustration, that's all. A really sad part of it is that surveys at the time found that many people opposed to the "Equal Rights Amendment" did not actually know what it said. It actually entailed very little:

quote:

---

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

---

quote:

---

Lovely to know that the law is being interpreted that way, Dagonee. I do hope that doesn't change.

---

The VMI decision was 7-1. Only Scalia dissented, and Thomas did not participate. Edit: so it looks pretty set.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Great!
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

No he isn't deserving of ridicule. He is probably deserving of some sort of punishment, but ridicule is not the sort of thing that will balance those moral scales.

---