Does Title IX even apply to high schools--don't think so!!!!

I think the Title IX intent was to create through sports more collegiate scholarship opportunities for females.

Well said Richard!!

Title IX applies to all aspects of education receiving Federal Funds, yes that means high schools.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination
in education. Title IX says: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any education program
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

OK.

Then perhaps we need a KSHSAA rule in wrestling similiar to the rule in volley ball: no boys in state level VB competition , no girls in state level wrestling competition. Problem solved!!!!

How about softball. Can boys play softball if their school has no baseball team. Fast pitch softball is a great game. When and where I grew up many many small schools had boys softball teams. plus, mens fast pitch was a big game. Then came slow pitch softball and beer drinking and girls took over the sport.

Title IX, whether you agree with everything in it or not, only applies to women/girls. Girls can play football, baseball, and wrestle. Boys can't play girls only sports, in the 1st 20 years of Title IX girls participation in sports went from 300,000 in high school to 2.78 million.

And I don't think there is a problem to be solved. Girls have a right to wrestle, boys/schools have a right to not wrestle girls.

I am not 100% sure of this rule. But I do believe that if there is a similar sport offered at the same time, the male or female must compete with their own gender( I.e.: baseball/softball.)

Just another reason why we need to push our high schools to add female wrestling to the sports program. Girls wrestling is a fast growing sport in the world. (or was until the IOC decision). We even have a college in Kansas that has girls wrestling, but no high schools with girl’s teams.

Per Title IX, you are wrong:

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination
in education. Title IX says: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any education program
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

So, let me make sure I understand this "RIGHTs" issue. A girl has the "right" to wrestle. Boys have the right (religious or personal)to reuse to wrestle girls. The SMS boy had a right of expectation to wrestle in a state sanctioned tournmant wherein the wrestlers were bracketed on some estimation of their relative skills, experience, training, physical ability, etc. It appears the girl and the two Catholic wrestlers got to exercise their rights, but doing so they stripped the SMS boy of his expected rights.

Rights. Everybody has some-evidenty some have more rights than others--or to rob someone of their rights. We have just described the problems of this country. Everybody wants his or hers special right at the expense of someone else. Basically, if everybody has rights than nobody has rights. The dogma associated with rights is what is argued everyday in every governmental body in this country. GOD or whoever help us.

I believe South Dakota and Wyoming have state laws that prohibit boys and girls from wrestlind each other, I could be wrong of course, but that would show that Title IX does NOT give girls the "right" to wrestle.

I should probably keep my mouth shut, but I keep hearing about this SMS kid that got "screwed" out of a chance for state. He did get to wrestle, yes? So he was banking on beating a girl for his ticket to state? Then what? and who guantees that he wins this match, I don't know anything about any of them.

I have been in several regional tournaments where a questionable slam/injury default (where the slammed kid later wrestled, hmmm?) sent the slammer (usually a high seed) to the back bracket and really blew things up, that's why if you play the bracket and things go haywire, those are the breaks.

I had a senior lose in a consolation semifinal, to an underclassmen from a private school that transferred in that year to wrestle and was wrestling at a different school in a different classification the next year. I suppose the argument could be made that had that other kid not switched schools around, my kid, who showed loyalty to one school for all four years would be going to state. Bottom line, we had an opportunity to make it to state and didn't get it done. We got over it and went on to bigger things.

You all can quit crying now.

Mr. DeWitt,
If KMC makes the trip back to Hays for their tournament next year I would love to meet you. You seem to be a straight talker and I find that to be a rare and admirable quality.
I wouldn't mind taking you up on that Gella's offer either especially if I could order the stout rather than the IPA.

Sounds like a plan. I will buy.

I would even invite Westphal to join us.

Can I come? I like free beer but who doesn't especially if Dewitt is buying

Alex, time to move home anyway, you can take over for Coach Froh'

I have read a week of these posts on this subject. Most of the opinions expressed in this thread are incorrect from a legal standpoint. I am a practicing attorney, I teach Constitutional Law at the college level, and I assure not one post is accurate regarding the legality of this matter.

Title IX has no application here. While the text of the law says it applies to all educational institutions receiving financial aid, the purpose of the act was to reform post-secondary education, and that is where almost the entire application judicially has been. So, those comments which reference that point here are incorrect. (I understand there is pending appellate activity that would make Title IX strictly inapplicable to secondary education).

The law you need to google is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race (3 deliniated categories), religion, and gender (applicable here). For those amateur lawyers, (there seems to be quite a few here), look up 42 USC 1983, that is the statutory reference.

This law says you cannot discriminate, in public schools, based on gender. This law was discussed and confirmed in a 1973 court case involving a female cross country runner at Wichita Southeast HS who tried to run on the male team. The court ruled that she was allowed to participate, thus making gender discrimination in public schools unlawful in Kansas. This rule of law does not apply to private schools, who are allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender. See Gilpin v. Kansas State High School Activities Ass'n, Inc., 377 F.Supp. 1233 (D.Kan. 1973).

That is the current status of the law in this area. My recommendation is that if you want to play pundit, you should understand the subject before you try to explain it. So far, the only person who has made a an accurate technical comment was Jerry Dale regarding his flatulence.

Tom Williams

So Public Schools can't discriminate against Private Religous Schools that are discriminating on the basis of Gender? Is that correct?

I think this is the biggest joke to think the SMS kid got screwed. He had two matches to make it to state and lost. He got his right to wrestle and lost just like all the other kids that competed this weekend. And you're making a huge assumption to say that he would of beat the Gracy girl. His record was barely over .500 and the Gracy girl was at .500. Based on record this would have been a close match. Willy you're climbing up the BS tree on this one.

No ones rights were violated here. The KSHSAA provides a fair forum for kids to wrestle for a championship, its up to you to win or lose. The Catholic kids chose not to wrestle, they're fortunate they had wrestle backs. The Gracy girl got to wrestle and she took 2nd fair and square. SMS wasn't good enough to go on.

To be clear, the SMS wrestler was 17-14 and the MV wrestler was 4-5. He was the #4 seed. She was unseeded. There were three wrestlers harmed by the Archbishop ruling. #2 seed Gooch placed as high as he possibly could at 3rd, Tyler Hensley placed 4th instead of 3rd and McQueen's season is over. Meanwhile, with all due respect to her hard work and determination, Gracy placed 2nd while wrestling a total of 1:26, losing the only wrestled match she had. To claim anything different is just pandering.

I farted again

But Tom, why are you just practicing to be an attorney?

...amature lawyers and amature coaches, the forum is full of both of them.

Tom, has the court made a similar rulings on activities involving opposit sex sports where contact is necessary and encouraged?

Or does the 1973 ruling cover all high school sports and activities?

Thanks.