The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Oregon to God: No Trophy for You
The Green Eyed Monster
i blame hip hopRegistered User regular
i blame hip hopRegistered User regular
The short version is this -- there is a Seventh-Day Adventist high school whose religion observes the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, which in turn prevents their high school basketball team from competing in post-season matches which are typically played Friday and Saturday night. So the Portland Adventist Academy (PAA) is suing the Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA) for religious discrimination.
More detail:
The OSAA says it is unreasonable for the organization of 290 schools to make such accomodations for one single member school, but wait! The OSAA did make arrangements for the PAA to play in 1996, and you know what they did? They won! So what did opposing coaches do? They complained!
So in March (little old, I know) the ACLU represented the PAA in front of the Oregon Supreme Court. To my knowledge, no ruling has yet been made, but many different athletic organizations around the country are watching this case with interest because it could potentially send ripples through school activities organizations in every state.
So D&D -- what do we think? Does the OSAA have any obligation to accomodate the PAA on the Sabbath? Or can we say that making extended arrangements on behalf of one school is just too much?
Personally I think the PAA should just stuff it and accept the fact that the OSAA isn't an organization built to hand them trophies. There are organized tournaments, and if they're unable to meet them, how is it the OSAA's responsibility? There are plenty of things these Adventists sacrifice to observe the Sabbath, and I don't really see how sacrificing sporting glory suddenly amounts to targeted discrimination. That said, the fact that opposing coaches were rather clearly straight up player-hating by lodging complaints and getting them barred from the playoffs is pretty funny, and does leave a rather unfortunate back door for the ACLU lawyers to get in to work this case. Still -- the OSAA has an obligation to all its member schools, not just the PAA, and I don't believe it's their responsibility to meet the schedule of just one school.
*God
More detail:
The Oregonian wrote:Tom Welter, OSAA executive director, said the association wants to accommodate students from Portland Adventist, provided that doing so would not harm the organization or its 290 member schools. In the state basketball tournament, matchups sometimes are not finalized until as little as 24 hours before a game. Meeting the needs of Portland Adventist's students would unreasonably create too many problems for other teams, fans and the OSAA, Welter said.
The OSAA says it is unreasonable for the organization of 290 schools to make such accomodations for one single member school, but wait! The OSAA did make arrangements for the PAA to play in 1996, and you know what they did? They won! So what did opposing coaches do? They complained!
The Oregonian wrote:The issue dates back to 1996, when the OSAA agreed to accommodate the school, and Welter, then an assistant executive director, wrote a memo stating that last-minute changes could be made "without sacrificing the structure of the tournament." That year, Portland Adventist capped an undefeated season by winning the Class 2A state basketball title.
The following year, other schools objected to the accommodations and the OSAA changed its stance. Portland Adventist filed suit in U.S. District Court and lost.
In 2000, students and parents asked the OSAA and the Oregon Board of Education to reconsider. In 2002, with the matter still unsettled, the team played in the tournament and advanced to the third- place game. But the Cougars did not show up for the game because it was scheduled during the Sabbath. The team* never received a trophy.
So in March (little old, I know) the ACLU represented the PAA in front of the Oregon Supreme Court. To my knowledge, no ruling has yet been made, but many different athletic organizations around the country are watching this case with interest because it could potentially send ripples through school activities organizations in every state.
So D&D -- what do we think? Does the OSAA have any obligation to accomodate the PAA on the Sabbath? Or can we say that making extended arrangements on behalf of one school is just too much?
Personally I think the PAA should just stuff it and accept the fact that the OSAA isn't an organization built to hand them trophies. There are organized tournaments, and if they're unable to meet them, how is it the OSAA's responsibility? There are plenty of things these Adventists sacrifice to observe the Sabbath, and I don't really see how sacrificing sporting glory suddenly amounts to targeted discrimination. That said, the fact that opposing coaches were rather clearly straight up player-hating by lodging complaints and getting them barred from the playoffs is pretty funny, and does leave a rather unfortunate back door for the ACLU lawyers to get in to work this case. Still -- the OSAA has an obligation to all its member schools, not just the PAA, and I don't believe it's their responsibility to meet the schedule of just one school.
*God
The Green Eyed Monster on
0
Posts
Really, the PAA can't expect the world to turn over for it, its just a consequence of being a very religious school. Though I wonder why the religious kids play b-ball so well.
The other stuff is a little funky, I admit, but it doesn't change the fact that they should never have altered the schedule for them in the first place.
I'd be interested to know how religiously flexible the PAA could be in this matter.
I was going to take the side of the Adventists.....
Then I read this quote.
And it makes way too much fucking sense.
Not to me. It's too much of a sacrifice to force on these student athletes, many of whom likely had no choice in what school they would attend and even what church they would be a part of.
Wait, what? Around here (NJ) you have to be 16 (usually sophomore year) before you're allowed to drop out.
The Amish were able to get a special exclusion to the manditory compulsion due to the way it would affect their life and free exercise of religion. Not everyone can use this case as an exception to drop out, as they would have to prove, as the Amish did, the impact it would have on their lives.
It wouldn't be relevant to this basketball league because the school isn't being compelled to participate in it. In the Yoder case, it was "go to school or your parents can possibly go to jail" vs "observe your religion and don't play, but nothing will happen to you from us with either choice."
Personally, I think the PAA is wrong on this one. The vast majority should not have to alter their behavior just for a single member.
its an extracurriclar activity, if they want to participate in the event they are able to. I don't think the students want to go on that date too.
Exactly.
Don't you think the OSAA's rules are now specifically targeting the PAA? I mean, originally the OSAA's rules weren't discriminatory, but they decided to accomodate the PAA anyways. Then people got pissy the PAA won and wanted to reinstate the old rules. By reinstating the old rules, wouldn't that make them discriminatory by specifically targeting a religion?
This isn't really about the students, though. It's about the school's decision to bar their team from playing on a certain day. If the school wants to change its mind, it's free to. It doesn't want to. Okay, fine, but no sporting event for you.
No, they aren't able to without the consent of their parents, their coach, and their school. Hell, even if as much as half would choose to forego the game upon when given a choice free from the influence of their authority figures, the other half would still want to go and still be denied.
But when it comes to the culmination of your entire year of hard work, I wouldn't expect even that many to be personally willing to skip the game because of their family's and their school's religious choices.
Not catering to the demands of a single school is not the same as discriminating against it. If all the other schools had no problems and the OSAA told the PAA to get bent, sure, discrimination. Can you explain to me why the other schools should all be forced to jump when the PAA tells them to? They're outnumbered 200+ to 1. I'd say that the OSAA favoring the 200 over the 1 doesn't qualify as discrimination. It qualifies as acknowledging the wishes of a vast majority.
The idea that denying special (and fairly unreasonable) requests is equivalent to discrimination really boggles the mind.
What if some Adventist football team joined the NFL? Should they have the right to demand that playoff games aren't allowed to happen on Saturdays? What if an adventist really wants to see a play that only shows on Saturday afternoons? Should they get to demand a special performance on Sunday?
Yes, those examples are silly, but so is this. It's a high-school sporting event. It is a game. Games are, by definition, frivolous activities.
And I think this should be about the students. Shouldn't they be the focus of every school related debate?
Instead, we're passing the buck from one group to the other and arguing over who's obligated to act in the kids' best interest. Newsflash, it's the responsibility of both groups. If you can do anything, then you should, because it's your job.
The only difference is that the PAA also needs to serve the parents, the other group concerned in the argument, and so they're forced to choose between maintaining the morality parents expected when they enrolled their kids in the first place and what's best for the kids. Meanwhile, there's no such dilemna for the OSAA since they're simply arguing that it's impossible to do something they've already done once before.
What if other people regard Sunday as the sabbath?
I couldn't make the case why 200 schools should cater to 1 school, but there's enough evidence to say the reinstatement of the original rules are intended to prohibit the PAA from playing. And that reinstatement is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Originally the OSAA's rules weren't written with the PAA in mind, but after showing the OSAA can accomodate the PAA, why shouldn't the reinstatement of the original rules be looked as anything else but discriminatory?
Your Adventist football, under my reasoning, could demand that the playoff games not be allowed on Saturdays. I doubt they'd win that case because the NFL's rules weren't originally written to discriminate against the Adventists. However, if the NFL created a new rule (or reinstated an old one) with the intent to discriminate against a religion, it would be unlawful.
We don't know why the other teams complained, but it's speculative to assert that they did so because they wanted to discriminate against the PAA. It's at least, if not more, likely that it just fucked up their own schedules, and they didn't like it. Maybe it conflicted with other activities they had going on. We're talking about a system that's been around for awhile, and that other schools have likely built their schedules pretty firmly around.
Now, if this was something really important, I'd say that the OSAA should go to a fair amount of effort to accomodate the PAA. But it's a sports game. I think that "reasonable accomodation", as specified in the ruling, should consist of asking the other teams if they'd mind switching to a different day. And if a large number of their answers are, "No, that'd be pretty inconvenient for us, sorry" - which is seemingly what they said - then, well, sucks to be the PAA.
Again, calling this discrimination is insulting to those who are actually discriminated against.
Comparing A. Fucking. Game. to actual, serious needs like the ADA makes baby Jesus cry.
May I ask what the limitations are on bullshit requests that they get to demand in the name of religious tolerance? What if they can only play at midnight? What if they can only play sports against opponents in pink leotards and kabuki make-up, and they'll even provide the leotards? How much do they get to demand before we get to say, "Okay, fuck you, if you want to play with us you sort of just need to deal"? Because using your argument, they get to demand pretty much anything they want, unless a large number of people can provide documented proof that it's "inconvenient".
I have no problem with the regulations if the schools can prove that accomidation is too difficult. But I want to make sure that the schools HAVE to prove it, and not just say it's true.
Seriously. People who dont like the ACLU confuse the shit out of me.
Slippery slopes work both ways, though. That's why you nail down some clear precedents. I think this would be a good place to establish one.
Oh that's right -- they don't have a magical fairy tale backing up the fact that they can't get home till 6, so they're not legally protected. So while maybe the OSAA can arrange to have the games occur at PAA's convenience, what of the other 289 members who are now inconvenienced by it? Sure -- maybe it's the legal thing to do, but in this instance if the law is elevating this religion above the needs of the majority of the student's, then perhaps it's a stupid law.
And like ElJeffe said, this precedent could affect high school athletics across the country, I could definitely see that, but I think saying it would have any repercussions beyond that is really hysterical.
The slippery slope is that if we had six other religions that had big black Xs through the other days of the week, do we cancel sports altogether to not be de facto discriminatory?
I have no qualms saying one religion shouldn't run roughshod over another- religious persecution, for example. But once a religion starts trying to bend the secular world to it's six-day week, it's not discrimination any more.
As an aside, religion isn't like race. It confers actual attitudes upon its adherents, and buying into a faith isn't an immutable characteristic. People can join or leave. Given this, secular discrimination (at least, in the de facto sense) really doesn't strike me as being all that bad, most of the time. If you really want to play basketball, kids, go somewhere else, or don't be such a crazy religious zealot.
That's one of the shitty things about that religion, then. I think Richard Dawkins said something about child abuse, recently.
To be fair, religious belief isn't really a choice in the conventional sense, which is part of why it's protected. It's not like someone says, "Oh, I think I'll believe in Judaism now." The extent of their decision making process consists of opening themselves up to a new possibility and seeing if it resonates with them more than whatever their old beliefs are. You can't choose what to believe any more than you can choose who to love, or choose when you're hungry. You can only choose how to act given your beliefs.
Honestly, given the number of people whose beliefs very closely mirror those of their parents, or those they were brought up with, I don't think there's often even that degree of decision making.
None the less, there *IS* decision making when it comes to whether playing a sport is more important than your beliefs, which are *NOT* being directly attacked. In this case, yes, maybe the kids themselves have little choice, but that does not mean that the vast majority should be inconvienced simply to suit their "needs"
Neither is any other belief.