No point in legal battle

What’s the point?
That’s a question that could be asked about a lot of sports topics.
Like, what was the point of Congress getting involved in a massive investigation into steroids in baseball in the 2000s? Surely the legislature had bigger things to deal with.
Or what’s the point of a country boycotting the Olympics as has been done in the past and is being discussed now in the wake of the Edward Snowden scandal? Such a move is just punishing athletes who work their whole lives for this event that happens just once every four years.
Or, as sports editor Chris Schanz asked Monday, what is the point of having a Heisman Trophy preview show in mid-August? Perhaps it might be a better idea to wait until a game, just one, has been played.
But my question this time comes from a story last week out of Baltimore, Ohio.
A 12-year-old girl there named Makhaela Jenkins wanted to play football on the seventh grade team. Her school district, initially, told her she couldn’t.
That was a ridiculous stance to take.
Fortunately, the Liberty Union-Thurston school district changed course, deciding to allow Makhaela to play.
It didn’t want to get into a prolonged legal battle that would cost taxpayer money.
But superintendent Paul Mathews still doesn’t seem to get it. He thinks the district’s reasoning was sound in originally not allowing Makhaela to play.
According to The Associated Press, Mathews “said he still believes the longstanding policy doesn’t violate any gender-related regulations, because the district offered girls other, non-contact athletic options.
He had said it was the district’s choice to set which school sports are available to girls.”
Really?
I disagree. So did the American Civil Liberties Union.
Let’s take a look at what Title IX says on the topic:
“… a (school) may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a (school) operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport.”
In short, if a school doesn’t offer girls football it must allow girls to try out for the boys team.
It’s good the school district changed its collective mind and decided to allow Makhaela to play.
Because if Makhaela’s family had taken the school district to court to fight for her right to play, it would have won, the school system would have lost and a lot of money would have been spent on both sides.
But whether or not Mathews and the district had any legal standing to stop Makhaela from playing football really isn’t the point. The point is, why bother trying to stop her?
Are we really still having this debate?
Girls have been playing on football teams for years. They’ve been wrestling for years.
Girls have participated in both sports at Jay County High School without so much as anyone batting an eye. It’s still rare, but this shouldn’t be a big deal anymore.
What benefit would Liberty-Union Thurston schools have gotten from keeping Makhaela off of the football field? I surely can’t think of anything.
Gender shouldn’t have anything to do with whether a girl is or is not on the football team. Merit should.
That’s one of the things I love about athletics. They are a meritocracy.
If you’re good enough to play, you play. If you’re not, you get cut or you sit on the bench. It’s really that simple.
That standard should be the same, whether the athlete is male or female.
That’s the point.[[In-content Ad]]