Bathroom Breaks
April 29, 2016
Restrooms and locker rooms have become the front line of the latest civil rights battle in America, with collateral damage to school sports possible.
The laws of the land (local, state and federal) are presently conflicting and unclear; but ultimately, they are likely to be liberally construed. In the meantime, it will be discouraging to observe litigation that pits one person’s rights to access against another person’s right of privacy.
What we advocate is a safe and supportive environment for all students, with as many decisions as possible made at the most local level possible where resources can be best assessed and allocated.
We take no political or religious position; we are on the side of students, facilitating opportunities for gender questioning or confirming students while promoting a fair and level playing field in competitive athletics for all students.
To preserve opportunities for females and consistent with state and federal statutes and a long history of case law, Michigan High School Athletic Association rules do not allow boys on girls teams in MHSAA postseason tournaments. Therefore, the only time the MHSAA is directly involved is when a male student is transitioning to female and desires to play on an interscholastic team designated only for females in MHSAA tournaments. We decide about eligibility only; local schools make the necessary accommodations.
If a student’s gender preference of male is disputed by facts, that student may not be allowed on tournament teams designated for females only. Each decision is made on a case-by-case basis, balancing the objectives of promoting both opportunity and fair play.
Sweating the Small Stuff - #3
June 5, 2018
I’m sure it discouraged some of our state’s high school football coaches to learn that the Representative Council of the Michigan High School Athletic Association did not approve at its May 6-7 meeting what some people refer to as the “enhanced strength of schedule proposal” for determining 256 qualifiers to the MHSAA’s 11-player football playoffs.
There was desire among some Council members to appease those who keep trying to reduce the difficulties that a football tournament causes for regular season scheduling and conference affiliations. Others noted that the proposal, as presented, could cause as much harm to some schools and conferences as it would help others, that it did not solve the scheduling problem but shifted it.
During spirited discussion, some Council members resurrected two ideas that have been rejected previously, such as (1) doubling the playoffs once again (and shortening the regular season to eight games), and (2) coupling a six- or seven-win minimum with the revised strength of schedule criteria. The pros and cons of each idea flowed freely.
And therein is the problem. If one digs down into the details of proposals, both old and new, there are both positive and negative aspects apparent, both intended and unintended consequences likely.
There can be paralysis in analysis; but when we are dealing with more than 600 high school programs and a physically demanding sport with fewer regular-season contests permitted than in any other sport, one cannot be too careful. Eliminating one of just nine regular-season games? Increasing first-round tournament mismatches? Disadvantaging larger schools locked in leagues or areas of the state where smaller schools predominate? These are not minor matters.
And until there are sensible answers, these are not trivial questions.