Bathroom Breaks
April 29, 2016
Restrooms and locker rooms have become the front line of the latest civil rights battle in America, with collateral damage to school sports possible.
The laws of the land (local, state and federal) are presently conflicting and unclear; but ultimately, they are likely to be liberally construed. In the meantime, it will be discouraging to observe litigation that pits one person’s rights to access against another person’s right of privacy.
What we advocate is a safe and supportive environment for all students, with as many decisions as possible made at the most local level possible where resources can be best assessed and allocated.
We take no political or religious position; we are on the side of students, facilitating opportunities for gender questioning or confirming students while promoting a fair and level playing field in competitive athletics for all students.
To preserve opportunities for females and consistent with state and federal statutes and a long history of case law, Michigan High School Athletic Association rules do not allow boys on girls teams in MHSAA postseason tournaments. Therefore, the only time the MHSAA is directly involved is when a male student is transitioning to female and desires to play on an interscholastic team designated only for females in MHSAA tournaments. We decide about eligibility only; local schools make the necessary accommodations.
If a student’s gender preference of male is disputed by facts, that student may not be allowed on tournament teams designated for females only. Each decision is made on a case-by-case basis, balancing the objectives of promoting both opportunity and fair play.
Helmet Debate Escalates in Girls Lacrosse
July 2, 2015
Recently the Florida High School Activities Association escalated the girls lacrosse helmet debate to higher levels by mandating the equipment during competition involving its member schools. I’m guessing their hearts are in the right place; but without a recognized performance standard yet established for such protective head gear, there are important practical questions added to the philosophical debate over the efficacy of such a requirement at this time. Here’s what we posted on this topic nearly two years ago.
One of our newest sports – girls lacrosse – is today presenting one of the oldest conundrums in competitive athletics.
On one side of the complex issues are many moms and dads who cite the dangers their daughters confront from contact to the head and face by other players’ sticks or the ball. They want hard helmets with face masks required in girls lacrosse. Many coaches and administrators agree.
On the other side of the issues are the “purists,” including the official position of US Lacrosse, who are concerned that by increasing head and face protection the rule makers would invite the kind of hard and high contact that would fundamentally alter the nature of the game and lead to more serious injuries in girls lacrosse.
This is the classic dilemma that the leadership and playing rules bodies of sports organizations have faced many times over many years for many sports. Justifiably.
When football added helmets, then face masks and then mouth protectors to the list of required equipment, there was a significant reduction in broken noses and chipped teeth, but techniques of blocking and tackling changed. The protected head and face became much more of a target and weapon than it had been before, and the unprotectable neck and spine became more at risk.
Some would argue that ice hockey’s experience is similar to football’s history. The discussion in the soccer community regarding hard helmets for goalkeepers and soft helmets for all other players often revolves around similar questions. Will required protective equipment change the game? And will one of the changes be that the game becomes still rougher and even more injurious, trading “moderate” injuries for more catastrophic?
While the debate continues over additional head protection requirements for girls lacrosse, and other sports, both sides seem to agree that the burden of the rule makers to be out-front in the search for ways to improve the rules is matched by the in-the-trenches responsibility of coaches to teach the game and officials to administer the contests in accordance with existing rules which already place a premium on participant safety.