Thank you for answering my question! It seems like we're on the same page
here that the situation I described, indeed the situation that happened in
the Daniels case, would be a terrible way to resolve the situation! My
point is that under the law it is a LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE way to resolve the
situation, and it ought not be.
My problem is that this is what is happening, and what I wager will happen
in this case as well. Using proportionality of result to judge
opportunity, if boys outnumber girls in participation, then boys have to
lose participation opportunities. It always comes down to making things
equal by subtraction, rather than addition. This is in my judgment not an
ethically acceptable way to resolve things.
If this scenario I described, which I shall hereafter call the "Daniels
Scenario" would be a terrible way to resolve the situation, then why even
allow it at all? Why not amend the law 20 USC 1681 to say that equality
under this section may not be achieved by subtraction of opportunities?
Why are Daniels Scenarios allowed to go on?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 11 2000 - 14:40:10 EDT