Welcome to the homestretch. I wrote these questions before our class last week in anticipation of this posting. However, if you have already had enough of these issues, I’ll post additional material shortly so there is something else for you to address. I hope you will find these questions interesting.
Chapter 10 focuses on “The College and Government.” One of the topics included in this chapter is, “Trespass statutes and ordinances, and related campus regulations.”
Here’s the scenario: Back in November 2002, then-president George Bush came to the USF Sun Dome to speak at a political rally for his brother, Governor Jeb Bush. 1. Free tickets to the rally were available to the public, however, at least six volunteers for the McBride campaign were turned away at the door and had their tickets confiscated by Republican organizers because they were wearing McBride buttons. According to a spokesperson for the Bush campaign, they had the right to turn McBride supporters away because the rally was a private event. John Dutty, of Tampa, disagreed. "I'm a USF student. That's a public university. I don't see how they can deny us entrance when the tickets were free. I could understand if we were causing a commotion inside the event, but we weren't being disruptive." Were John’s due process rights violated? Do you agree with his position? Why or why not? 2. Another issue regarding this situation involves the designated free speech zone. According to the St. Pete Times, between 150 to 175 people demonstrated at the rally and most stayed in the designated area for protesters on Fowler Avenue, which was located hundreds of yards away. However, some protesters strayed from the designated zone and seven people were arrested and charged with trespassing after warning, obstructing without violence, and disorderly conduct. (One of them was the well-known and rather outspoken, Joe Redner, the “Tampa nude-club mogul.”) Although the Sun Dome may be privately operated by Sun Dome Inc. and designated "First Amendment zones" for protesters are common during political conferences and presidential visits, isn’t the parking lot itself part of the property USF? In a story by the Associated Press, Bruce Winick, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law, said he thought zone was too far from the rally. Winick noted that “the courts traditionally have allowed restrictions that are reasonable as to time, place and manner” but the “restrictions must be applied equally to protesters and supporters.” He questioned whether the decision to arrest the protesters was applied in a viewpoint-neutral way. What do you think? Did the USF Police make the correct decision in arresting the protesters? Why or why not?
Here's a different issue. Section 10.5.3 of our book addresses Title IX. Following is another scenario for discussion:
Earlier this year, a panel of three judges reversed a federal district court’s decision and reinstated a gender-discrimination lawsuit against a university that had expanded varsity opportunities for women. (The suit was filed by three female student wrestlers who had been forced to compete against male student wrestlers and were then cut from the varsity team.) In the earlier opinion, the judges felt that the university was in violation of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 because it failed to demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for women. However, that court had failed to notice the addition of an indoor track team because the athletes in that program also participated in outdoor track.
In the reversal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the judges’ decision aligned their position with guidance from the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights that allows that athletics programs are permitted to count female athletes in indoor and outdoor track as separate participants in determining whether they offer adequate athletics opportunities for women. According to the Education Department, it is the number of participation opportunities, not the number of athletes, that is taken into consideration when looking at program expansion.
1. Do you see any potential implications with this small yet, perhaps, significant revision of counting rules in complying with a key federal gender-equity law?
2. Could this revision cause significant compliance issues for athletics departments across the nation?
I have to agree with John's claim that his due process rights were violated. The Bush campaign’s spokesperson was incorrect in stating that it was a private party. The event offered free tickets to the public. How was John to know the difference if it was not advertised as such? In all likelihood, the Republican organizers viewed any non-Bush supporters as a potential risk since there were protesters outside. I also believe there was an additional issue of property interests in relation to John being denied access into the Sun Dome. I believe that John’s student status entitled him to participate in activities on campus. It is my belief that not allowing him to enter based on the fear that he might cause a disturbance is unconstitutional.
I agree with Reggie on the first scenario. It is akin to Haley v. James where the dean wouldn't allow the Students for a Democratic Society to form on campus due to a suspicion of disturbance. Surely, if he had been admitted and caused an issue, he could have been removed due to the issue of captive audience and private property.
I’ll continue to agree with everyone. I don’t see how this was a private event. I understand that the Sun Dome is a separate tax entity from USF; however, it is still a direct support organization and it is directly linked to the university. I would argue that it is more of a public property than a private property because of this direct link. In addition, there was no guarantee that the students were going to create a disturbance at the rally. In general, courts have shown you can’t deny access based on an assumption that a person or persons may act inappropriately. I didn’t view this as a private event and I feel that it was certainly a questionable decision to deny the students access.
Like Matthew, i'll also agree with everyone! The courts have consistently required that universities prove more than a suspicion of disturbance. Unless it's a sure thing, they are pretty much going to fail this test.
Regarding the Title IX issue, wowzers! If this means that universities can now potentially only count opportunities versus students then this seems big! Will this mean that universities can now offer opportunities for women's participation in athletics based upon their evaluations on athletic performance against men on the wrestling team, or perhaps on the lacrosee team against men? This sounds very important, and i almost wonder if i'm interpreting it wrong? Can anyone else offer help here? Does it not sound like this could potentially let a large number of universities off the hook by making more co-ed teams available on which women would have to compete with men for spots?
2. I do believe that this version of a free speech zone is unconstitutional. When considering free speech zones, the correct way to do these is by not restricting content. It appears that because the purpose of this free speech zone was for McBride supporters (and not just to have a free speech zone), the concept of content being regulated is very gray.
Just for the fun of it, I'm going to disagree with several and say that they had the right to turn them away. Take away the fact that the tickets were free and open to the public. I think this may be why some have taken the side that they should have been granted access. The Sun Dome is a private legal entity that is owned by USF. The campaign contracted with the Sun Dome to host the event which I am sure resulted in the signing of a contract in exchange for payment. Therefore, the campaign has the right to designate who should and should not be allowed to enter the facility. Just because they said free and open to the public, they still require the tickets be obtained. They have the right to revoke these tickets for any reason, although I do believe this was in poor taste.
Just because they were students does not grant them access to the facility at any time. Hundreds of other events are hosted at the sundown each year such as concerts, athletic events, and other private events. Just because I am a student does not entitle me free admission to the sundown during these private events.
Regarding Viancca’s posting: I agree with your comments.
Further research indicated that the reason this group felt the need to show up and protest really wasn’t because of who was speaking but was instead predicated on an event that had occurred in the previous year. It turns out that the three main protesters (Marks, Elend and Redner) decided to show up because they were concerned when three demonstrators were arrested during a rally for President Bush at Legends Field in Tampa. In that situation, a protest zone had been set up a half-mile away. The protesters were arrested but the charges against them were later dropped. Similarly, the 3 protestors who were arrested on November 2, 2002 at the University of South Florida for refusing to honor the "protest-zone" at a Jeb Bush election rally attended by his brother President Bush were also dismissed. Marks, Elend and Redner specifically attended the rally because they knew that local law enforcement (at the behest of the U.S. Secret Service and Republican Party) would enforce an unconstitutional "protest-zone" that would severely limit the area in which dissent could be expressed (. Armed with signs that quoted from the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Tinker v. Desmoines, "Freedom of Expression would not truly exist if the right could only be exercised in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots," the 3 were arrested after peacefully standing in the parking lot of the USF Sun Dome prior to the Bush rally. Prior to their arrest, they also handed out other U.S. Supreme Court cases that defended their right to peacefully protest on USF property (according to the Voice of Freedom).
The article further states that, “Judge Nick Nazaretian dismissed the charge of "trespassing after warning," ruling that the contract entered into between Sundome Inc. and the University of South Florida did not grant representatives of Sundome, Inc. the authority to make the charge of trespassing. Now that criminal charges have been dismissed, Elend, Marks, & Redner plan to file what they hope will become a precedent setting 1st Amendment lawsuit - one that challenges the basic constitutionality of "protest-zones." This is an issue that the Court has not yet considered, and the 3 plan to file the lawsuit as soon as possible. "These so-called 'protest-zones' are now routinely set up with no regard for the Constitution," claims Jeff Marks, "it has nothing to do with safety or national security, it only has to do with marginalizing citizen's political speech." Elend adds that, "Throughout our history, protestors have played a vital role in shaping our national debate. It's frightening how eager our leaders are to toss out the first amendment to avoid hearing someone who disagrees with them."
Of course, their story wouldn’t be complete without a colorful quote from our friend, Joe Render. He added, "By their very nature these 'protest-zones' or 'free speech cages' are not only blatantly unconstitutional, but are harmful to our democracy. Democracies die in the dark. If you're going to send me to a 'free speech cage' and tell me I can only protest there, I might as well be protesting in my bathroom." http://www.voiceoffreedom.com/archives/joearticles/usfarrestdismissed.html
Reggie--Thanks for being the first on the board. You make a very good point when you say, "How was John to know the difference if it was not advertised as such?" I can certainly understand the student's perspective in light of the fact that as a student he's probably attended plently of advertised "free" events on campus put on by various clubs or organizations which he may or may not be interested in or agree with (but if he's like so many of the students not only here but everywhere, he thought it was worth his time to attend at the offer of free food, t-shirts and other giveaways). And, of course, he was well within his rights to do so.
I'm also thinking that he may have attended or at least heard about free events held at the Sun Dome over the years (trade shows, the Week of Welcome event--I can't remember the name of it at this moment--religious meetings, etc.) so he didn't discern any difference between this event and any other the others.
Matt--that's where I stopped for a moment too. Initially, I was a little torn between the rights of a group that had paid to rent a venue versus the rights of students to be at that venue just because it happens to be located at their educational institution. I looked around a bit and found that the Sun Dome is operated as a for-profit organization but it is still owned by the university from what I understand. I hope someone will correct me if I'm off the mark on that interpretation.
I guess what made me question the Sun Dome's position and rights at the university comes from a situation that I recall from a few years ago. During the hiring freeze back in 2005-06, one of the direct support organizations here at the university found a way to hire people through the Sun Dome, thereby, bypassing the university's freeze restrictions and also the hiring policies for bringing in new employees. (I'm still not sure about the legality of all that. The end result was that these people were later converted from Sun Dome employees to regular USF employees.)
I guess my position is that regardless of whether the Republican organization rented the venue for their event, they still advertised the tickets as free to the public. There was no requirement that you had to be a Bush supporter or a member of the Republic Party in order to attend. Thanks for contributing to the dialogue, Matt.
Josh—thanks for taking playing devil’s advocate! It’s always good to have an opposing view. As I commented in my response to Matt, I, too, was wavering about the right of the “renters” to control the event that they had paid for. I question whether they made an agreement to control the gate or assumed that because the Sun Dome is a private legal entity that they would have the right to do so. Their signed contact and subsequent agreement by the Sun Dome to hold the event there did, perhaps, give them some latitude to handle it a particular way, especially since there were strict security issues that had to be put in place and met due to the President’s attendance that evening. I know political rallies can have extra conditions imposed on them due to the high-profile nature of particular attendees (especially when one of those attendees is the President of the United States).
I agree with you; I think the situation was handled poorly. Whether the mistake came in the misleading advertisement or the revocation of access at the door, the end result was a lot of bad press for the Governor, the Republican Party and the University. Thanks very much for your remarks, Josh.
Christina—talk about “wowzers!” You’re right—this is absolutely frightening.
In thinking about the implications this decision may have, I recall an issue that I saw happen at a local high school a few years back. That school decided to meet their Title IX requirements by mandating that all the cheerleaders be on the weightlifting team (“It’s good for you girls, since you have to do all those stunts and things.”). That way the school didn’t have to go to any great expense to create a new team and could use the equipment and facilities that they already had. Further, by requiring the cheerleaders to be on the weightlifting team they were assured of having captive pool of women participants they could add to their Title IX numbers (Oh, and by the way, girls, if you don’t want to be on the weightlifting team—then you can’t be on the cheering squad either.”)
It made me think that other programs could start doing the same thing. For example, what if institutions could start mandating that all women basketball players also be on the track and weightlifting teams? That way they could immediately increase women’s participation numbers by using the same 25 women basketball players to fill 75 women’s “opportunities.” How about this one? What about having women’s tennis players sign up for the soccer and baseball teams? Can’t you just picture some athletic director/administrator saying, “Look—these sports all require a ball, don’t they? What’s the big deal? Why shouldn’t we make them do it—it would be good for them and great for our numbers. This way, we can cut field hockey, softball, volleyball (and any other “girl sport”); save ourselves a bunch of money and still be within the law. That’s a slam-dunk, ain’t it!”
[Note: At this point, I offer my apologies to any of you who are current or aspiring athletics directors/administrators—I realize not all people in these positions think (or speak) this way. However, unfortunately, some still do—and it appears that several of them work at UC Davis in California where this issue originated. They have had and continue to have Title IX issues.]
Ugh.
P.S. UC Davis’ is in hot water again. The Governor’s Select Committee on Gender Discrimination is currently looking at whether UC Davis' cost-cutting move to eliminate the women's crew program could violate Title IX laws mandating gender equity in college sports. The university's decision to cut the women's rowing, men's swimming, men's wrestling and men's indoor track teams has angered many students and parents. http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/07/am-alert-monday-10.html#ixzz0uFGsT5oX
another article: Fight still rages over UC http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/04/2868193/fight-still-rages-over-ucds-decision.html
Okay - John wore the "wrong" button - he didn't cause a problem and should have been allowed into the event as he HAD a ticket - there was no dress code was there? Even at a private institution we would have let him in (okay, I might have asked him to remove the button - lol) - but until he was a "distrubance" - I do not see the legal grounds for restricting his admission to the event.
Ken - I don't see the legal grounds for barring his admission either. It seems like the folks who put this shindig together really didn't think everything through, did they? Maybe the person who denied John entry thought that because [s]he personally found John's button "disturbing" it is the same thing as causing a "disturbance"...(lol).
Welcome to the homestretch. I wrote these questions before our class last week in anticipation of this posting. However, if you have already had enough of these issues, I’ll post additional material shortly so there is something else for you to address. I hope you will find these questions interesting.
ReplyDeleteChapter 10 focuses on “The College and Government.” One of the topics included in this chapter is, “Trespass statutes and ordinances, and related campus regulations.”
Here’s the scenario:
Back in November 2002, then-president George Bush came to the USF Sun Dome to speak at a political rally for his brother, Governor Jeb Bush.
1. Free tickets to the rally were available to the public, however, at least six volunteers for the McBride campaign were turned away at the door and had their tickets confiscated by Republican organizers because they were wearing McBride buttons. According to a spokesperson for the Bush campaign, they had the right to turn McBride supporters away because the rally was a private event. John Dutty, of Tampa, disagreed. "I'm a USF student. That's a public university. I don't see how they can deny us entrance when the tickets were free. I could understand if we were causing a commotion inside the event, but we weren't being disruptive." Were John’s due process rights violated? Do you agree with his position? Why or why not?
2. Another issue regarding this situation involves the designated free speech zone. According to the St. Pete Times, between 150 to 175 people demonstrated at the rally and most stayed in the designated area for protesters on Fowler Avenue, which was located hundreds of yards away. However, some protesters strayed from the designated zone and seven people were arrested and charged with trespassing after warning, obstructing without violence, and disorderly conduct. (One of them was the well-known and rather outspoken, Joe Redner, the “Tampa nude-club mogul.”) Although the Sun Dome may be privately operated by Sun Dome Inc. and designated "First Amendment zones" for protesters are common during political conferences and presidential visits, isn’t the parking lot itself part of the property USF? In a story by the Associated Press, Bruce Winick, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law, said he thought zone was too far from the rally. Winick noted that “the courts traditionally have allowed restrictions that are reasonable as to time, place and manner” but the “restrictions must be applied equally to protesters and supporters.” He questioned whether the decision to arrest the protesters was applied in a viewpoint-neutral way. What do you think? Did the USF Police make the correct decision in arresting the protesters? Why or why not?
Here's a different issue. Section 10.5.3 of our book addresses Title IX. Following is another scenario for discussion:
ReplyDeleteEarlier this year, a panel of three judges reversed a federal district court’s decision and reinstated a gender-discrimination lawsuit against a university that had expanded varsity opportunities for women. (The suit was filed by three female student wrestlers who had been forced to compete against male student wrestlers and were then cut from the varsity team.) In the earlier opinion, the judges felt that the university was in violation of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 because it failed to demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for women. However, that court had failed to notice the addition of an indoor track team because the athletes in that program also participated in outdoor track.
In the reversal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the judges’ decision aligned their position with guidance from the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights that allows that athletics programs are permitted to count female athletes in indoor and outdoor track as separate participants in determining whether they offer adequate athletics opportunities for women. According to the Education Department, it is the number of participation opportunities, not the number of athletes, that is taken into consideration when looking at program expansion.
1. Do you see any potential implications with this small yet, perhaps, significant revision of counting rules in complying with a key federal gender-equity law?
2. Could this revision cause significant compliance issues for athletics departments across the nation?
I have to agree with John's claim that his due process rights were violated. The Bush campaign’s spokesperson was incorrect in stating that it was a private party. The event offered free tickets to the public. How was John to know the difference if it was not advertised as such? In all likelihood, the Republican organizers viewed any non-Bush supporters as a potential risk since there were protesters outside. I also believe there was an additional issue of property interests in relation to John being denied access into the Sun Dome. I believe that John’s student status entitled him to participate in activities on campus. It is my belief that not allowing him to enter based on the fear that he might cause a disturbance is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Reggie on the first scenario. It is akin to Haley v. James where the dean wouldn't allow the Students for a Democratic Society to form on campus due to a suspicion of disturbance. Surely, if he had been admitted and caused an issue, he could have been removed due to the issue of captive audience and private property.
ReplyDeleteI’ll continue to agree with everyone. I don’t see how this was a private event. I understand that the Sun Dome is a separate tax entity from USF; however, it is still a direct support organization and it is directly linked to the university. I would argue that it is more of a public property than a private property because of this direct link. In addition, there was no guarantee that the students were going to create a disturbance at the rally. In general, courts have shown you can’t deny access based on an assumption that a person or persons may act inappropriately. I didn’t view this as a private event and I feel that it was certainly a questionable decision to deny the students access.
ReplyDeleteLike Matthew, i'll also agree with everyone! The courts have consistently required that universities prove more than a suspicion of disturbance. Unless it's a sure thing, they are pretty much going to fail this test.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Title IX issue, wowzers! If this means that universities can now potentially only count opportunities versus students then this seems big! Will this mean that universities can now offer opportunities for women's participation in athletics based upon their evaluations on athletic performance against men on the wrestling team, or perhaps on the lacrosee team against men? This sounds very important, and i almost wonder if i'm interpreting it wrong? Can anyone else offer help here? Does it not sound like this could potentially let a large number of universities off the hook by making more co-ed teams available on which women would have to compete with men for spots?
2. I do believe that this version of a free speech zone is unconstitutional. When considering free speech zones, the correct way to do these is by not restricting content. It appears that because the purpose of this free speech zone was for McBride supporters (and not just to have a free speech zone), the concept of content being regulated is very gray.
ReplyDeleteJust for the fun of it, I'm going to disagree with several and say that they had the right to turn them away. Take away the fact that the tickets were free and open to the public. I think this may be why some have taken the side that they should have been granted access. The Sun Dome is a private legal entity that is owned by USF. The campaign contracted with the Sun Dome to host the event which I am sure resulted in the signing of a contract in exchange for payment. Therefore, the campaign has the right to designate who should and should not be allowed to enter the facility. Just because they said free and open to the public, they still require the tickets be obtained. They have the right to revoke these tickets for any reason, although I do believe this was in poor taste.
ReplyDeleteJust because they were students does not grant them access to the facility at any time. Hundreds of other events are hosted at the sundown each year such as concerts, athletic events, and other private events. Just because I am a student does not entitle me free admission to the sundown during these private events.
Regarding Viancca’s posting: I agree with your comments.
ReplyDeleteFurther research indicated that the reason this group felt the need to show up and protest really wasn’t because of who was speaking but was instead predicated on an event that had occurred in the previous year. It turns out that the three main protesters (Marks, Elend and Redner) decided to show up because they were concerned when three demonstrators were arrested during a rally for President Bush at Legends Field in Tampa. In that situation, a protest zone had been set up a half-mile away. The protesters were arrested but the charges against them were later dropped. Similarly, the 3 protestors who were arrested on November 2, 2002 at the University of South Florida for refusing to honor the "protest-zone" at a Jeb Bush election rally attended by his brother President Bush were also dismissed. Marks, Elend and Redner specifically attended the rally because they knew that local law enforcement (at the behest of the U.S. Secret Service and Republican Party) would enforce an unconstitutional "protest-zone" that would severely limit the area in which dissent could be expressed (. Armed with signs that quoted from the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Tinker v. Desmoines, "Freedom of Expression would not truly exist if the right could only be exercised in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots," the 3 were arrested after peacefully standing in the parking lot of the USF Sun Dome prior to the Bush rally. Prior to their arrest, they also handed out other U.S. Supreme Court cases that defended their right to peacefully protest on USF property (according to the Voice of Freedom).
The article further states that, “Judge Nick Nazaretian dismissed the charge of "trespassing after warning," ruling that the contract entered into between Sundome Inc. and the University of South Florida did not grant representatives of Sundome, Inc. the authority to make the charge of trespassing. Now that criminal charges have been dismissed, Elend, Marks, & Redner plan to file what they hope will become a precedent setting 1st Amendment lawsuit - one that challenges the basic constitutionality of "protest-zones." This is an issue that the Court has not yet considered, and the 3 plan to file the lawsuit as soon as possible. "These so-called 'protest-zones' are now routinely set up with no regard for the Constitution," claims Jeff Marks, "it has nothing to do with safety or national security, it only has to do with marginalizing citizen's political speech." Elend adds that, "Throughout our history, protestors have played a vital role in shaping our national debate. It's frightening how eager our leaders are to toss out the first amendment to avoid hearing someone who disagrees with them."
Of course, their story wouldn’t be complete without a colorful quote from our friend, Joe Render. He added, "By their very nature these 'protest-zones' or 'free speech cages' are not only blatantly unconstitutional, but are harmful to our democracy. Democracies die in the dark. If you're going to send me to a 'free speech cage' and tell me I can only protest there, I might as well be protesting in my bathroom." http://www.voiceoffreedom.com/archives/joearticles/usfarrestdismissed.html
Reggie--Thanks for being the first on the board. You make a very good point when you say, "How was John to know the difference if it was not advertised as such?" I can certainly understand the student's perspective in light of the fact that as a student he's probably attended plently of advertised "free" events on campus put on by various clubs or organizations which he may or may not be interested in or agree with (but if he's like so many of the students not only here but everywhere, he thought it was worth his time to attend at the offer of free food, t-shirts and other giveaways). And, of course, he was well within his rights to do so.
ReplyDeleteI'm also thinking that he may have attended or at least heard about free events held at the Sun Dome over the years (trade shows, the Week of Welcome event--I can't remember the name of it at this moment--religious meetings, etc.) so he didn't discern any difference between this event and any other the others.
Michelle--you're spot on. Just the mere suspicion of a potential disturbance isn't a good enough reason to bar his entrance. Good point. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteMatt--that's where I stopped for a moment too. Initially, I was a little torn between the rights of a group that had paid to rent a venue versus the rights of students to be at that venue just because it happens to be located at their educational institution. I looked around a bit and found that the Sun Dome is operated as a for-profit organization but it is still owned by the university from what I understand. I hope someone will correct me if I'm off the mark on that interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI guess what made me question the Sun Dome's position and rights at the university comes from a situation that I recall from a few years ago. During the hiring freeze back in 2005-06, one of the direct support organizations here at the university found a way to hire people through the Sun Dome, thereby, bypassing the university's freeze restrictions and also the hiring policies for bringing in new employees. (I'm still not sure about the legality of all that. The end result was that these people were later converted from Sun Dome employees to regular USF employees.)
I guess my position is that regardless of whether the Republican organization rented the venue for their event, they still advertised the tickets as free to the public. There was no requirement that you had to be a Bush supporter or a member of the Republic Party in order to attend. Thanks for contributing to the dialogue, Matt.
Josh—thanks for taking playing devil’s advocate! It’s always good to have an opposing view. As I commented in my response to Matt, I, too, was wavering about the right of the “renters” to control the event that they had paid for. I question whether they made an agreement to control the gate or assumed that because the Sun Dome is a private legal entity that they would have the right to do so. Their signed contact and subsequent agreement by the Sun Dome to hold the event there did, perhaps, give them some latitude to handle it a particular way, especially since there were strict security issues that had to be put in place and met due to the President’s attendance that evening. I know political rallies can have extra conditions imposed on them due to the high-profile nature of particular attendees (especially when one of those attendees is the President of the United States).
ReplyDeleteI agree with you; I think the situation was handled poorly. Whether the mistake came in the misleading advertisement or the revocation of access at the door, the end result was a lot of bad press for the Governor, the Republican Party and the University. Thanks very much for your remarks, Josh.
Christina—talk about “wowzers!” You’re right—this is absolutely frightening.
ReplyDeleteIn thinking about the implications this decision may have, I recall an issue that I saw happen at a local high school a few years back. That school decided to meet their Title IX requirements by mandating that all the cheerleaders be on the weightlifting team (“It’s good for you girls, since you have to do all those stunts and things.”). That way the school didn’t have to go to any great expense to create a new team and could use the equipment and facilities that they already had. Further, by requiring the cheerleaders to be on the weightlifting team they were assured of having captive pool of women participants they could add to their Title IX numbers (Oh, and by the way, girls, if you don’t want to be on the weightlifting team—then you can’t be on the cheering squad either.”)
It made me think that other programs could start doing the same thing. For example, what if institutions could start mandating that all women basketball players also be on the track and weightlifting teams? That way they could immediately increase women’s participation numbers by using the same 25 women basketball players to fill 75 women’s “opportunities.” How about this one? What about having women’s tennis players sign up for the soccer and baseball teams? Can’t you just picture some athletic director/administrator saying, “Look—these sports all require a ball, don’t they? What’s the big deal? Why shouldn’t we make them do it—it would be good for them and great for our numbers. This way, we can cut field hockey, softball, volleyball (and any other “girl sport”); save ourselves a bunch of money and still be within the law. That’s a slam-dunk, ain’t it!”
[Note: At this point, I offer my apologies to any of you who are current or aspiring athletics directors/administrators—I realize not all people in these positions think (or speak) this way. However, unfortunately, some still do—and it appears that several of them work at UC Davis in California where this issue originated. They have had and continue to have Title IX issues.]
Ugh.
P.S. UC Davis’ is in hot water again. The Governor’s Select Committee on Gender Discrimination is currently looking at whether UC Davis' cost-cutting move to eliminate the women's crew program could violate Title IX laws mandating gender equity in college sports. The university's decision to cut the women's rowing, men's swimming, men's wrestling and men's indoor track teams has angered many students and parents. http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/07/am-alert-monday-10.html#ixzz0uFGsT5oX
another article:
Fight still rages over UC
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/04/2868193/fight-still-rages-over-ucds-decision.html
Some folks just never learn.
Okay - John wore the "wrong" button - he didn't cause a problem and should have been allowed into the event as he HAD a ticket - there was no dress code was there? Even at a private institution we would have let him in (okay, I might have asked him to remove the button - lol) - but until he was a "distrubance" - I do not see the legal grounds for restricting his admission to the event.
ReplyDeleteKen - I don't see the legal grounds for barring his admission either. It seems like the folks who put this shindig together really didn't think everything through, did they? Maybe the person who denied John entry thought that because [s]he personally found John's button "disturbing" it is the same thing as causing a "disturbance"...(lol).
ReplyDelete