Kansas HS refuses female official

[Ref Flunkie]

Good for the other referees backing her up.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/highschool/02/13/female.official.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

Kansas HS refuses female official
St. Mary's Acad. says woman cannot ref boys game

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Kansas activities officials are investigating a religious school's refusal to let a female referee call a boys' high school basketball game.

[Wreave]

I was about to post this myself, though I expect that my opinion may be in the minority.

First, though I am a Christian, I don't take the particular tenant "I do not allow a woman to have authority over a man" to a day-to-day meaning. My son has had woman referees. I have worked with female ARs, and on at least one occasion been an AR to a female CR. My original referee instructor was a female. One of the pastors in my church is female, and my personal beliefs and interpretation of that passage don't prevent me from accepting their authority in its context.

All that having been said, we in America are getting religious tolerance, especially in terms of Islam, shoved down our throats. Allah forbid you make a decision that doesn't allow a Muslim to practice his or her faith in the manner of their choosing.

Now, we have a school/team that is being vilified for a decision to practice its faith in the manner of its choosing. Their position, while unpopular and not widespread, is certainly biblical. Yet, the athletic authorities are making an effort to cruicify them, with the apparent support of the media.

What is wrong with this picture? I don't personally support the position of not allowing female referees for boys teams, but I support the right of the team to practice their faith in the way they believe is right.

And yes, if they had asked me to step up and whistle the game in place of the female AR, I would have done so.

[Wreave]

Imagine this scenario, if you will. First, try to imagine a female Muslim referee. I've never seen nor heard of one, but perhaps there is such a one. This referee believes, according to the scriptures which guide the religion she practices, that she may work with other female referees, to officiate girls games only. Other than the female Muslim referee herself, who is hard to picture, does this seem like a reasonable scenario? OK.

The female Muslim referee shows up to be the CR of a girls game. However, without her advance knowledge, one of her female ARs was unable to come, and was replaced with a male AR.

The female Muslim referee knows that she is not permitted to referee in this situation, so she refuses to work the game.

Would there be an outcry?

Of course not. The halls would ring with messages of religious tolerance and acceptance of this referee's beliefs, and support for her ability to practice them in the manner of her choosing.

Or to take a far easier example, many Muslims are far less tolerant of women in positions of authority. What if the team in question had been from a Muslim religious school, instead of a Christian religious school?

Again, I find it hard to believe the outcry would be as strident. No, we wouldn't want to risk violating their rights. We wouldn't want to risk infringing on their religion. We wouldn't want to offend.

Yet, when it's a Christian team, it's OK. I don't buy it and I don't support it.

[MassachusettsRef]

First, I think this belongs in the politics forum as it has little to do with refereeing per se, nothing to do with soccer at all, and more to do with administrative and--obviously--political issues.

As to the arguments above...

First, this isn't an intra-squad scrimmage where the school has the sole right to choose the official. The details are a little fuzzy (St. Mary's not being a "full association member"), but it seems that the officials are independently assigned and St. Mary's is in some sort of agreement with the body that assigns the officials. If that's the case, they should get no special right to reject certain officials.

Second, I'm a little shocked that you say you would do the game. I don't have much else to say here. As you'll see below, I respect St. Mary's rights to have their own believes. But if you are there with a fellow referee and that referee has been legally and duly appointed and St. Mary's has no grounds (insofar as your authority with the referees' association) to reject that appointment, I would say you should do what the referee in question did and leave with his partner.

Third, as to the female Muslim referee scenario that you put forward. I don't think it's the same at all. First, she's an independent contractor. If she chooses not to work--for whatever reason--she has that right (St. Mary's, on the other hand, was in some sort of agreement with the referee assignor). Now, once she refuses to work with that male referee (or even before, if she made that stipulation clear), any assignor absolutely has the right to say, "fine, it was nice having you work for me" and then cut off association with her. Would there be an outcry? Maybe in some extreme circles, but I think it's less likely and would be less widespread than you suspect. I don't think there'd be much sympathy from the general public for a female Muslim soccer referee that stopped getting assigned games because she wouldn't work with males.

As to your general point that we allow all sorts of tolerance and bend over backwards to accommodate Islam and the sensibilities of Muslims: The answer isn't to become more sectarian and to sanction even more religious divisiveness. The answer is to fight the other way and reject all discrimination in the public square. If St. Mary's wants to bar female referees, or teachers, or administrators (or whatever), based on the religious beliefs held by the institution, that is a constitutional right and I agree that it should not be infringed upon or ridiculed (well, possibly ridiculed, as free speech is a constitutional right, as well). However, other organizations don't have to kowtow to those beliefs. Sending a female referee to work their game doesn't infringe upon their rights. If she's rejected, then there's no referee. If they want a different referee, let them find the person (and don't let them be part of the association that assigns referees) on their own.

[IASocFan]

First, I think this belongs in the politics forum as it has little to do with refereeing per se, nothing to do with soccer at all, and more to do with administrative and--obviously--political issues.

...

With this part, I disagree. It's an issue that we as referees may encounter; so it stays here.

As far the remainder of your post, I absolutely agree. It would be like be assigned a game with a black, Muslim, or a Jew, and being told they were unacceptable. I'd be walking, too.

[Sport Billy]

"a woman could not be put in a position of authority over boys."

Tell that to the nuns that used to beat the crap out of me. :D

[campbed]

I agree that this belongs here, we are more and more likely to run into situations dealing with religious issues. We live in a hyper-sensitive and hyper-hostel religious dialog right now, both at the same time.

To me the issue here is simple.

Referee's have the right to know, IN ADVANCE, of any religious accommodation or limits in the league/association they accept assignments for. If they object to any, they simply referee somewhere else. If they don't, they accept assignments willingly as well as cover for others who do turn down assignments in that league/association (assume they did not read the policy in advance).

This avoids the whole sticky wicket of being offended at the game site, and getting into the specific religious practice that causes objection. Unclear here if the school has a published policy or not.

While we are at it, it is almost spring. Everyone up to speed on USSF policy on religious items/dress? Any specific policy your state or association has in addition to the USSF dress policy? You can find the "Player Dress" USSF position paper here: http://www.ussoccer.com/laws/papers.jsp.html

See you on the pitch!

[chessplayer]

"a woman could not be put in a position of authority over boys."

Tell that to the nuns that used to beat the crap out of me. :D

Your humor raises an interesting question. Does St Mary's have female teachers? What about Sunday School teachers? Any of them female for their youth classes? The hypocrisy here would be obvious if they did.

I personally don't think that St Mary's has any grounds at all, the Scripture that speaks to this situation is not in reference to refereeing a youth basketball game, and even if it were the youths were not adults and do not qualify as "men," the term used in all Scripture verses that talk about the authority a woman may or may not have with regard to interactions with males. If St Mary's is a Christian organization (since they can't interpret Scripture and/or don't know the difference between a man and a boy with regard to Biblical teaching, I have my doubts), it is wrong here in my opinion.

It was mentioned above that the school likely signed an agreement with the assignors of referees, and if there were not specifications made in that agreement, then they did not have the right to refuse the referee contractually and should be made to forfeit the game.

[ranova]

"What is wrong with this picture?"

I haven't looked it up, but I very much suspect that it is contrary to FIFA and USSF policy. I know the push to end discrimination is usually thought of in terms of racial discrimination, but I suspect that the anti-discrimnation policy is broader than that. Any school that receives public funding will probably have strings attached to that funding. A lot of schools and school districts are government organizations, and their activities are subject to the state and federal constitutions and anti-discrimation laws as well regardless of funding.

In my opinion one's religious freedom ends when it begins to restrict someone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even if the high school league authorities shared the same religious beliefs, they still could not legally discriminate in their official acts.

[bluedevils]

Now, we have a school/team that is being vilified for a decision to practice its faith in the manner of its choosing. Their position, while unpopular and not widespread, is certainly biblical. Yet, the athletic authorities are making an effort to cruicify them, with the apparent support of the media.

For me, this situation is very simple. If the school wishes to participate as a member of the governing body for sport -- presumably the state of Kansas high school sports organization, whatever name it may be -- they need to follow the governing body's rules, NOT vice versa.

If the school can't/won't abide by those rules, then they don't get to play games that are governed by the association. They are free to set up games and play against other teams in games that are not sanctioned by the association. Heck, they can set up their own association.

[Sport Billy]

Even if the high school league authorities shared the same religious beliefs, they still could not legally discriminate in their official acts.

Yes they can. Say a teacher at a Catholic school has an abortion. (Which the Supreme Court has held that she has a constitutional right to do). The Catholic school can fire her because it is against their system of beliefs.


It all comes down to "how private" and "how public" they are. If they receive no public money at all, they can basically do whatever they want.

[Wreave]

Your humor raises an interesting question. Does St Mary's have female teachers? What about Sunday School teachers? Any of them female for their youth classes? The hypocrisy here would be obvious if they did.

I personally don't think that St Mary's has any grounds at all, the Scripture that speaks to this situation is not in reference to refereeing a youth basketball game, and even if it were the youths were not adults and do not qualify as "men," the term used in all Scripture verses that talk about the authority a woman may or may not have with regard to interactions with males. If St Mary's is a Christian organization (since they can't interpret Scripture and/or don't know the difference between a man and a boy with regard to Biblical teaching, I have my doubts), it is wrong here in my opinion.


Some cousins of mine attend a church with these beliefs. Their policy is that from jr. high on, boys must have male teachers. I seriously doubt you'll find the hypocrisy that easily.

This is a classic example. I don't see any of the debate over whether a female soccer player can wear a hijab come down to accusing her of not really being Muslim because she can't interpret scripture. We don't argue over whether the hijab is really required, or if those who choose to wear it have properly interpreted the Koran.

My original point is that there's a serious double standard on the ability of this religious school to practice its beliefs in the way it chooses, because it's a Christian school. That point stands, and in my mind is being proven by some of the responses in this thread.

[Press]

If she's rejected, then there's no referee. If they want a different referee, let them find the person (and don't let them be part of the association that assigns referees) on their own.

The crew, here, should show up to ref the game. When St. Mary's refuses to take the field, the crew should then abandon the game and report it in the match report. Teams generally do not and should not have a choice as to who the referees are for their matches (BigTen excluded, obviously).

Under constitutional law, if St. Mary's receives any Federal or State funding, then they cannot limit who they hire based on religious, racial, ethnic, or sexist reasons. That is the condition of recieving the funding. The Constitution protects the group, the individual, the majority, and the minority. Otherwise, the likeminded would persecute the dissenters.

Its like BYU. BYU does not have a choice of the NCAA officials who do their sports, whether those officials are black, white, red, men, women, Jewish, Muslim, or Aethiest. It is widely reported that America and the Middle East are the two most religious areas of the world. Its interesting that they're also the two places with these types of "problems".

[Citiref]

And yes, if they had asked me to step up and whistle the game in place of the female AR, I would have done so.
So, for $20, you wouldn't support a fellow referee who was discriminated against? Wow. I, like when I read that another basketball referee did the game, am shocked that referees won't or wouldn't support one of their own.

About the original topic, I completely agree with MassRef.

[campton]

The fact of the matter is it is completely sexism. Sure, they can practice whatever wacky ass beliefs they want about women. But when you are using a service such as a refereeing body, you deal with it. Sorry school, but your AD needs to be canned, coaches canned, and whoever else is stupid enough to kick a referee out of a game for being a women.

This is coming from the guy who made the thread "sissy play: game management" HAHA

[macheath]

Some cousins of mine attend a church with these beliefs. Their policy is that from jr. high on, boys must have male teachers. I seriously doubt you'll find the hypocrisy that easily.

This is a classic example. I don't see any of the debate over whether a female soccer player can wear a hijab come down to accusing her of not really being Muslim because she can't interpret scripture. We don't argue over whether the hijab is really required, or if those who choose to wear it have properly interpreted the Koran.

My original point is that there's a serious double standard on the ability of this religious school to practice its beliefs in the way it chooses, because it's a Christian school. That point stands, and in my mind is being proven by some of the responses in this thread.

Leaving aside whether Christians (I'm one too) are discriminated against in the United States (pretty obviously not), schools are entitled to their belief systems, if there's no public money supporting their discriminatory behavior. And they should know the rules for games or other activities that they participate in. Or they can form their own associations, as was pointed out earlier.

I can respect their right to their own (to my mind, strained and incorrect) interpretation of a few passages in the Bible, but that doesn't give them any right to discriminate if there's public funds involved, or to make other organizations bend their own anti-discrimination rules. They can clearly practice their own beliefs (they just did). But they cannot require others to follow those same beliefs, especially if in doing so, the others would have to violate their own deeply held convictions (such as anti-discrimination).

[CalNorth Pride]

My original point is that there's a serious double standard on the ability of this religious school to practice its beliefs in the way it chooses, because it's a Christian school. That point stands, and in my mind is being proven by some of the responses in this thread.

Private organizations have a right to exercise their beliefs and abide by whatever doctrine they choose. The only exception to this is if their beliefs or actions are illegal. A good example is the Augusta Country Club which still does not allow female members.

No one is saying that this school cannot choose to practice its beliefs. However, if the school chooses to involve itself in an organizations or association who expressly prohibits discriminatory behavior then the school can choose to alter its behavior or they can be prohibited from be involved in that organization.

Your argument is a consistent theme for those on the religious right to justify discriminatory and intolerant behavior. To place this behavior under the vale of "religious intolerance" is a smoke screen that detracts from the real issue of fundamental discrimination.

[chessplayer]

Some cousins of mine attend a church with these beliefs. Their policy is that from jr. high on, boys must have male teachers. I seriously doubt you'll find the hypocrisy that easily.

This is a classic example. I don't see any of the debate over whether a female soccer player can wear a hijab come down to accusing her of not really being Muslim because she can't interpret scripture. We don't argue over whether the hijab is really required, or if those who choose to wear it have properly interpreted the Koran.

My original point is that there's a serious double standard on the ability of this religious school to practice its beliefs in the way it chooses, because it's a Christian school. That point stands, and in my mind is being proven by some of the responses in this thread.

From jr high on, huh? Well, if that's how they want to do it. I don't think I was entering adulthood until I got out of high school, so the term "man" to me suggests someone 18 or older. But that's debatable. I personally don't buy that a church is a Christian church until I see/experience it and learn about it, but unnecessarily conservative beliefs like theirs tells me that something is off-track there. Hiding behind the "right to live out my beliefs" routine is cute, but stupidity is stupidity, and a hallmark of deceived churches is their inability to understand Scripture in the little things that are generally obvious.

I don't know what the Koran says about women, so I can't speak to the hijab issue. Whether St Mary's is misinterpreting Scripture is a separate issue from the legalities of their decision to reject the referee in terms of the consequences they should face for it. I still think they should forfeit the game and whatever other penalties are coming their way even if they were acting according to their beliefs- it is the price of (their attempt at) righteousness. They never should've signed a contract with the league if it was going to potentially require them to violate their beliefs. Irreguardless of whether we draw exception to it just because St Mary's is "Christian" versus of some other faith (and I don't disagree with you about there being a double-standard), there should be consequences to the actions they took even if their actions were right before God.

[Wreave]

Well, I was right for sure about one thing - I am holding the minority opinion.

The crew, here, should show up to ref the game. When St. Mary's refuses to take the field, the crew should then abandon the game and report it in the match report.

This is probably the single best post in the thread and absolutely the proper action for the head referee at this game. No discrimination, no moral high ground, just apply the rules and adjudicate the outcome.

So, for $20, you wouldn't support a fellow referee who was discriminated against? Wow. I, like when I read that another basketball referee did the game, am shocked that referees won't or wouldn't support one of their own.

For $20, I wouldn't do *anything*. And frankly, if you referee for the money, I feel sorry for you. The substantial majority of my game experience is an AYSO, where I am a volunteer official, instructor, and board member. I'm there on the field for the kids, and if the kids came to play, and the officials left, I'd be willing to step up. Now, if Press were there, and abandoned the game, then there's no game to step up to. But in this case, it seems that the male counterpart of the female ref left with her, and other male referees refused to do the game. So, yes, if I were at the field and two teams were there to play and they needed a ref, I'd ref.

At that point, it's not about "supporting" a fellow official. I've been called on personally to ref games for teams with coaches that have abused other refs. Do I "support my fellow refs" by refusing the assignment? Or do I support the kids that are playing by being the guy that will get them their game?

No one is saying that this school cannot choose to practice its beliefs. However, if the school chooses to involve itself in an organizations or association who expressly prohibits discriminatory behavior then the school can choose to alter its behavior or they can be prohibited from be involved in that organization.

Your argument is a consistent theme for those on the religious right to justify discriminatory and intolerant behavior. To place this behavior under the vale of "religious intolerance" is a smoke screen that detracts from the real issue of fundamental discrimination.

First half I agree with, second half I don't. I don't consider myself part of the "religious right", and I'm certainly not supportive (see my original post) of discrimination of any kind. However, I still believe that had this been a religious group other than the "religious right" there would have been more of a stand for their beliefs and their right to practice them, instead of the apparently widespread antithesis.

From jr high on, huh? Well, if that's how they want to do it. I don't think I was entering adulthood until I got out of high school, so the term "man" to me suggests someone 18 or older. But that's debatable. I personally don't buy that a church is a Christian church until I see/experience it and learn about it, but unnecessarily conservative beliefs like theirs tells me that something is off-track there.

Two issues. First, keep in mind, the coach is under the authority of the referee as well - I assume he'd qualify as an adult no matter what standard you're using, even if you disagree that a 14-year old or 17-year old is an "adult" by the biblical standards used by this organization. In some cultures, a male past puberty is a man. Who are you to decide whether that's the right age?

Second, again, I don't see the judgment of how correct a group's beliefs are when discussing Islam (or Judaism). I didn't see anyone in any of our hijab threads saying they wouldn't call someone (or their group) a Muslim without seeing/experiencing it. What you're saying is that if a church doesn't fit with your personal interpretation of the faith, they're not doing it right. Sorry, I think that's wrong.

------

There have been some other good response on here (BlueDevil, Macheath) and I can't hit them all. but FWIW, here's what I think this is going to hinge on:

1. Does the school have a policy in place that their boys/men may not be under the authority of women, including women referees? Or, was this a coach or other ad hoc decision that will end up not having the formal support of the school?

2. Does the athletic association have a policy in place that their schools must accept whatever referees are assigned to them? Or, is there any opportunity for a school, for any reason (religious/personal/other) to exclude a certain referee from its games?

Ultimately, if the school has rules that conflict with the association's, then the school won't be able to play in the association. That's a no-brainer, right, wrong, or indifferent. Along the way, though, the question of whether this was handled properly by the referees, the school, and the association is going to be a legitimate one.

I, for one (and maybe only one), agree that the assigned refs should have officiated the non-game and handled it according to the rules (one team refuses to play, abandon or whatever the rules are in roundball). However, given that they apparently did not, had I been personally called on to step in, yes, I would have.

[Rufusabc]

I learn something new everyday here on Big Soccer....

1. I learned about a branch (albiet an ILLEGAL branch) of Roman Catholicism that precludes women from holding authority over men. Much like the selection process for priests in the main body of the religion, where they have excluded women even in the face of declining numbers of priests.

2. And didnt this state have a lot of trouble with evolution too?