The Trump Card
August 30, 2013
The cardinal principles for those preparing the playing rules of school sports are these:
- Preserve the sound traditions of the sport.
- Minimize risk.
- Provide for orderly administration.
- Maintain balance between offense and defense.
These were recited frequently when I was an employee of the National Federation of State High School Associations early in my career, when I was the staff liaison to the rules committees for ice hockey, soccer, swimming & diving and volleyball. These principles have been repeated many times over many years as the filter for proposals to modify contest rules in all sports.
A serious student of playing rules has known that the high school rules – enforced by part-time officials – generally have fewer exceptions than the rules on higher levels where officials have more time and training. NFL football, for example, will have exception upon exception to general principles of rules enforcement, which high school rules makers avoid. In other words, ease of administration has been more important for the high school level than a perfect balance between offense and defense in every circumstance of the contest.
It is clear now that the rules makers on all levels – from the pros to peewees – have concluded that “player safety trumps competitive advantage.” Exactly that phrase was used by some of the nation’s highest profile sports officials and supervisors of officials at high school, college and professional levels during a panel discussion closing the National Association of Sports Officials Summit in Grand Rapids last month.
More than perfect balance between offense and defense, more than ease of administration, even more than preserving the sound traditions of the sport, the rules makers are demanding player protection. In subtle ways in some sports, and smack between the eyes in football.
Go to the MHSAA Health & Safety Page, or the Football Page for more.
Cheering for Equal Opportunity
February 14, 2017
Guided by the spirit of Title IX, the Michigan High School Athletic Association created girls competitive cheer in 1993 for the express purpose of providing an additional winter sport for girls to equalize athletic opportunities between the sexes. Before that, girls in Michigan had fewer athletic opportunities in the winter than in fall or spring and fewer athletic opportunities than boys overall.
Like all girls sports under MHSAA regulations, participation in MHSAA Girls Competitive Cheer Tournaments has been limited to girls. Since the 1977-78 school year (after a team of four boys won an Illinois High School Association girls state bowling championship), the MHSAA Handbook has included the following rule: “Boys may not participate on a girls team in MHSAA sponsored postseason meets and tournaments.” The MHSAA also encourages member schools not to permit boys to participate on girls teams during regular season play.
Without a policy prohibiting boys from displacing girls from teams and from the playing surface, athletic opportunities for girls would be in serious jeopardy, as many courts examining this issue have concluded. In short, permitting boys to displace girls would be antithetical to the fundamental purpose of Title IX.
The overwhelming majority of federal and state courts have concluded that “no-boys-on-girls-teams” rules are lawful and necessary. These cases conclude that maintaining and promoting athletic opportunities for girls and redressing past discrimination against women in athletics are important objectives. And, second, they conclude that excluding boys from girls’ sports – even if girls may participate on boys’ teams – is substantially related to that important interest.
Case law provides two separate, simple explanations; each of which, standing alone, establishes the legitimacy of the rule. First, having all-girl teams creates or maintains opportunities for females that would not otherwise exist, thereby providing females opportunity to develop programs equal to boys.
Second, because there are recognized, innate physiological differences between the sexes that give boys inherent advantages in most athletic events, to permit boys to participate on girls’ teams – irrespective of the sport – would displace girls from competition to a substantial extent, thereby diminishing female opportunity in athletics.
- A federal court in a Tennessee case wrote in 1977: “[it] takes little imagination to realize that were play and competition not separated by sex, the great bulk of females would quickly be eliminated from participation and denied any meaningful opportunity for athletic involvement.”
-
A federal court in Arizona wrote in 1989: “If males are permitted to displace females ... even to the extent of one player ..., the goal of equal participation by females in interscholastic athletics is set back, not advanced.”
The MHSAA created girls competitive cheer expressly to provide overall equal athletic opportunity for girls that did not exist before it was added as an MHSAA sport. That a boy now wishes to participate on a girls competitive cheer team, despite the abundance of athletic opportunities for boys in other sports, does not establish a violation of Title IX. And Title IX has never been so construed. The MHSAA’s rule creates for girls the opportunity to enjoy highly competitive athletic opportunity in the same number of sports as boys – precisely satisfying Title IX.
The MHSAA made its move toward girls competitive cheer two decades before entrepreneurs invented coed “stunt” for schools’ and colleges’ consideration. By that time, participation in girls competitive cheer had tripled in Michigan high schools. Girls competitive cheer is now the eighth-most popularly sponsored high school sport in Michigan, above sports like tennis, golf and swimming & diving which had a 20-year head start.