Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Multiple San Diego school districts ignore Title IX

 Update Sept. 24, 2014:  The author of the letter below was writing about Ramona and Grossmont school districts, but some of his/her comments also apply to Sweetwater Union High School District, which lost an appeal to the Ninth Circuit in Sept. 2014 regarding its firing of a coach for complaining about violations of Title IX.

Four board members of Sweetwater Union High School District recently pled guilty to corruption charges.  

The reader who wrote the letter below was responding to a story I discussed HERE.

Original article:

(This article is being republished after editing.  It was originally published in 2009.)

San Diego Union-Tribune reader comment by "T728"
January 30, 2009
Editor:

Ramona retained the same legal counsel that represented Grossmont High School District 10 years ago when I did the Title IX at Grossmont. That same counsel knew from the beginning what the outcome was/had to be at Ramona...

Two conclusions can be drawn.

First, Ramona didn’t want to abide by the federal law by somehow suggesting they were exempt...

The premise for Title IX is frequently over looked as demonstrated a few weeks ago with the question of continuing football at SDSU because of Title IX. The Supreme Court ruled back in the mid 90’s that the Federal Government doesn’t collect taxes by gender, and as such, the benefits of collect tax receipts must benefit each gender in government sponsored expenditures such as tax supported public schools.

The new superintendent still wants to blame the girls for the problem because he says the girls didn’t want to wait until the fairy shrimp moved to another location.

The new superintendent, along with the principal, and the prior superintendent should get together and explain to the District tax payers why their course of action of spending something like nearly three quarters of a million dollars on legal fees, school administration time, a playing field that was known not to satisfy the parity criteria, plus the cost of building the on campus field was a good use of tax payers money.

If they can’t explain it, then the tax payers shouldn’t be on the hook and those three should be held accountable by paying for it out of their current pay, or retirement pay, because of intentional reckless disregard for both girls and boys and the tax payers.

At Helix and elsewhere within the Grossmont District, the average cost of a new softball field was about $100K for each of the seven fields that were built.


Mesa College
State College

2 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.