enough is enough

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't really know what else to say other than a Supreme Court ruling is a Supreme Court ruling. Title IX is a Supreme Court ruling as well. It unequivocally applies to sports. How do I know? Because it is the law that says you must provide for both sexes, even in terms of sports teams. Now, you said that a sports program was "extracurricular" and not under the ruling. But if that is true, how do you explain Title IX and the law that says a public school must comply?

FYI: Title IX is not a Supreme Court ruling. They have ruled on it and clarified it, but it is a federal statute. Title IX is a portion of the United States Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688

[packs]

Originally Posted by Michael B

FYI: Title IX is not a Supreme Court ruling. They have ruled on it and clarified it, but it is a federal statute. Title IX is a portion of the United States Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688

Yes, but it's validity is upheld by the Supreme Court. That's what makes it federal law.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You don't know what it has to do with anything?

It relates to what you said because even though the school or coach may not legally be able to punish them, they can get around that by just not playing them. They still get punished, it's just unofficial. Get it now? Need a 5 year old to explain it to you?

There is a big difference between official policy and unofficial policy. What you're saying didn't happen. What I'm saying did. So THAT is the difference. That is why what you're saying has no bearing. It is fantasy. I am talking about practice.

[Michael B]

[QUOTE=packs;1706716]Yes, but it's validity is upheld by the Supreme Court. That's what makes it federal law.

Actually, it was federal law once it was signed by President Nixon. The challenges that arose, upon which the Supreme Court ruled, were to specific points in the law and when and where it applied i.e. Grove v. Bell 465 US 555 (1984), not the law itself.

[packs]

I don't want to get into a war of semantics when the intricate details aren't really making or breaking anything. My point was the supreme court sets rules public schools and colleges have to follow, and one of those rules is Title IX in its current form and another is Tinker v Des Moines. I brought up Title IX only to demonstrate that public school policy applies to all aspects of the public school system, sports included.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't want to get into a war of semantics when the intricate details aren't really making or breaking anything. My point was the supreme court sets rules public schools and colleges have to follow, and one of those rules is Title IX in its current form and another is Tinker v Des Moines. I brought up Title IX only to demonstrate that public school policy applies to all aspects of the public school system, sports included.

Actually, the semantics do apply here. Title IX, as stated above, was a federal law prior to the Supreme Court rulings. Therefore, the law was upheld/adjusted accordingly.

In the same sense, while Tinker v. Des Moines has been ruled on by the Supreme Court, it doesn't specifically mention sports and, if it ever got that far, could be ruled upon again to adjust for any situations such as this. Obviously it's a case (not a law; the 1st Amendment is the law), but it can still be adjusted.

That is what we are saying. Yes, the Supreme Court made a ruling, but it is also up for interpretation, and could be ruled upon again to specifically include or exclude sports.