Equality: Help a Young Grappler Accomplish Her Dreams

[Joaozinho]

Done

 

[bLikeWater]

You're absolutely right! In fact, I should be able to go to a vegan restaurant and get a steak, regardless of that restaurant's purpose or the personal beliefs of its owners. To hell with the rights of private business owners - I want to get my way, damnit!

And I in no way have any problem at all with women competing against men. I simply have a problem with people demanding that a private organization violate its principles (no matter how ridiculous they might be) to satisfy the whims of others. And I find it hypocritical that women expect to be allowed to play on mens teams when it suits them, but a massive public outcry ensues whenever a boy has attempted to play on a womens team (which has happened on a couple occasions with sports like field hockey which do not have a mens team.) Hypocricy in general disgusts me, as do people whose definition of "equality" includes special treatment when it's in their favor.

Furthermore I am far from "far-right" - if anything I'm closer to libertarian than anything else, though my beliefs don't exactly align with theirs either. That said I do find it telling that the liberal response in this thread was to immediately resort to personal attacks rather than making any constructive argument. Guess we know who's responsible for the lack of intelligent, rational discourse in this country.

No. You shouldn't. Because if you want steak, you can just go to a different restaurant, because restaurants that provide what you want are available. Amanda Leve wants a decent high-school education as well as the opportunity to compete in a sport that she loves and is extremely talented at. Unfortunately, this option is not available to her, as the public education system in Philadelphia, like many major cities, is complete shit.

And the field hockey thing is really not a valid argument, because in those situations, there is probably an ice-hockey team the boy can go play on, and if there isn't, than the field hockey team should in fact be made inter-gender. If Amanda was upset that she couldn't wrestle with the boys, even though her school had a girls judo team, then it would be comparable.

If Catholic schools were private organizations you would be right. But they're not, they get federal funding. The education system is broken. Public schools should be getting enough federal funding that they can do their jobs properly. And private schools should probably not be getting any, so they can do what they want and we won't have to have these debates. Amanda is just trying to fix her little broken piece of the world so that she can follow her passion. Why are you shitting on a teenage-girls dreams?

 

[PoundSand]

No. You shouldn't. Because if you want steak, you can just go to a different restaurant, because restaurants that provide what you want are available. Amanda Leve wants a decent high-school education as well as the opportunity to compete in a sport that she loves and is extremely talented at. Unfortunately, this option is not available to her, as the public education system in Philadelphia, like many major cities, is complete shit.

sorry, but that argument doesn't hold - surely there are other private schools in philly, and they've *chosen* to go to this one, just as (in the equally bad argument) someone chose to go to the veggie restaurant despite other options being available.

And the field hockey thing is really not a valid argument, because in those situations, there is probably an ice-hockey team the boy can go play on, and if there isn't, than the field hockey team should in fact be made inter-gender.

no, it shouldn't be (typically) made mixed gender. title ix is about opportunities, which includes sports being available in a proportional amount (as one of the possible criteria), not the same or similar sports being available. if boys' sports are more available (as is generally the case), there is no need to allow the boy on any girls' teams, no matter what they want to play.

 

[B.A. Ben Askren]

From what I see the school can discriminate based on gender anyway. Below is a link to their latest financial reports, and I don't think a significant portion of their school funding is from federal financial assistance.

See Bercovitch v. Baldwin Sch., Inc., 133 F.3d 141, 152 (1st Cir. 1998) which states that insignificant amounts of federal funds being granted don't make an institution bound by Title IX.

Even if it were a significant amount Title IX has religious exemptions. Although not quoted, it is in specific reference and limitation to discrimination based on sex. “Educational institutions of religious organizations with contrary religious tenets: this section shall not apply to
an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would
not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.” 20 U.S.C.

 

[Jackson 2012]

For a country that was supposedly founded on freedom and equality, some Americans sure do like to dictate to others what they can/cannot do, particularly when it has no bearing on their own lives whatsoever.

 

[B.A. Ben Askren]

Not sure if your post is against the school telling the girl she can't do something, or against the people telling the church they can't do something. Either way I think she can do whatever she wants.

She signed up for that school, which doesn't allow (at the moment) participation by girls in their boys sports (particularly the contact sports), and now wants in on it anyway. As a big wrestling fan, I say go for it and good for her. As someone who is against government mandating much of anything, I say "don't attend the religious school if you don't agree with their religious stances".

 

[PoundSand]

From what I see the school can discriminate based on gender anyway. Below is a link to their latest financial reports, and I don't think a significant portion of their school funding is from federal financial assistance.

See Bercovitch v. Baldwin Sch., Inc., 133 F.3d 141, 152 (1st Cir. 1998) which states that insignificant amounts of federal funds being granted don't make an institution bound by Title IX.

putting aside the fact that the 1st district doesn't cover pa, there have been later rulings in pa which held that title ix applied to another pa school which didn't receive any federal funding because one other school run by the diocese received subsidies under the school lunch program. this diocese received close to $17M in gov't grants for nutritional services in 2011 and used that to support providing meals in 121 schools according to your link. so those "insignificant" funds would seem to put this school under title ix.
[Russo v. Diocese of Greensburg, 2010 WL 3656579 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2010) ]

Even if it were a significant amount Title IX has religious exemptions. Although not quoted, it is in specific reference and limitation to discrimination based on sex. “Educational institutions of religious organizations with contrary religious tenets: this section shall not apply to
an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would
not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.” 20 U.S.C.

 

[Strange Shadows]

do people in this thread understand 'equality'?

i am glad subch shit on some of you.

 

[Explosion Man]

I certainly don't agree with his sentiment but BJJBeginner is technically correct when he says 'Equality' would mean that males could train with the females as well. The word this particular Young Grappler is technically looking for is 'Equity'.

However this argument is mainly semantics and not valid.

BJJBeginner is also wrong in saying that she wants special treatment, she wants fair and equitable treatment.

However I agree with him that since she is going to private Catholic School it is really up to them however ridiculous their rules are, but she likely had no choice in attending that school so it's not really fair to her.

Hopefully these signatures will show her school how stupid they are and is a step to combatting retarded shit like this.

 

[Kid Muscle]

Should go to a public school

 

[PoundSand]

I certainly don't agree with his sentiment but BJJBeginner is technically correct when he says 'Equality' would mean that males could train with the females as well.

it doesn't mean that at all. equality, as in equal opportunity, is not like a mathematical equality.

However I agree with him that since she is going to private Catholic School it is really up to them however ridiculous their rules are, but she likely had no choice in attending that school so it's not really fair to her.

which would be a fine argument if the private school didn't accept public funds, but they do.

 

[Cris]

Done... good luck!

 

[HomerPlata]

it doesn't mean that at all. equality, as in equal opportunity, is not like a mathematical equality.

What? It's exactly like mathematical equality. It means people have equal, ie. the same opportunities. I agree that the boys should all be allowed to join girls' teams too then. Or else use a different word than "equality".

 

[PoundSand]

What? It's exactly like mathematical equality. It means people have equal, ie. the same opportunities. I agree that the boys should all be allowed to join girls' teams too then. Or else use a different word than "equality".

you might not like the word, but it is what it is, and it doesn't mean the 'same.' what equal opportunity really means, in simple terms, is the absence of artificial barriers, not the same opportunities. with regards to athletics and title ix specifically, it means meeting proportionality, demonstrating continued expansion for the underrepresented sex, or meeting the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

 

[Jackson 2012]

you might not like the word, but it is what it is, and it doesn't mean the 'same.' what equal opportunity really means, in simple terms, is the absence of artificial barriers, not the same opportunities. with regards to athletics and title ix specifically, it means meeting proportionality, demonstrating continued expansion for the underrepresented sex, or meeting the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

WGAFF.
The kid wants to wrestle.... so let her.

 

[PoundSand]

WGAFF.

some people are apparently against letting her because they think it's a private school so they should be able to do what they want, or that equal opportunity means that guys should be able to play on girls' teams. neither of those are good arguments in this case, so if those are their actual objections, educating them may erase their objections and get her to support letting the kid wrestle.

 

[BJJ Beginner]

you might not like the word, but it is what it is, and it doesn't mean the 'same.' what equal opportunity really means, in simple terms, is the absence of artificial barriers, not the same opportunities. with regards to athletics and title ix specifically, it means meeting proportionality, demonstrating continued expansion for the underrepresented sex, or meeting the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

NO, that is what the term has been perverted to mean by opportunistic politicians and people who subscribe to the culture of victimhood. As Abraham Lincoln once said, if you call a dog's tail a "leg" that doesn't make it one. Unless of course you want to make the argument that all language is simply a means of expression and all words are open to changing interpretation, but a) you would be engaging in sophistry (in fact you've already been doing so) and b) I would counter by pointing out that the accepted meaning of the term "equal" as used by the VAST majority of the world (politicians and "victims" aside) IS synonymous with "same". So unless you want a world in which all words have no meaning and language is completely arbitrary, I'm going to stick with a definition of equality that doesn't give unequal advantages to anybody, thank you very much.

And Title IX is a disaster that has done FAR more harm than good. Or have you forgotten the primary reason why wrestling (among many other) programs all over the country have been cut?

Finally, let's cut out the nonsense about "underrepresentation" as it completely flies in the face of both statistical analysis and logic. The problem with trying to enforce "fairness" based on results rather than opportunity (which is what title IX, affirmative action, and similar laws all truly do because actually measuring "opportunity" in any objective sense is far more difficult to express in concrete terms, measure/calculate, and most importantly for a layperson to understand) is that it makes a lot of assumptions that are neither logically sound nor backed by valid data.

A simple example: if you have equal numbers of men and women within a population, more men will want to play sports than women. Now some of that may be explained by cultural conditioning (more men are encouraged to play sports), and I will be the first to say that is something that should be changed. That said, as un-PC as it is to admit these days, and keeping in mind that there is a wide range of variability in both populations, men and women ARE, in the aggregate, different. So it is quite possible (and one could argue likely), that even in the absence of cultural factors you would STILL have more men than women who want to play sports. And without somehow determining and accounting for that factor, any comparison based on straight numbers is statistically and logically unsound.

Let's make things even clearer. Suppose that there is true equal opportunity. This could happen in one of two ways: either gender is not considered at all and the best athletes of either gender make the team for each sport, or sports are segregated by gender but each sport has both a mens and a womens team. I think most rational people could agree that at least one of those could be considered an ideal example of equal opportunity.

We all know what would happen in the first case: the vast majority of spots would be filled by men. So we have a situation which is completely blind to gender, but very few women end up playing sports. OK, so let's have separate mens and womens teams, ignoring for the moment the fact that this is already an unequal advantage enjoyed by women since smaller/weaker men at a similar physical level as those women don't get their own leagues in which to play, but I digress. Every sport has mens and womens teams - fair, right? But will there be enough women interested to field a football team? Probably not, and considering football has by far the largest team size of any sport you're looking at the primary reason why there are more men playing sports in college. The same is true of wrestling: some women may be interested in it (and good for them), but not enough to sustain a league. Football isn't going to be cut, as it's too popular and brings in too much money. Wrestling, on the other hand, doesn't have those advantages, so in the name of "fairness" the mens team gets cut because there aren't enough interested women for most schools to have a womens team.

As you can see, even if the opportunity is there, there's no guarantee that it will be taken advantage of. And that is why you can't look strictly at numbers and decree that some group is "underrepresented" without looking at the assumptions you are making (namely that there is equal interest which without some form of discrimination occurring would lead to equal results, and must therefore by "corrected") and making sure that they are sound.

 

[PoundSand]

NO, that is what the term has been perverted to mean by opportunistic politicians and people who subscribe to the culture of victimhood. As Abraham Lincoln once said, if you call a dog's tail a "leg" that doesn't make it one. Unless of course you want to make the argument that all language is simply a means of expression and all words are open to changing interpretation, but a) you would be engaging in sophistry (in fact you've already been doing so) and b) I would counter by pointing out that the accepted meaning of the term "equal" as used by the VAST majority of the world (politicians and "victims" aside) IS synonymous with "same". So unless you want a world in which all words have no meaning and language is completely arbitrary, I'm going to stick with a definition of equality that doesn't give unequal advantages to anybody, thank you very much.

words do have meaning. often different meanings. that evolve. and mean different things when combined with other words. that's the way it's always been. and 'equal opportunity' has never meant 'the same, and only the same opportunity.'

this applies to other terms using equal- relevant to sherdog, we might say two fighters are 'equally matched.' that doesn't mean they have the same skills or physical attributes - it means, on the whole, they are well matched (i.e. one might be stronger but slower than the other, has better striking but weaker grappling, etc). "balanced" might be the best way to describe this use of equal, and if would match well with the use in 'equal opportunity.'

And Title IX is a disaster that has done FAR more harm than good. Or have you forgotten the primary reason why wrestling (among many other) programs all over the country have been cut?

Finally, let's cut out the nonsense about "underrepresentation" as it completely flies in the face of both statistical analysis and logic. The problem with trying to enforce "fairness" based on results rather than opportunity (which is what title IX, affirmative action, and similar laws all truly do because actually measuring "opportunity" in any objective sense is far more difficult to express in concrete terms, measure/calculate, and most importantly for a layperson to understand) is that it makes a lot of assumptions that are neither logically sound nor backed by valid data.

A simple example: if you have equal numbers of men and women within a population, more men will want to play sports than women. Now some of that may be explained by cultural conditioning (more men are encouraged to play sports), and I will be the first to say that is something that should be changed. That said, as un-PC as it is to admit these days, and keeping in mind that there is a wide range of variability in both populations, men and women ARE, in the aggregate, different. So it is quite possible (and one could argue likely), that even in the absence of cultural factors you would STILL have more men than women who want to play sports. And without somehow determining and accounting for that factor, any comparison based on straight numbers is statistically and logically unsound.

you are railing against the strict proportionality test. which is history. and i agree, was lousy. the three prong test is what's applied now, and with the three prong test, if an institution has few women interested in sports (as in your example), athletic participation does not need to be proportional to the population.

Let's make things even clearer. Suppose that there is true equal opportunity. This could happen in one of two ways: either gender is not considered at all and the best athletes of either gender make the team for each sport, or sports are segregated by gender but each sport has both a mens and a womens team. I think most rational people could agree that at least one of those could be considered an ideal example of equal opportunity.

that's if you use your made up definition of equal opportunity. and you said you didn't like made up definitions. ha! :icon_lol:

As you can see, even if the opportunity is there, there's no guarantee that it will be taken advantage of. And that is why you can't look strictly at numbers and decree that some group is "underrepresented" without looking at the assumptions you are making (namely that there is equal interest which without some form of discrimination occurring would lead to equal results, and must therefore by "corrected") and making sure that they are sound.

and, of course, the three prong test allows you to do just that. look into it before railing on criteria which is history. ;D

 

[BJJ Beginner]

Part one of the three-prong test IS the strict proportionality approach, and the other two parts both start under the assumption that there is an "underrepresented" group that must be catered to and given unequal advantages. Just how do you suppose that "underrepresented" group is determined?

Face it: Title IX's entire foundation is built on the faulty strict proportionality argument. It assumes that somebody must be being discriminated against (with absolutely zero evidence to support this radical claim), and requires either that an unreasonable standard be met (prong one), or that the appointed group of "victims" have its every whim catered to (prong three, and just so nobody thinks I'm exaggerating: "Fully accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex"), or as a temporary measure that the organization be moving toward one of those two outrageous goals (prong two, rarely accepted as sufficient).

You can't start with a completely unsupported assumption and force people to jump through hoops to prove your unfounded proposition wrong. At least not in the rational world; unfortunately the world of politics operates in a different fashion.

 

[PoundSand]

Part one of the three-prong test IS the strict proportionality approach

Right- but you don't have to meet that! You can be compliant by meeting ANY of the three prongs.

and the other two parts both start under the assumption that there is an "underrepresented" group that must be catered to and given unequal advantages. Just how do you suppose that "underrepresented" group is determined?

By proportion of course. And there's no need for quotes - it is underrepresented of the percentage of the population, by strict definition, since you like strict definitions so much.

So, if there is proportionate representation, there is no issue. If there isn't, you can be compliant by meeting ANY of the the prongs.

Face it: Title IX's entire foundation is built on the faulty strict proportionality argument. It assumes that somebody must be being discriminated against (with absolutely zero evidence to support this radical claim), and requires either that an unreasonable standard be met (prong one), or that the appointed group of "victims" have its every whim catered to (prong three, and just so nobody thinks I'm exaggerating: "Fully accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex"), or as a temporary measure that the organization be moving toward one of those two outrageous goals (prong two, rarely accepted as sufficient).

You are jumping to a weird starting point by claiming it assumes someone must be being discriminated against. It's not like title ix cases are being thrown at all schools even with no one taking issue with the status quo.

And yes, you're exaggerating.

You can't start with a completely unsupported assumption

The only one doing that is you with your claim of an assumed discrimination to start!