www.azcentral.com/.../20101111deer-valley-unified-school-district-title-IX-investigation.html
Why do we continue to point to lower participating numbers of women in sports to justify the assertion that society is persecuting women? I was a part of a state high school championship team in Colorado and we never cut anybody. My daughters' teams in this very school (Deer Valley) district were regional champions 11 years running. Nobody on their teams got cut. I would assert that the opportunities are there even with the good teams/schools. Is it possible that overall less women are interested in sports? Badminton would put us in compliance??? Swell.
And for what it's worth, I think Hogshead got touched out in the 84 Olympics.
Fort, it's been awhile, please educate me again.:)
Since, as previously noted in this thread, the law is written in general terms, there appear to be too many "opportunities" for perspectives about what the intent of the law is.
Attempting to (over)quantify things can easily fail as well. I happen to be reading the book "The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America" right now. The author's basic premise is that for nearly the past century laws were written more and more (actually, I think "statutes and regulations" is a better phrase - IANAL) so as to be "self-executing," in an attempt to remove the need for any interpretation from judges, bureaucrats and law enforcement personnel. Before that, it is my understanding that many/most laws were written more generally, stating principles to be enforced, and required the people enforcing the laws to interpret them in the context where they were being applied. With "self-executing" laws you wind up with (for example) mandatory minimum sentencing laws which don't allow judges to any discretion at sentencing and which could send people to jail for life for a series of minor offenses.
Bringing it back to the subject at hand, how hard do you think it would be to write a fully proscribed Title IX law which would work equally well for school district superintendents in Sandpoint, ID, San Diego, CA and New York, NY, and would properly anticipate the needs of the overall population 30, 40 or 50 years into the future?
Skip
Since, as previously noted in this thread, the law is written in general terms, there appear to be too many "opportunities" for perspectives about what the intent of the law is.
Attempting to (over)quantify things can easily fail as well. I happen to be reading the book "The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America" right now. The author's basic premise is that for nearly the past century laws were written more and more (actually, I think "statutes and regulations" is a better phrase - IANAL) so as to be "self-executing," in an attempt to remove the need for any interpretation from judges, bureaucrats and law enforcement personnel. Before that, it is my understanding that many/most laws were written more generally, stating principles to be enforced, and required the people enforcing the laws to interpret them in the context where they were being applied. With "self-executing" laws you wind up with (for example) mandatory minimum sentencing laws which don't allow judges to any discretion at sentencing and which could send people to jail for life for a series of minor offenses.
Bringing it back to the subject at hand, how hard do you think it would be to write a fully proscribed Title IX law which would work equally well for school district superintendents in Sandpoint, ID, San Diego, CA and New York, NY, and would properly anticipate the needs of the overall population 30, 40 or 50 years into the future?
Skip
