Mar 01 2009
Dropping the Ball (Or: Setting [Really Bad] Precedent Supreme Court Style; Or: Pandora’s Box Is Now … OPEN)
I would love to be my normal witty self here (because I KNOW how much you all have missed me) and wax sarcastic about the recent manner in which I once again pried the lid off ole Pandora’s Box, to say nothing of my feelings about the topic that inspired its prying.
But.
It was a typically-sarcastic and terribly un-PC Facebook note that got the proverbial poo to hitting the equally proverbial fan in the first place; and it was for the sake of fairness and diplomacy that I declined to post the Facebook note on such pages as these. Therefore, I shall endeavor to present the issue in a slightly (hey, I’m only human) more balanced manner and leave you, the most educated 2% of the world, to debate the issue amongst yourselves.
Facts (briefly): In 2006, a co-ed law school softball team formed even before the formation of SBA. In 2007, the same co-ed softball team decided to go all-male and exclude female members. That same year, the now all-men’s team funded itself and went to the national law school tournament, competing in the all-male division (as opposed to the co-ed division, which is where the excluded women would have liked to play but-for the sudden lack of a team). In 2009, this same all-male team seeks SBA funding to attend the same all-male division of the national tournament.
Issue: whether student body funds, which derive from all students, should fund groups (or sub-groups, teams, committees, etc) that are not open to all students?
Arguments In Support:
-Yes, the team should be funded because it is formed under the guise of the Intramural Committee, which is a subsection of the SBA itself, both of which are open to all students.
-Yes, the team should be funded because the Intramural Committee sent an email informing all students of the tournament and telling them they could form/take their own team, co-ed or otherwise.
-Yes, the team should be funded because, based on the above email, no one else tried out, meaning an all-men’s team was the only team, period.
-Yes, the team should be funded because the tournament has a co-ed option, meaning it, too, is open to all students.
Arguments Against:
-No, the team should not be funded because the money is being allotted directly to and specifically for that one team, and that one team is inherently not open to all students, regardless of its being a subdivision of a larger committee.
-No, the team should not be funded because “separate but equal” arguments theoretically died with Brown v. Board of Ed.
-No, the team should not be funded because it is SBA policy not to spend any SBA funds on any organizations or events that are not, in fact (as opposed to theory), open to all students and, as stated, neither this team nor this tournament (e.g. the all-men’s division) is open to all students
-No, the team should not be funded because it sets a very bad and internally inconsistent precedent that would logically also have to follow into teams of a single race, ethnicity, or any other term of exclusion (e.g. you’d also have to fund the all-Caucasian team, eh?)
Go ahead. Have fun. And whatever you do, do NOT post it on Facebook!!!
4 Responses to “Dropping the Ball (Or: Setting [Really Bad] Precedent Supreme Court Style; Or: Pandora’s Box Is Now … OPEN)”
Kerri,
So long as you have opened the door for softball discussion… I will throw in a few facts from last night’s meeting.
1. SBA is now paying $200 to subsidize this group’s hotel rooms, and paying gas mileage, which I understand, is at the federal rate of 48.5 cents per mile, an increase approved when gas was in excess of four dollars a gallon. At a round trip distance of 180 miles between Greensboro and Charlottesville this equals $87.30 per car.
2. Girlfriends, spouses and guests of players are now allowed to tag along, so long as they do not stay in a hotel room paid for by SBA funds. Without policing this rule, we need not speculate on the outcome. To imagine that three men in their mid 20s will share a room with two double beds (or one king) while their girlfriends are in a separate room down the hall is amusing if nothing else. Except those who are staying in the suite. That’s right, SBA is subsidizing a suite. If you are like me, you know have visions of Lewis Black in your head, yelling and all.
3. SBA ‘Rules’ (prior to last night’s amendments) also prohibit receiving funds for any event involving alcohol. If the SBA is funding travel and lodging, the entire weekend is the event. The team has already admitted to there being alcohol at the games, but now we must also give the benefit of the doubt that this softball team (and their girlfriends and guests), the only sober team at the tournament, will wake up in the morning, eat breakfast, play softball, eat dinner, and go to bed. Additionally, we take for granted that all excess gas money will be used for routine maintenance on their cars. No less, go to bed with three men in the mid-20s sharing a room with two double beds (or one king) separate from their girlfriends who are the down the hall… and travelled to and from Virginia in a separate car.
Now my slippery slope argument. Has SBA not all but guaranteed a $450 dollar entry fee, a $200 softball bat (or two), $200 for hotels, and roughly $261 dollar in gas (assuming four per car, and twelve to a team) to every twelve people the decide they want to play? There are roughly 300 students in the school, or 25 teams of twelve. At $1100 a team, that’s $27,500 out of a limited pool of student funds for something not related to the law. Or have they? SBA also claimed future cases for emergency funding would be evaluated on a case by case basis. So, realistically, we cannot gaurantee your hypothetical team of women any money at all, just in case you were thinking about putting one together.
Now, my cynical parallelism. Was it not loopholes of the like in the tax structure that put our economy in its current predicament?
In closing, the rational non-softball playing among us appreciate your “no” vote.
Thanks for the update and the frank comments, Matt. And thanks for attending SBA meetings!
Your observations regarding the manner in which we willfully fool ourselves into believing people will actually follow these funding restrictions (e.g. no drinking and no sex) are poignant and too often ignored in favor of hiding behind the “smoke and mirrors” of procedural fairness. The theory seems to be that we can and should pass anything that comes before us so long as we pass it by majority vote. But why does the majority so willfully ignore oh-so-obvious facts like those you so keenly pointed out? I’m sure I once mentioned some of the same concerns and met with the same lack of results. I’d go back and listen to the audio to confirm, but rumor has it I’m soon to need a password to access them. So much for transparency, eh?
I find it disappointingly ironic that setting terrible precedent is so wholly unimportant at a law school. There were no less than half a dozen legitimate reasons not to fund any of this with student body funds, and not one of them held any sway. Just do what you want in the moment regardless of the precedent it sets, rewriting the rules as needed along the way.
That theory of governance sounds awfully familiar, actually. I’ll have to think back to the last 8 years and try to remember why… But I do believe you’re correct in saying that actions like these landed us in quite a mess. Now you know that those responsible learned how in law school 😉
Thanks again for your comments and your involvement. You give me great hope for the future of this little school!
-Kerri-
PS: as for putting together an all-female team, the idea was proposed to me.
First, there is no all-female tournament, because this is the state of the world in which we live.
Second, as I told the proponent of this idea, I would vote against funding that team as well. Student body funds should NOT fund closed groups – male, female, black, white, gay, straight, or otherwise.
Just wanted that stated clearly and for the record 🙂
i hate history