Aren’t they doing this already, seeing as how their kids won’t be going to that school forever? Future students (that aren’t their children) will receive a benefit even though those future parents didn’t contribute to the cause now.
That wasn’t very eloquent, but what I’m asking is what’s the difference between providing for softball players that aren’t your kids and providing for future baseball players that aren’t your kids? The only difference is that your children get to take advantage of it NOW - and if that’s the whole argument then it’s a weak and selfish one.
Damn those selfish parents building the bleachers. Praises to the altruistic government officials who forced those bleachers to be torn down so that the boys’ facilities would be just as bad as the girls’.
The parents are not obligated to do anything at all. The school is obligated to ensure the teams get equal treatment. These bleachers and scoreboards are permanently installed fixtures on school grounds, that makes it the responsibility of the school to ensure the construction meets Title IX, and other codes.
So you admit the girls’ facilities were sub-standard. Now explain why the boys should get upgraded facilities and not the girls. And remember, the school approved this project and allowed it to be built on school property where it became part of the school facilities.
Were there any permits or inspections of the construction? Who would be on the hook if the stands collapsed due to inferior workmanship? The school(district also) or the parents?
Boys’ facilities are better - there is nothing to “admit”, that’s the premise. Because boy’s parents got together, paid for them and built them. Girls’ parents didn’t.
So what a few people got together and did something. Not like they cured cancer or something. And certainly no reason to exempt them from the laws that are on the books.
Right, because this is all about the legitimate concerns about safety and the quality of the work. Not a bit of “Hey, you built this stuff for the boys that you’re interested in, and nothing for the girls that you aren’t, so down it comes and we’ll come up with a justification if we have to reach halfway to the moon for it”.
No, I was pointing out that deficiencies such as those can turn around bite someone in the ass. The parents may have built it but the liability falls on the school.
They were quite indeed quite selfish, only building better bleachers for them to be able to sit on while watching their kids’ games. They don’t watch the girls’ games, so they didn’t build anything for them.
They were selfish, so they don’t get their comfy seats. They want comfortable seats, they have to do it for everyone, not just themselves.
No, morality based on fairness–a morality taught in pretty much every public school. You bring enough for the whole class, or you don’t get to do it at school.
And that’s the key thing. These parents can be as selfish as they want on their own property, but, at school, they have to consider others. Equal extracurricular education opportunities are to be offered to both sexes. Just because the parents have the money to build what they want doesn’t mean they get to have their way. The school is public property, not their own private place.
Title IX exists for a reason. I’m sorry you don’t like it. But the logic that allows for Title IX makes this an open-and-shut case. You don’t get to privilege male sports just because they are more popular.
Absent Title IX, and the requirement that the girls and boys facilities be comparably equipped, the boys will have all the good equipment and the girls will have shit because:
Thankfully, we had a Liberal, Hippy Dippy, Equality loving Nixon there to recognize that equality isn’t just about what the majority wants to fund.
How in the world does differences in spectator seating make the facilities that are actually used - the fields themselves - worse for the girls than the boys? As long as both fields are to each sport’s specifications, safe to play on, and maintained to similar standards, where’s the problem?
The actual participants use the fields, not the spectator seating. Who cares whether or not the spectators have equivalent facilities? They aren’t the ones playing the sport!
