Fuzz, Title IX violations constitute discrimination. Period. That’s why we have Title IX, to prevent discrimination against women and girls when it comes to athletics and other programs that are parts of schools, universities, and other similar federally-funded institutions.
Founders and Contributors of “Title IX Blog,” Erin Buzuvis, Professor of Law at Western New England University and Kristine Newhall, PhD, candidate in Women’s Studies at the University of Iowa, put it quite well:
“Last year we blogged about
Title IX violations at the high schools in New Hanover County, North Carolina -- in particular, the
inequitable locker room facilities that had girls' teams doubling up and changing in the weight room, and the county's ongoing efforts to honor a 2008 compliance agreement with OCR . But today there's good news for the girls at Hoggard and Laney high schools, the county purports to have completed all of the necessary renovations to comply with Title IX. Of the new, spacious girls' locker room with varnished wood lockers (a "carbon copy" of the existing boys' locker room), Hoggard girls' basketball coach Ray Beatty said,
'Everyone that's been in there has been overwhelmed, especially the girls that have been with me for a while[.] It's more like a college atmosphere now than in the past. My girls probably just felt like second-class citizens because the boys had such nice facilities, but now they feel like first-class citizens.'
"To me, this quote epitomizes the intent and effect of Title IX, indeed, civil rights laws in general, and provides the most compelling counterargument to those who say the law is unnecessary and unimportant.
No group should be stigmatized by second-class treatment.
Discrimination in athletics, whether it be in the number of participation opportunities for each sex, or the quality of their playing fields and locker rooms, sends a clear message to students about whose athletic experience society appreciates, expects, and respects. It's obvious that they should be equal. It's not obvious why it takes government intervention to make schools realize that too, but until it is, Title IX is both necessary and important.”
(
http://title-ix.blogspot.com/2010/11/fi ... title.html)
In Title IX , section 106.41 covers the “Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities” in terms of “Athletics,” and section 106.33, “Comparable facilities” states that “A recipient [of federal funding] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.” (See
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/by ... cfr106.php)
Fuzz, you say that one of the district’s Title IX violations is “
Comparable Facilities-Private Showers/Curtains – Boys Locker Room.”
Am I to take it, then, that the boys’ locker room needs “Private Showers/Curtains?” Or, is the girls’ locker room lacking in “comparable private showers/curtains”?
“A smaller locker room built prior to title IX is” at least one of my “stances on discrimination.” So too is the private showers/curtains issues. If the girls’ locker room in fact lacks these comparable private showers and curtains, then that is discrimination against the girls who attend gym classes and/or play sports at the high school.
Privacy is important, particularly for teenagers and children. If a female student is uncomfortable in not having sufficient privacy to change into gym clothes, athletic uniforms, and the like, or if she is required to shower or simply wants to shower prior to gym class or sports, then she may choose to forego attending gym classes (assuming her parent(s) request this on her behalf) or not to participate in school sports even if she wants to participate in those sports .
This lack of privacy, yes, even by something is seemingly simple as “private showers/curtains,” matters in that it has the potential to discourage at least some female students from participating in gym/sports. And, assuming the boy’s locker rooms has “private showers/curtains,” they would not need to forego gym/sports for lack of privacy. This specific lack of “comparable facilities” thus makes it easier for boys to participate in gym/sports than it does for girls. It makes gym/sports more accessible for boys than it does for girls, and thus entails unequal accessibility, based on sex.
The fact that the locker room was built prior to Title IX does not make the effect of potentially hindering the participation of female students at the high school any less negligible. Yes, there are many schools built before the passage of Title IX with this and similar issues.
However, as you can see from the above blog, other schools (in this case, two high schools in New Hanover County, North Carolina) are still expected by the OCR (Office of Civil Rights) to make “necessary renovations.” Another article detailing the New Hanover County school Title IX issue also makes it clear that “The athletic facilities [in these schools], including the girls' and boys' locker rooms, were built in 1970, two years before Congress enacted the Title IX law” in 1972 (
http://articles.courant.com/2001-03-09/ ... tle-ix-law).
Their Board of education Chairman Daniel Wolfe wrote ``We have recently learned that the high school locker rooms are not in compliance with Title IX. As we are in violation of a federal law, this is clearly a problem that must be addressed.''
He didn’t say “we’re not in violation” of “Title IX because the schools were built prior to the passage of Title IX.” Rockford is no less in violation of Title IX because the locker rooms were built before the law.
You could argue that it’s not the fault of current school district that the locker rooms were not built equitably by past school district staff. However true that may be, it is still “a problem that must be addressed” by the current school district. Though it is an inherited problem that the current school district is not responsible for originally creating, the school district is still responsible to fix the problem.
It may be unfair, but it doesn’t make it any less of a problem.
Here’s an analogous situation: the current generation of the U.S. is not responsible for creating of slavery or segregation, which still has lasting effects in today’s society. We didn’t create slavery or segregation. Some of our ancestors did. But the fact still remains that if we, as a society, do not address the lasting negative effects of these forms of discrimination that exist today, we are the ones to blame for what we fail to do to eliminate or at least alleviate these effects. It’s still our generation’s responsibility to solve these problems even though we didn’t create these problems. The same goes for Title IX and gender discrimination, in general.
And incomparable locker room facilities do matter to the students who use them as evidenced by the comment of one female student at the New Hanover school:
“’We've joked that the boys had a bigger locker room,’ said senior Lindsay Peirson, who scored 31 goals last season to help lead the field hockey team to the championship. But, she added, ‘
it's got to be unfair’ that two boys' teams per season get separate rooms while only one girls' team gets such an accommodation.”
So, I think I’ve answered your question, Fuzz, which was "Tell me how in any way shape or form was a female student or staff member discriminated on the basis of sex.” I simply cannot make it clearer than that. I would suggest a course in feminist ethics or women's studies, if that would help you understand.
I know you say, Fuzz, that this issue will be addressed in the upcoming bond referendum or the necessary changes will be made using “Funds from the district’s general fund will pay the necessary improvements if the bond does not pass.” That’s good.
But why, if the district has known of these violations since 2001, have they failed to correct them? I only wish that our district had taken the more proactive stance of the New Hanover County Board of Education Chairman back in 2001 when it learned of these problems and addressed these problems then.
Fuzz, you also mention “accessibility.” That’s a significant concern, particularly for persons with mobility disabilities. Did you not in fact indicate that the district had knowledge of these vioaltions in 2001?
My guess is that “
grab bars” issue at the high school an
Americans with Disabilities issue. A student with mobility issues would need that bar for safety reasons in order to use the locker room and/or bathroom facilities.
According to the “Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) to buildings and facilities subject to the law” (see
http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/checklist/a16.html), there are multiple potentials for violations with “grab bars” in public schools.
Some of requirements for grab bars in public schools are as follows: “the outside diameter of the grab bar,” “the space between the grab bar and the wall,” how “secured” the grab bars are in “their fittings,” the “structural strength” of these bars, and the fact that these bars and the walls to which they are mounted must be “free of sharp or abrasive elements,” among other requirements.
The grab bar requirements of public school showers are comparable to the requirements for toilet stall grab bars.
Now, these requirements may seem nit-picky, but to
a student with cerebral palsy, spina bifida, or other mobility disabilities, these are crucial for these students to safely access shower and toilet facilities in public schools. Now, if a student with a mobility problem cannot use the bathrooms at a public school, that public school would probably also be in violation the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which mandates that all children are to be educated in the "least restrictive environment" appropriate for that child. This law requires public schools to make all possible accomodations to allow students with disabilities to be educated at public schools.
So, if a student cannot safely use the bathroom at school, then he or she is not going to be able to attend public school. If the school can make those reasonable accomodations for that student that would allow the student to be educated in a public school (i.e. installing ADA-compliant grab bars in toilet stalls), and the school fails to make those accomodations, then that school is violating that student’s right to education in the “least restrictive environment,” i.e. education in a public school.
I suspect that the district’s violation of “
Shower Bench/and Sprayer” issues is a similar
ADA violation that pertains to students with mobility problems.
The ADA also specifies rules regarding a shower’s “Spray Unit” (4.20.60). For example, a shower spray unit must have a “hose” that is “at least 60 inches long, and the “spray unit” must be able to be “used both as a hand-held and as a fixed shower head.”
Section 4.21.3 of the law deals with requirements of a “seat” in a “transfer type shower,” including dimensions of the “seat,” its shape, and layout in regards to the shower “controls.”
Section 4.21.4 covers “grab bars” in a “transfer type shower,” and section 4.26.3. addresses “seats for accessible bathtubs and showers” in terms of “structural strength requirements.”
Again, these requirements are specific for a reason. For
students with mobility issues to safely use showers in the school’s locker rooms, those students would need “grab bars” to help them avoid slippage. Shower “seats” along with a “spray unit” that could be detached and long enough so they could reach these seats would allow the student with mobility to problems to shower while seated, a much safer option in terms of potential falls than having them stand up. And if the
student relied on a wheelchair, cane, braces, or other such supports for mobility, then these shower features would be requisites for him/her to use the showers at all.
If these students cannot use locker room showers, then they may be unable to participate, if not in extracurricular sports, then at least in P.E. classes.
Parking is also addressed by the
ADA. Some ADA requirements in terms of parking include having “accessible parking spaces” that are connected to the “shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to the building's accessible entrance” and having “van accessible” parking spaces.
Again, these rules are meant to make the school building itself “accessible” to students with mobility and other types of disabilities. For example, without “van accessible” parking spaces,
students in wheelchairs that use vans with wheelchair lifts would be unable to get into the school. Obviously this does not allow them equal opportunity to an education at the public school that lacks these types of parking spaces.
As for “
signage” violations, the
ADA also covers this issue. One requirement is that “signs” provide direction to, or information about, functional spaces of the building.” Such signs might, for example,
direct students to handicap wheelchair accessible bathrooms.
At least some
signs also must feature “
Grade II Braille.” How else would a
blind student locate the restroom or another school room or school facility?
Finally, the
ADA also addresses issues with “
drain pipes.” Section 4.19.4 covers “Pipe shielding” an requires “
hot water pipes and drain pipes” to be “insulated or otherwise configured to
protect against contact.” While I am not sure how this specifically pertains to students with disabilities,
exposed hot water and drain pipes are obviously a safety hazard for students who could burn themselves by touching these pipes and drains.
Again, I don't know which specific violations the school district committed in these areas you mention. But, according to your information and similar information from the school district's website that the school committed at least one of the aforementioned violations in each of these areas.
Fuzz, I call discrimination “discrimination,” and fires “fires.” I don’t think glossing over these issues, using euphemisms, or calling them anything other than what they are is acceptable. I suggest that if you think Title IX and/or the ADA violations do not constitute discrimination that you take it up with the founders of these laws who say that they are in fact forms of discrimination.
Please tell me where, again “speculated and conjured” this information. I investigated and got the facts. Tell me which facts are in dispute here?