Good Intentions Gone Wrong
Click play to listen
June 12, 2009 (updated June 14, 2009)
Eleven years ago, Diane Madsen and Jay Roberts-Eveland, two mothers in Grand Rapids, complained that their daughters were harmed because the state’s high school volleyball teams played in the winter. Every other state played in the fall. They felt this made it harder for their daughters to get college scholarships.
Download | Duration: 00:03:30
June 12, 2009 (updated June 14, 2009)
Eleven years ago, Diane Madsen and Jay Roberts-Eveland, two mothers in Grand Rapids, complained that their daughters were harmed because the state’s high school volleyball teams played in the winter. Every other state played in the fall. They felt this made it harder for their daughters to get college scholarships.
They said the solution was to move the girls’ volleyball season from the winter to the fall. But that meant women’s basketball would also have to be moved from the fall to the winter, when the boys play. In fact, they said, all boys and girls sports should be played in the same seasons.
At first blush, it seems impossible to argue. Fair is fair, after all.
But the leaders of the Michigan High School Athletic Association did disagree. They liked having different seasons for boys and girls basketball, swimming, golf, tennis and soccer. That way, coaches and especially referees – all in short supply -- could work both the boys and girls seasons. Smaller high schools didn’t have to build more swimming pools or soccer fields or basketball or tennis courts, or have one team practice at nine at night.
And the old schedules didn’t seem unfair. More Michigan girls participated in basketball, tennis and golf than boys. Female volleyball players, including the plaintiffs’ daughters, played a third more games than teams in bordering states. Even recruitment, the cause of the original lawsuit, didn’t seem to be suffering. Michigan’s female athletes ranked among the very top of scholarship recipients in the nation. Several college coaches said they preferred Michigan’s system, because they could recruit the girls before their own seasons began. And let’s not forget: less than two percent of high school athletes get scholarships. If that’s the point of playing, we might as well cancel all high school sports right now.
So who wanted this change? Not the schools. A vast majority voted to keep it the way it was. Not the girls, either. They voted the same way.
But the moms persisted in pushing their case in court, and the MHSAA persisted in resisting it. For a decade. In a classic battle between self-righteousness and stupidity, self-righteousness won every case, right up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
So, last year, the seasons finally changed. The result? It looks like participation in girls sports is down. Attendance and local press coverage are WAY down. Inconvenience is way up – Ann Arbor Gabriel Richard now has six basketball teams and one court, so someone has to practice at ten p.m. on school nights -- and the MHSAA’s debt is even greater: this spring the judge ruled the MHSAA had to pay the plaintiffs’ legal fees, which comes to $6 million – which is exactly than the entire non-profit organization is worth. So they’re considering bankruptcy. If that happens, they might not be able to pay for the state tournaments they sponsor for 28 boys and girls sports.
When the plaintiff’s attorney, H. Rhett Pinsky, heard about the MHSAA’s financial straits, he said, “Yeah? So?”
Well, yeah, so, indeed.
It seems to me the two moms weren’t really interested in expanding opportunities for all the girls. They were concerned about a few scholarships for elite athletes, like their daughters – who, by the way, got them anyway, under the old system. And the lawyers seem happy to sacrifice state tournaments to collect their millions.
The letter of the law was apparently on the plaintiffs’ side. But the spirit, they missed entirely.
Copyright © 2009, Michigan Radio
Often times it is difficult to separate parents, lawyers and politicians' motives.
Reply to this
Very true - and in this case, they were all mixed together, despite often having very different goals.
The only unequivocal winner here, of course, were the plaintiffs' lawyers. No surprise.
-JUB
Reply to this
How much money could the MHSAA have saved by not fighting the original ruling? We'd be 3-4 years into the system now. The change would have occured at a stronger time in Michigan's economy. I think there are a lot of factors at play here.
Reply to this
M-Pharm,
The quick answer is: $6 million, which is what the judge ordered the MHSAA to pay in April.
That is why I blame both sides in the piece: the MHSAA for its stupidity -- it was pretty clear the law was on the plaintiffs' side -- and the parents for their solipsistic self-righteousness, which doesn't seem to have benefited the very girls they claimed to be fighting for.
This is one of those cases where I can't find any heroes.
-JUB
Reply to this
You absolutely NAILED this one. The entire story is very sad for everyone involved except for the two mothers. I hope they are happy. Obviously, the MHSAA's attitude was perhaps the real culprit, but it is too bad that the mothers did not eventually see the big picture for all the kids of Michigan and figure out a way to stop what they had started.
Reply to this
Thank you, Mr. Hutchinson -- and as you might expect, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the shared guilt in this sorry scenario.
It's not uncommon for two stubborn parties to engage in a fight where only the lawyers win, of course. But what galls me here are the victims: the boys and girls who just want to play.
The previous writer pointed out the money lost in the process, which is bad enough. Another great cost, however, is building more gyms, tennis courts and fields when the schools are already cutting back in these very hard times.
Court-ordered, to boot.
-JUB
Reply to this
Also not to mention the many coaches and referees who used to do both girls and boys but now can't, so less competent folks are required to become involved and the good folks who have been doing things well lose out on half of their usual fun and extra income.
Reply to this
Such old, moldy news, John. And so much more to talk about elsewhere.
I actually fall out on the side of the court ruling, strongly.
Don't like all the BS, posturing and short-term hand-wringing that went into it. The MHSAA so overplayed the impact of the change. And the "mom's" so overplayed the disadvantage to their daughters.
But then again, state of Iowa went crazy when they were forced to adopt 5-on-5 fullcourt for women's hoops all those years ago, too.
Reply to this
Greg Shea,
I consider you one of the sharpest observers of the sporting scene, and while it's true that this case has been dragging out for 11 years, the court's final judgment just came down a few weeks ago -- and more important, the effects will be felt for years, if not decades.
I agree that life will go on, but having just talked with a few high school coaches and ADs yesterday, trust me, the impact is great. Would you want your daughter to practice at ten p.m. on a school night? Not to mention the lower quality refs and coaches the girls now get, because the better ones often choose boys' sports. (Sad, but true.)
But as you said, the case doesn't qualify as the greatest injustice to mankind. This too shall pass.
Bottom line for me remains the letter of the law, and the spirit, are not always the same things. And the attitude of the plaintiffs' lawyers -- "Yeah, so?" -- while pocketing $6 million that should go to the kids, infuriates me.
Despite their posturing, no one should confuse their actions with altruism.
-JUB
Reply to this
You are very kind, John.
Re: impact... I have a really hard time understanding the difference between needing gym time for three basketball teams and three volleyball teams from Nov thru March, and needing gym time for six basketball teams Nov thru March. (I don't claim to have a corner on wisdom here. Am I nuts?)
As for coaching...I see that from a completely different direction. I think this creates opportunity for coaches where there was much less. Who knows how many aspiring coaches never got an opportunity because a school could employ the same staff to coach both programs? And as far as I can tell, that's the only sport which resulted in a new same-sport overlap. Golf seasons are still fall and spring? Soccer is still fall and spring? Tennis is still fall and spring? (Yes? No?)
The officiating shortage is a little like poverty. We have been dealing with this forever. To say this problem is now worse is hard for me to accept.
I share dismay re: the wasted $$.
This is a meaty issue. And I would be very interested in getting a POV from an AD who is NOT from the old-boy HS sports network. So much more to delve into on this. Better over a beer...
Thanks, John
GS
Reply to this
Bakes,
This whole affair reminds me of what I said back when I was umpiring Little League baseball:
Leave the kids and the coaches, but take away the parents. Everything would go better.
I loved it in the movie "Searching for Bobby Fisher" when they locked all of the chess parents in a cage in the basement while their kids played. When the kids realized what had happened to their parents, they started to applaud.
Reply to this
Paul Dodd,
That scene speaks for itself!
I think I might be the only high school coach I know of who did NOT quit due to the parents. With only a couple exceptions, my Huron hockey parents were just great -- and remain close friends. Most coaches, however, have a different story.
I cannot recall ONE female athlete complaining about the seasonal difference -- but I bet hundreds are now complaining about bad practice times, coaches and refs.
As you say, the parents would often be doing better to keep their noses out of it. That's why sandlot sports often teach us more about life than their organized, parent-run cousins.
Thanks, Paul.
-JUB
Reply to this
An umpire in Iowa tossed out the whole crowd last week, or at least I read it last week. I agree. I umped once and could not deal with the parents.
Reply to this
I couldn't agree more and met hundreds, if not thousands, of people in high school sports who felt the same way as I covered prep sports the past four years. It's scary when affluent soccer moms cry discrimination, especially in this case, when they were talking about college scholarships, no less. Thank you for also pointing out their kids got their scholarships in the end. It was frustrating to see that the legal system boiled equal treatment in this case down to a minute aspect of high school sports, college scholarships, when it is should be about equal treatment in the broadest terms, ie. participation. It's get even more ludicrous when the statistics showed the system gave greater access in both ways, scholarships and participation, under the old system. While I don't think it's the greatest injustice in the world, when you add that it could greatly affect future student athletes if the MHSAA folds and some sports are unable to play postseason tournaments, the "volleyball moms" seem to have created a mountain out of a mole hill. If that does become the case, I believe they will have done all high school athletes, male and female, in Michigan a diservice. And don't waste your breathe trying to argue with that, after all, why should they care anymore, their kids got their scholarships and in their eyes, a great wrong has been righted.
Reply to this
Seth,
I think YOU should have written this piece!
I think you hit the bull's eye -- and with more direct knowledge of the subject than I had.
If there are no heroes here, as I've argued, there are surely some villains: the suddenly rich lawyers.
What is legal is not always ethical, let alone just.
-JUB
Reply to this
John,
Come on, man, you're better than this.
The MHSAA was found to be guilty of discrimination against girls under three separate laws. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title IX and the Michigan’s civil rights law: the Elliott Larson Act.
In almost a decade of covering sports in Michigan, I never heard of any state-wide vote among high school female athletes about what season they wanted to compete in. Whoever told you that was pushing an agenda, and you should have checked to see if it was true (I doubt it is).
Any decrease in girls participation is because of the way the MHSAA structured the new seasons - Communities for Equity would have aligned all sports in the beneficial season and eliminated split seasons between the UP and LP. Why did the MHSAA do this? 1. To favor boys sports; 2. So they could say participation decreased.
And the only reason the MHSAA is in debt is because of an absolutely pig-headed and egotistical crusade by its leadership. They needlessly ran up huge legal bills after being firmly told by the courts that they had no argument. That they were completely and totally wrong.
They lost at the local level and multiple appeals, with court after court telling them they were wrong. They kept spending on lawyers anyway. And you blame the folks who wanted to help girls? Shame on you.
Seriously, shame on you, John.
It's nothing less than amusing that the Supreme Court of the United States - the highest court in the land - can clearly see this was discriminatory, but the MHSAA and a bunch of die hards keep trying to push the idea that they were somehow right.
Again, you're better than this JB.
Reply to this
Typically arrogant response JC. You apparently don't want to believe that the girls really didn't want the change, so you attack JB's credibility, even though he is good at checking his facts, and there are many reasons why almost anyone in the position of these girls would have prefered the old schedule. JB never tried to defend the MHSAA; he simply correctly pointed out that the moving parties had their own selfish agendas, actually got what they said they wanted (scholarships) and left thousands of others with a result which almost no one really likes, and which certainly did none of the Plaintiffs any good. You really should either take the time to think before criticising others or recognize that your current schedule does not give you the time to really get into discussions like this.
Reply to this
Hutch,
You know I love ya, and it pains me to disagree with you in a public forum, but what's more arrogant ...
... thinking that one particular state - Michigan - is right and every other state is wrong when it comes to how high school athletics should be scheduled?
... thinking that every court that's ruled on this case - including the United States Supreme Court - is wrong, and you're right when it comes to deciding whether the past situation was discriminatory against women?
Because that's the real question: Was the MHSAA discriminating against these athletes? If the answer is yes - and, again, every court that's ruled on it says it is - than everything else is pretty secondary.
And in this case, no, I don't believe John checked his facts. Since I made that first post, I've had two long-time prep writers in the state tell me that they've never heard of any state-wide vote by female athletes (just like I hadn't). As I said in the first post, if John's going to claim that happened, he needs to quote a source. Because if somebody like myself who covered sports in the state for years had never heard of it, I'm sure the average person never did. That's what writers do, they quote sources, and I'm sure John will agree with that.
And again, John is wrong when he says, "the lawyers were willing to sacrifice state tournaments to make millions." Again, the plaintiff's lawyers went years without getting paid in this case. You know who got paid every step of the way? The MHSAA lawyers.
I think first John, and now you, have really lost sight of what this was about: Discrimination against women, not two moms, whatever their agenda may be.
Because, the fact is, the United States Supreme Court could care less about what those moms thought. It follows the law, and in the eyes of the law, this was discriminatory. You may not like that, you might not agree with it, but every court that rules on these things has firmly said it's discriminatory.
It wasn't about self-righteousness, or selfish agendas, and it's completely clouding the real issue to say it was. It's really not much more than mud-slinging at the moms because you disagree with the outcome.
Reply to this
Once again, Jim, you miss the point. Of course the Court ruled correctly. No one seriously suggests that the system that was in place did not technically violate the law. However, the law is not perfect, and in this particular situation, the way the "law" worked, when it was forced to take over, did no one any good, and did a lot of people considerable harm. John's point never was that the wrong decision was made; his point, and mine, is that it is a real shame that these Plaintiffs chose to impose this on all of us simply to prove what most everyone already knew--that the MHSAA is run by stupid short sited people. Their "victory" is a loss for almost everyone. No one thinks the MHSAA did not deserve everything it got. It is the people, especially the female athletes, but the boys, too, and their families, friends, and fans, who have been wronged. The point of this mess is that not every technical legal wrong should be pursued to the very end, just because one can and is technically legally correct. What if one of those moms had a son who wanted a fair chance to earn a college scholarship in volleyball? Should she again sue and force the MHSAA to let boys play volleyball and ruin that sport for all the girls who now enjoy it? While the Court might not rule for the boy, if we are really looking for fairness and equality, it certainly should, unless we are willing to agree that boys are just too good for girls. Is that what you want, Jim?
Reply to this
I remember this when it happened and shook my head in bewilderment when it happened. You see for the most part these days, college scholarship looks are given at tournaments and the recruiters look mostly at club teams.
Recruiters do this because they can maximize scouting talent in individual locations rather than traveling all over tarnation. Furthermore, the talent of club level teams easily eclipses high school sports in many regions.
The exception to the rule is football and basketball but if a parent is counting on their kid earning an athletic scholarship, they better worry less about high school sports and get their kid on a travel club team.
Good stuff Mr. Bacon.
Reply to this
"What is legal is not always ethical, let alone just."
John, that singular phrase sums up my feelings on this topic.
Reply to this
Yes, except in this case, it was both.
And the plaintiff's attorneys, incidentally, didn't make a dime for the first 11 years of the lawsuit. They worked for free and would have received NOTHING had they lost.
But, in fairness, they and anyone who followed the law and the case knew they'd win.
I'd bet you a nice dinner the MHSAA attorneys made more pursuing a lost cause.
Reply to this
Fine, Jim. You don't like the MHSAA lawyers. Neither does anyone else. Yes, the Plaintiffs' lawyers went a long time before being paid. We all know that. None of that has anything to do with John's article. The point was and is that the case should not have been brought--not because it was legally wrong, but because it was clear from the beginning that it would not really help female athletes. I can assure you that, if it could have and would have done so, John would be singing the praises of the case.
Reply to this
Hutch,
I don't see how you can say my comment had nothing to do with the article when John wrote, " And the lawyers seem happy to sacrifice state tournaments to collect their millions. "
Reply to this
Hello all,
Wow! Here I am on vacation up north, and hop on line to see a geyser of opinions. I appreciate the passion everyone has for this vital subject -- and should, in my opinion.
Your comments obviously deserve a more thoughtful response than I can pull off in the ten minutes I have left here at the Muffin Tin in Alden, Michigan. I'll be home tomorrow, and writing soon. ... Read More
You can also check out the Bacon Blog for a similar discussion there.
I can't resist closing by repeating a comment I made yesterday: This too shall pass, and high school athletics will be fine in the long run.
Enjoy your weekend.
-JUB
Reply to this
Just a note on English usage, first: say "fewer than two percent." "Less than" should apply to stuff you don't count, like less good sense. Obviously the mothers who brought the suit and the attorney who won it did girls athletics in Michigan no favor. What a shame that winning is more important to people than playing the game.
Reply to this
I should add, btw, that if the old system discriminated against women, it doesn't matter if most athletes and coaches wanted the old system.
The law isn't a popularity contest.
If it was, there would still be segregated schools in some parts of America.
Reply to this
Jim-
Now, I think I get it. You are in your honeymoon with the law. You still think it is so good that what is "legally correct" must be best for society. You are certainy correct that having most coaches and athletes opposed to a change in seasons does not change the law. However, maybe it is time you saw the law as just one part of the fiber of society; it does not exist in a vacuum, and it is not the answer to everything. The big picture here is that the people of Michigan, and especially the female high school athletes would be better off today (in my opinion, and in the opinions of most of them, according to the admittedly imperfect evidence available) if this admittedly legally meritorious case had not been brought, or had been stopped short of the painful conclusion it in fact reached. Despite the fact that the MHSAA deserved what it got, it wasn't the only entity affected.
Reply to this
Hutch,
In fairness, I wrote columns on this subject, taking the same positions, long before I took the LSAT, let alone went to law school.
It's worth noting that Communities For Equity only took the case to court because the MHSAA refused any compromise. Any. When dealing with an organization that won't bend, and a system that you truly believe is discriminatory, what else should they have done?
The suit aside, our fundamental difference here is that there are a group of folks who believe this new system hurts high school athletes. I don't believe that, given the same system works well throughout the rest of the country.
But even if it is worse, it's a bit like saying desegregating public schools has made them worse. You know what? That's true. In some cases, desegregation has really hurt public school systems (Little Rock, Arkansas is a great example).
But even if that's true, it's not a reason to find fault with the folks who pushed desegregation. It's a reason to push harder to fix the system, and - as I said in my original comment - the MHSAA is again at fault here. They could have come up with a better solution, but didn't want to.
As I said, I think if it works just fine in most other players, it should work here. You can disagree, but it's an honest disagreement, one that is secondary to - and has nothing to do with - the law. And one where neither side will be proved "right" for a variety of reasons.
I respect your opinion to hold differently, but continue to believe John's original column vilified all the wrong parties for all the wrong reasons.
Reply to this
Jim, your inability to acknowledge the larger picture makes me wonder if you have some unstated interest or bias in this particular case.
It's quite simply a zero sum game. For example, one winner in the reconstituted Michigan high school seasons is my son. He can now play high school tennis and baseball, which he would have previously been unable to do as they were both spring sports. One loser is my daughter. Tennis and softball are now both in the spring, requiring her to choose. (FYI - college tennis is a spring sport for both men and women. Maybe all Michigan high schools should be required to build twice as many tennis courts, so both could be spring sports?) On behalf of my son, I thank the plaintiffs. On behalf of my daughter, I do not. One winner, one loser.
Reply to this
Well I guess it was a nice run... I was wondering when this blog, just like everything else on the internet, would start to get overrun with trolls.
Now we have a 2L from a TTT, channeling Drew Sharp, letting us know he is right and the rest of the world is wrong... just like the good 'ol A2 News days eh?!
Ugh.
Reply to this
Dear Readers,
I just returned home to read these many responses. I've got morning meetings but hope to get back to the site later in the day.
I would like to address one issue immediately, however: the survey results I'm citing come from the MHSAA itself, the only organization to conduct any such surveys. I'm guessing if the plaintiffs or journalists doubted their veracity, they would have presented countervailing evidence. Of course, their case did not depend on surveys, but the law, which was clearly on their side.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 14, 1998
Contact: John Johnson 517.332.5046
Seasons Survey Results Announced
Of 573 responding schools submitting useable surveys, 101 (17.6 percent) favored the change while 472 (82.4 percent) did not. Five surveys were submitted without a yes or no answer.
Here is a breakdown by school classification of the responses to the survey:
· Class A - Yes 12; No 131; 1 No Preference; 1 Undecided
· Class B - Yes 30; No 127
· Class C - Yes 27; No 131
· Class D - Yes 32; No 101; 2 No Preference; 1 Undecided
The placement of MHSAA postseason tournaments has been determined throughout history by the time of year when most schools have conducted their sports. The most recent survey effort represents at least the fifth time in 20 years that the MHSAA has sought its membership's input regarding the placement of girls basketball and girls volleyball postseason tournaments.
In 1979, a mail survey of all member high schools indicated that 90.2 percent preferred girls volleyball in the winter and girls basketball in the fall.
In 1981, a mail survey of all member high school principals indicated 88 percent opposed a combined season for girls and boys basketball.
In 1985, a mail survey of all member high school principals indicated that 85.5 percent opposed scheduling girls basketball and boys basketball in the same season.
In 1994, 63.8 percent of 782 respondents at MHSAA Update Meetings opposed changing girls basketball to winter and girls volleyball to fall.
[The current schedule is] preferred by the vast majority of stakeholders - including more than 70% of female student-athletes, more than 80% of member schools, most media, every statewide association of coaches and administrators, and every league and conference - because it has proven that Michigan schools' scheduling of seasons actually enhances participation, coaching, officiating, media coverage and facility usage (and, incidentally, visibility for higher education opportunities)."
Reply to this
I'd say that you are 100% guilty of damn good research, Dr. Bacon.
Reply to this
(First of two parts)
Hello Loyal Readers,
I finally got back to my computer after returning last night, and attending meetings all day. I’ll try to answer what I can, and leave the rest to your good judgment.
First, reasonable people can disagree on this subject, without being disagreeable. Everyone who’s written here wants the same thing: the best situation for ALL female athletes. The debate is how best to achieve that.
My views are shaped by 20 years as a sports writer, some of it writing about prep sports for the Ann Arbor News, the Detroit News, the New York Times and Time magazine, where I contributed to a cover story on the death of sandlot sports; writing a 100-page book proposal for Crown Publishing on Title IX, which I dropped to coach the Ann Arbor Huron hockey team; and creating a class on the history of college athletics, with a unit on Title IX. I’ve coached 15 seasons of school hockey, baseball and soccer, plus two seasons assisting the Michigan women’s club hockey team, which entailed 7 a.m. practices. I believe deeply in the value of school sports, and I’ve seen the forces at play here from a few vantage points.
My views are these:
-Prep sports should not be driven by scholarships – a growing danger. It pushes school sports another step toward professionalism, since a scholarship is a cash reward for playing well. Instead, we should provide the best experience for the most students possible. We are the only nation on earth that takes school sports seriously, because we believe sports can teach things a classroom can not.
-As testament to these values, Title IX is part of the Education Amendments of 1972. Very few pieces of legislation have had a more positive impact on our society. The law itself is also one of the clearest on the books – which is why Title IX plaintiffs almost always win.
-The MHSAA lawyers should have known this, and dropped their defense long before they spilled ten million dollars (counting both the plaintiff’s legal bills and their own). No one on this site has defended their judgment. (I believe my use of the term “stupidity” in characterizing their approach does not qualify as a ringing endorsement.)
-The girls’ parents were clearly in the right legally, but seemed far more concerned about getting scholarships for their two daughters than the potential impact on everyone else’s. That number totaled 128,000 female athletes the first year of the change, a drop of 3,400 from the year before – which is about three times the number who got scholarships.
-People tire of lawyers partly because once they decide something is legally justified, nothing else seems to matter -- including the law of unintended consequences, which in this case includes the scarcity of coaches, referees, facilities, fans and coverage – not to mention the views of the female athletes themselves. (Continued)
Reply to this
Speaking of which, a couple calls and ten minutes of digging uncovered the survey I came across a year ago, when I first addressed this subject. While it was funded by the MHSAA, it was conducted by the Western Michigan University Evaluation Center, which surveyed 1,131 female athletes from 60 high schools across the state in 2001, five months before the lawsuit. “Wingate found that less than a third of the young women surveyed favored aligning girls' sports seasons with college or high school boys' seasons. Opposition to moving seasons was especially strong among the girls whose sports would be affected by the change.”
http://www.wmich.edu/wmu/news/2001/0103/0001-227.html
I can’t help but be a little amused that, in a debate over fairness, one reader determined I was guilty of shoddy or no research until proven innocent. I hope the above clears that question up for good. Why journalists who covered this issue for years couldn’t find this public survey is a mystery to me.
-One reader correctly pointed out that the plaintiffs’ lawyers were not guaranteed any payment whatsoever during their dozen years on this case. However, $6 million is not a bad payday for a part-time job, most of it going to one attorney. It would have been more had the judge, who was sympathetic to the plaintiffs, not scaled back their estimated costs by ten percent across the board because he found their estimate of 12,000 hours filled with "vagueness, excessiveness and (duplication) in the hours billed." If we are talking about ethics – the kind that, say, a high school golfer learns when she penalizes herself even when no one’s watching - you’d have to conclude the high school golfer is ahead of these bill-padding lawyers.
-You might have noticed there was no civil suit for damages, because there were no damages. The two girls got scholarships the old way.
-Whatever the pros and cons of this change, high school athletes are remarkably resilient and resourceful. They will adjust – just like students in every other state have - and probably faster than the adults. As usual.
Let me add a little humble pie into a discussion that could sorely use some. Merlin the Magician once said, “Only a fool never doubts himself.” High school sports teach that. Law schools don’t. (My one day in UM’s law school showed me that much.)
So, hats off to reader Robert Beckett, who correctly pointed out I should have said, “fewer” instead of “less.” Even more embarrassing, the distinction between fewer and less is one of my grammatical pet peeves I put on the board for my class on the history of sports writing, e.g. “Fewer cars, less traffic.” You might think I would have retained that one.
If any of my students are reading this, you have one on your professor.
-JUB
Reply to this
JUB-
As long as you don't use irony incorrectly, your students will let this pass.
Reply to this
Dear Loyal Readers:
Below you'll find Jim Carty's response. I need to go to the airport, then actually do some work for pay, but hope to reply later today. In the meantime, of course, you are welcome to reply. It is, after all, a blog.
-JUB
John,
Yeah, those pesky lawyers, wanting to enforce discrimination laws against girls. How tiresome...
A couple of points in response:
You wrote, "So who wanted this change? Not the schools. A vast majority voted to keep it the way it was. Not the girls, either. They voted the same way."
A survey is not a vote, especially one of only 1,131 athletes. We've both written for the NYT, and both know they wouldn't have let you call a survey a vote. Why? Because it's not accurate.
Incidentally, I think we also both know Title IX wouldn't have polled very well when it was introduced. Heck, we probably both know male coaches who still privately bad-mouth it.
Second, you continue the unfortunate practice begun by the MHSAA of demonizing and personally attacking the parents behind this suit, in the process repeating what's essentially a falsity. If the parents really only cared about scholarships, they could have dropped the suit after their daughters graduated high school. They did not. They continued with it.
Isn't there some possibility this might have been because of the courage of their convictions rather than the selfish reasons you attribute to them? Have you ever even had a conversation with any of the parents to justify such accusations?
You write, "However, $6 million is not a bad payday for a part-time ..." The suit was filed in 1998 and the attorneys are just now being paid - 11 years of work, $6 million, or $545,000 a year. Nobody, of course, works for free, and a case like this would typically have multiple attorneys and support staff working on it. Would you work for 11 years without getting paid? Again, I'd LOVE to dig into the MHSAA books because I imagine when all is said and done they will have paid more than $6 million defending this.
The Merlin quote is a good one for all of us, but based on your response, I think you have need to ponder it as much as anyone. As an example, talk to a lawyer - any lawyer - about whether law school teaches you to doubt or not. It was a good line, the kind of fastball I'd like to see more of from you, but also pretty much inaccurate. Law school, perhaps more than any other type of education, teaches you to closely examine both sides of any argument.
I think the underlying problem is some folks involved with Michigan prep sports still don't believe this was discriminatory and, because of that, can't live with the outcome.
There's not much that I can say to those folks. They're entitled to their opinion and the court disagrees with them. But if you DO believe it was a discriminatory situation, do you think anything would have changed without this suit? I sure don't, which is why I believe it was the right thing to do and, ultimately an admirable thing, particularly given how unfairly the families continue to be treated.
You're one of the good guys, John, alwyas will be, which is why I really hope you'll re-examine your views here.
Jim
Reply to this
So... there was in fact a legitimate survey on which Bacon based his contention about the opinion of Michigan high school girls on the scheduling question.
I assume this means Mr. Carty will soon withdraw his sanctimonious little lecture about sourcing and issue a public apology.
(I suppose one could say Bacon should have said "survey" instead of "vote" in the original. But this would be silly hair-splitting.)
Reply to this
Skeets wrote:
Jim, your inability to acknowledge the larger picture makes me wonder if you have some unstated interest or bias in this particular case.
It's quite simply a zero sum game. For example, one winner in the reconstituted Michigan high school seasons is my son. He can now play high school tennis and baseball, which he would have previously been unable to do as they were both spring sports. One loser is my daughter. Tennis and softball are now both in the spring, requiring her to choose. (FYI - college tennis is a spring sport for both men and women. Maybe all Michigan high schools should be required to build twice as many tennis courts, so both could be spring sports?) On behalf of my son, I thank the plaintiffs. On behalf of my daughter, I do not. One winner, one loser.
Reply to this
As a onetime student of Professor Bacon's, I can attest to the fact that one of his grammatical pet peeves is the difference between "less" and "fewer." Heck, I think we were even quizzed on it! Is it too late to ask for a grade adjustment?
Reply to this
Dear Loyal Readers,
In responding to Jim Carty’s reply, I’ll take ‘em from the top, say my final piece, and call it good.
At the outset, Carty writes: “A survey is not a vote…”
What he means to say, I’m guessing, is that a survey is not an election. I agree. A vote, however, is defined by my Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary as “a formal expression of opinion or choice in response to a proposed decision,” and is not limited to elections.
I wasn’t trying to fool the readers, and I don’t think they were fooled. You don’t have to be a law student to know any vote cast by a minor has no legal bearing. But I agree that, in the interest of absolute clarity, I should have prefaced the paragraph with, “In a survey conducted by Western Michigan’s Evaluation Center…”
Jim also criticized the survey because it polled “only 1,131 athletes.” I don’t think I need to give a definition here of the word “survey,” but it might be helpful to note, “Schools included in the survey correspond quite closely to the size and geographic distribution of the 729 Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) member schools.” (WMU.)
The judge deemed the survey inadmissible due to “design flaws and bias,” in part because the surveyors failed to consult with the plaintiffs prior to conducting it, and the written responses were destroyed before the plaintiffs could review them. Jim sent me this information via facebook, which you can find here: http://tiny.cc/ZfcXX
Despite its stated flaws, the survey was not conducted by hacks but experts in the field, and is the best evidence we have about the actual opinions of the people most affected by this change. (In fact, the surveyors believe it is one of only two such studies in the nation.)
This survey clearly indicates the girls didn’t want the change, and should at least give us pause. If the plaintiffs actually cared about the opinions of the 99-percent of girls who were not vying for scholarships, they would have asked for another survey, or conducted one themselves.
This, to me, is the crux of the biscuit. If we had good evidence that the girls wanted this change, I think all of us would say, How can we help? But the evidence we have says the opposite.
Carty correctly states that “the law is not a popularity contest.” But then he goes on to say that if Title IX and desegregation were put to poll, they would not have fared very well either.
Carty’s logic here breaks down very quickly. I might not be in law school, but I did teach hundreds of Kaplan LSAT students logical reasoning in my starving writer days. If you’re going to set up an analogy, you have to compare apples to apples, not pomegranates. Keep in mind, Western Michigan’s survey polled only those who were supposed to benefit from the changing seasons – the female athletes -- not the coaches, non-athletes, or male athletes. (Continued.)
Reply to this
Sticking to that approach, if Jim’s fictional surveyors had polled only female athletes about Title IX in 1972, or polled only African-Americans about desegregation in 1965, do you really think those measures would “not have polled very well”? Obviously, they would have won in a landslide.
And that’s the difference here: Western Michigan polled the girls who were supposed to be the beneficiaries, and only those girls -- and they overwhelmingly voted against it. Yet, this stunning result does not seem to concern the plaintiffs, the lawyers or Carty in the slightest.
Jim also states, “We've both written for the [New York Times], and both know they wouldn't have let you call a survey a vote. Why? Because it's not accurate.”
If I were writing this opinion piece for the Times, I would have made one change: adding the preface about Western Michigan’s survey before discussing the poll results. That’s it. (The piece has already been edited and run on both Michigan Public Radio and the Detroit News, as is, without any problem.) However, if we were playing by the rules of the Times, MPR or the Detroit News, it’s safe to say Carty would not be permitted to accuse me publicly – twice -- of making up a study simply because he’d never heard of it. And, when presented with the actual survey, chapter and verse, he would have been required to print an equally public correction and apology. Instead, he reached for a legal loophole in the narrow gap between “survey” and “vote.”
Carty goes on to accuse me of “demonizing and personally attacking the parents behind this suit.” I found this a little rich, coming from a man who started this exchange by accusing me of being an incompetent journalist (or worse) and writing, twice, “You should be ashamed.” Carty tends to grab a hand grenade when a fly swatter will suffice, which only distracts from his argument. The double standard is also alive and well.
That aside, there is a world of difference between criticizing someone’s motives – which are central to this issue – and “demonizing and personally attacking them.”
The plaintiffs’ initial motive was simply to increase their daughters’ chances of getting free tuition – which falls a little short of wishing for world peace. True, the lawsuit continued long after their daughters got their scholarships, but, as Carty states, the lawyers did the work – and they knew, as MHSAA’s lawyers should have known, they risked little chance of losing.
Carty writes, "The suit was filed in 1998 and the attorneys are just now being paid - 11 years of work, $6 million, or $545,000 a year… Would you work for 11 years without getting paid?”
First, all lawyers know the deal going in. If they don’t like it, they can decline, and this deal was not uncommon. Further, the longer the inevitable victory was delayed, the greater the size of the prize. (Carty had no comment about the lawyers getting scolded by the judge for padding their bill.) (Continued.)
Reply to this
Their own inflated estimate of 12,000 hours adds up to about six years of full-time work by one lawyer, at a million a year. I bet most of us would be willing to take that deal.
When Carty asks if I would work that long without getting paid, let me answer by saying this: In my 15 seasons of coaching over the past 25 years, I put in well over 6,000 hours actually helping hundreds of high school athletes enjoy sports, half of those hours devoted to the four years I served as head coach of the Huron hockey team. (If you have any doubts about these estimates, feel free to ask anyone I worked with during that time.) For those 6,000+ hours, I was paid a total of $34,000, before taxes – or half of one-percent of the attorneys’ take.
Now, consider the real coaches, who devote themselves to their teams not for a few years, like I did, but for decades. Their efforts and hours far surpass those of these attorneys, yet their take is no greater than mine.
So, no. I’m not quite ready to grant these attorneys sainthood for their selfless sacrifice for the well-being of the athletes who did not want their help in the first place, at a million bucks a year.
Carty then claims that law school teaches students to doubt themselves, because, he says, “Law school, perhaps more than any other type of education, teaches you to closely examine both sides of any argument.”
Perhaps -- but that is not teaching the virtue of humility. That is teaching the art of argument, the better to eliminate “a shadow of a doubt” from the minds of judges and juries. Which is rather the opposite, I’d say, of learning to question one’s own beliefs.
In closing, Jim says, “I think the underlying problem is some folks involved with Michigan prep sports still don't believe this was discriminatory and, because of that, can't live with the outcome.”
No, it’s not. For the last time, we concede that the ruling was fair, given the laws and the facts. What we’re tired of is the endless emphasis on the merits of the legal case, and not the welfare of the 128,009 female athletes it affects.
And that’s my problem with this entire situation. The handful of people who pushed this were more concerned about arguing than helping, more interested in scholarships for a few than satisfying experiences for all.
Who’s helping the girls who just want to play?
-JUB
p.s. So far I have run every response sent to the site in its entirety, but I suspect our readers have had enough of this debate. From this point on I will read all responses, reply to all publicly or privately, and post solely based on likely reader interest.
Reply to this
John,
I really enjoyed reading this debate. Although I ultimately think MHSAA was in the wrong, your arguments/points are very valid as well.
Thanks for keeping it interesting.
Reply to this
First off, thanks for trying to look out for the girls who just want to play.
I was compelled to make a comment on this issue as my position has changed as I have changed viewpoints in the matter. When I was an athlete, not long ago but rather while this battle was being fought, I was in favor of the change. I thought it would truly be more fair for the girls to match the sports seasons of other states, not only for scholarship opportunities but also just for national continuity. The sports I played were not going to be affected and so I saw no reason to not switch. I honestly didn’t know what all the fuss was about. Now that I am an athletic trainer at a Michigan high school, I see what all of the fuss its about and I have changed my opinion. We have 5 basketball teams with one small gym, which not only creates chaos with practice schedules (the boys freshman team practices at 6 am and the girls JV until 9 pm) but also with scheduling games. When one team is home, the other has to be away or we will have 4 games in one night, a very late night for high school kids. As an athletic trainer, this is hard because the nights are late for us as well and we can easily have 12 games at home in a one week period. This is just one example, but gets the point across. We will all survive this decision but it is good to think about it from other perspectives.
Reply to this