Don't get me wrong... The guy in this article shouldn't have gotten fired for merely complaining - and he should get his job back if that's all he did. But we live in a culture where everyone thinks they should have get a free ride.
The issue in this case doesn't , to me, seem to be gender. Rather, they are comparing apples and oranges. Men's basketball is a LOT more competiive and MUCH more highly watched. Schools put resources into where they draw revenue from. Thus, Men's Curling and Crew don't draw the same resources as Men's Football...or for that matter, Womens' basketball. Perhaps it's not fair, but it's capitalism.
But instead, what you have are women growing up being taught that, because they are physically weaker than men, they should get things handed to them on a plate. For example, the WOMENS' Crew team received full funding (boats, oars, uniforms, etc.), but the MENS' received NO FUNDING even though almost 3X as many men tried out for Crew as women.
That said, I think we should eliminate fan-based athletics from high schools and colleges alltogether...put tax money only into paying for teachers and textbooks and buildings....but that's just me. The crappy-ass system as it is, I call it like I see it.
Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar29.html
Whistleblowers Protected Under Title IX
By Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 29, 2005; 1:05 PM
The Supreme Court today approved a potentially important new weapon for the enforcement of Title IX, the federal law barring gender discrimination by educational institutions receiving federal funds.
By a 5-4 vote, the court said a male coach of a girls' team who complained about sex discrimination at his school can sue a school board for retaliating against him even though Title IX does not explicitly authorize such suits.
He can sue, the court said, even though he was not, conventionally speaking, the victim of the discrimination.
In so ruling, the court expanded the Title IX definition of "victim" beyond the obvious, to include a person who complains of discrimination against others.
The decision was a victory for Roderick Jackson, the one-time coach of the Ensley High School girls' basketball team in Birmingham, Ala., who was dismissed after complaining that his players were getting unequal funding and inferior facilities compared to the boys. Among Jackson's complaints was that the girls did not have a regulation-size gym and that their basketball rims were bent.
The court struck down an appeals court decision saying such suits involving retaliation were not authorized by Title IX and that even if they were, the coach could not bring one because he was not the victim of sex discrimination.
Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated that this law, along with many others where the court has found an "implied" right to sue, requires no explicit authorization.
"Reporting incidents of discrimination is integral" to the law, she said, "and would be discouraged if retaliation against those who report went unpunished. . . . .
"Indeed, if retaliation were not prohibited, Title IX's enforcement scheme would unravel," she said.
As to whether the male coach was a victim, O'Connor wrote that Title IX "does not require that the victim of the retaliation must also be the victim of the discrimination that is the subject of the original complaint."
It is sufficient, she said, that the retaliation occurs because the complainant speaks out about sex discrimination.
The ruling does not mean that the coach prevails in his suit against the Birmingham Board of Education. It simply allows him to attempt to make his case.
To prevail, O'Connor wrote, the ex-coach will have to prove that the board retaliated against him because he complained of sex discrimination.
The decision also resolves a conflict in the U.S. appeals courts, as other circuits had ruled differently on today's questions.
Jackson became the coach in 1999 and soon began complaining about what he considered unequal treatment for the girls. His complaints went unanswered and Jackson began to receive negative work evaluations.
In May, 2001, he was removed as the girls coach, losing extra pay, although he kept his job as a teacher.
Joining O'Connor in today's decision in Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in dissent, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.
The majority's holding "is contrary to the plain terms of Title IX," Thomas wrote. "Retaliatory conduct is not discrimination on the basis of sex."
Moreover, he said, "we require Congress to speak unambiguously in imposing conditions on funding recipients through its spending power. And in cases in which a party asserts that a cause of action should be implied, we require that the statute itself evince a plain intent to provide such a cause of action."
Reply With Quote
