The stupidest part is that there are MANY schools where the baseball stadium has way more seats than the softball stadium.
Example: at my alma mater, the baseball stadium holds 8242 and the softball stadium “more than 1200”. Granted, the non-specificity in the way the softball seating capacity is listed leaves open the possibility that >1200 is actually 8242, but I find that hard to believe having seen both stadia.
People, if you want to make this a “lefty” vs. “righty” argument, take it to GD – you’re off-topic in this thread/forum.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
You are absolutely right, the government should not require that parents tear down the bleachers they built on their property to support their privately organized baseball team.
It’s not like they built something on School property to support a School team, right? If that were the case, the School would have to approve the design, and they wouldn’t be so stupid as to approve something that would violate a long standing rule governing School athletics.
Meh. The parents had a choice:
They went with option 2. Personally, I think option 1 would have made a lot more sense and would have also been a nice thing to do, but what do I know?
Was your question asked rhetorically? Did you assume people would know the answer?
Ad hominem.
I suppose that, since this is MPSIMS, you feel immune to the dictates of GD.
But there’s a reason ad hominem is a logical fallacy. It attacks the person instead of the argument, and therefore does absolutely nothing to advance the rhetorical posture of the proposition.
I’d argue for leaving the personal commentary for those unable to actually adduce facts and inferences that really support their position. What do you think of that plan, Terr?
I’m wearing my hair differently today, but yeah.
there is nothing in there that says the NUMBER of seats must be equal. The quality of facilities must be equivalent - if the boy’s field have stadium seating and the girl’s field has 40 year old bleachers, that isn’t equivalent quality. If the boys have an electronic scoreboard, and the girls’ fans are keeping track of the score in the stands on paper, that isn’t equivalent.
The parents didn’t donate the money, they raised the money. There is no indication that the girl’s softball team was asked to help raise money so this could be a cooperative effort to upgrade both fields with the same quality - and which would have made this a non-issue (however, the boys might have not gotten stadium seating). However, the community will likely now have donation exhaustion (we just GAVE you money for ball fields, why didn’t you spend it wisely).
Sure. Now girls’ field has 40 year old bleachers and boys’ field has nothing. Let’s tear down the 40-year-old bleachers! It’s only fair.
Oh, so this is you then, right?
But yeah, just because they were trying to do the right thing doesn’t make the parents the “victim” here. If they had checked, oh, I don’t know, with someone who knows the rules, they might have been able to do something good and do it correctly.
Ignorance>Virtue. Doing something virtuous, but doing it ignorantly means you wind up with an ignorant result, not a virtuous one.
I think schools would be better off if they had a combined booster organization which raised money for all the sports rather than a dozen separate ones (girls software, boys baseball, boys football, girls field hockey…)
I can’t understand why they just didn’t forbid use of the new field until the sub par field was brought up to the same standard! Wouldn’t that have made a lot more sense? To the same end.
Coughing up some cash, to use their ballfields, seems the easiest obstacle for the ‘avid parents’ to overcome, it seems to me. (They got coin, they’re football crazed, they’ll get it done.)
I’d hope the girls would enjoy their new facilities, even if they had to extort compliance, to the spirit of the law, out of peoples purposely trying to skirt it.
Probably should have thought of that before they broke the law.
No, the girls didn’t get “new facilities”. Their parents weren’t willing to raise funds and build them. The boys’ “facilities” - the ones their parents built - got taken away. It’s a perfect illustration of government’s stupidity. In the name of “equality” make the situation worse than it was.
You do realize that this is exactly the reason Title IX exists? To prevent gender based discrimination in school activities.
So… no, the parents do not get to provide the boys with brand new high quality school facilities while letting the girls have cast off garbage. That is gender based discrimination at school, and it is illegal.
This interpretation of Title IX puts at risk the activities of every Booster Club organization in every public school.
Can the parents of the choral students form a booster club to raise the funds for new risers without taking on the obligation for upgrading the concert band’s facilities as well? Choral programs often trend to a female majority so such booster activity might be to the detriment of concert band with a male majority. (At least that was the demographic skew at the schools in my district.)
Dog in the manger politics.
Parents do not “provide the boys”. They provide THEIR kids. Are they obligated to pay for other kids as well, while those kids’ parents don’t contribute?
