I'll try really hard to make this non-political. If it gets there, I'm sure it will be locked -- and I wouldn't blame the mods.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/article80377557.html#emlnl=todays-headlines_newsletter
It seems that NC's House Bill 2 -- a.k.a. Hate Bill 2 -- has many parts open for interpretation that could affect sports.
For example, can UNC women's basketball coach Anson Dorrance legally go into the Tar Heels' locker room to talk to his team?
It wouldn't seem to matter that he was going in there to talk rather than to go pee-pee. Nor would it seem to matter that all of his players would be fully clothed the entire time he would be in there. The law states, quite simply, that because he has male parts, he is forbidden from entering a women's locker room. There is zero gray area. It's all black and white.
Also, how about a female reporter going into the Hornets' locker room? It wouldn't matter that all of the Hornets actually shower and get dressed/undressed in a private part of the room and that no reporter, male or female, sees them naked. The law states, quite simply, that because she has female parts, she is forbidden from entering a men's locker room.
A UNC athletic department spokesman, Steve Kirschner, said questions of locker room access for coaches and journalists are "on a long list of things that people are trying to determine to what the ramifications of this law are.
"Questions about female reporters going into (locker rooms) to do their jobs, coaches meeting with the team, student managers, trainers, things like that – those are things that are somewhere on a long list about what are the unintended consequences of this law," Kirschner said.
It seems farfetched, even preposterous, that any of this ever actually could be an issue ... unless for whatever reason somebody wants to make this an issue. Then all they have to do is point to the law.
Jane Wettach, a law professor at Duke University, sees both sides. In one way, the law doesn't seem applicable to locker rooms in traditional sports settings. Yet in another, the language of the law could allow it to be applied to those settings.
"I do not think the intention," Wettach wrote in an email, "was to alter long-standing practices that allow entry for purposes other than using the facilities – i.e., for coaches or journalists who do not enter to use the facilities, but to interact with the players in their professional roles.
"Despite my opinion, it is not inconceivable to me that a public agency or school could choose to rely on the law to prevent access to such facilities by coaches or journalists who are of the opposite sex from the bathroom's designation."
Even the law's architect, GOP legislator Skip Stam, has no clear answers.
He questioned whether a male coach – like UNC's Dorrance – would change clothes in front of female athletes, or whether they'd change clothes in front of him.
Stam expressed equal uncertainty about the implications of how the law applied to journalists who conduct interviews in locker rooms.
"I think you should ask, 'Well when they have reporters in there, are the reporters in the part of the room where the girls were taking off their underwear and their bras?'" he asked. "Or were they in the part where they were taking off a sweatshirt?"
This is going to be the litmus test? Whether they remove a bra or a sweatshirt? Why? There's nothing about bras and sweatshirts in the law. If a man walks into a women's locker room, even if both he and the occupants are fully clothed and intend to stay that way, he is breaking the law.
It's an interesting topic, and the article presents it well.
Quote from: MU82 on May 30, 2016, 09:55:30 PM
I'll try really hard to make this non-political. If it gets there, I'm sure it will be locked -- and I wouldn't blame the mods.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/article80377557.html#emlnl=todays-headlines_newsletter
It seems that NC's House Bill 2 -- a.k.a. Hate Bill 2 -- has many parts open for interpretation that could affect sports.
For example, can UNC women's basketball coach Anson Dorrance legally go into the Tar Heels' locker room to talk to his team?
It wouldn't seem to matter that he was going in there to talk rather than to go pee-pee. Nor would it seem to matter that all of his players would be fully clothed the entire time he would be in there. The law states, quite simply, that because he has male parts, he is forbidden from entering a women's locker room. There is zero gray area. It's all black and white.
Also, how about a female reporter going into the Hornets' locker room? It wouldn't matter that all of the Hornets actually shower and get dressed/undressed in a private part of the room and that no reporter, male or female, sees them naked. The law states, quite simply, that because she has female parts, she is forbidden from entering a men's locker room.
A UNC athletic department spokesman, Steve Kirschner, said questions of locker room access for coaches and journalists are "on a long list of things that people are trying to determine to what the ramifications of this law are.
"Questions about female reporters going into (locker rooms) to do their jobs, coaches meeting with the team, student managers, trainers, things like that – those are things that are somewhere on a long list about what are the unintended consequences of this law," Kirschner said.
It seems farfetched, even preposterous, that any of this ever actually could be an issue ... unless for whatever reason somebody wants to make this an issue. Then all they have to do is point to the law.
Jane Wettach, a law professor at Duke University, sees both sides. In one way, the law doesn't seem applicable to locker rooms in traditional sports settings. Yet in another, the language of the law could allow it to be applied to those settings.
"I do not think the intention," Wettach wrote in an email, "was to alter long-standing practices that allow entry for purposes other than using the facilities – i.e., for coaches or journalists who do not enter to use the facilities, but to interact with the players in their professional roles.
"Despite my opinion, it is not inconceivable to me that a public agency or school could choose to rely on the law to prevent access to such facilities by coaches or journalists who are of the opposite sex from the bathroom's designation."
Even the law's architect, GOP legislator Skip Stam, has no clear answers.
He questioned whether a male coach – like UNC's Dorrance – would change clothes in front of female athletes, or whether they'd change clothes in front of him.
Stam expressed equal uncertainty about the implications of how the law applied to journalists who conduct interviews in locker rooms.
"I think you should ask, 'Well when they have reporters in there, are the reporters in the part of the room where the girls were taking off their underwear and their bras?'" he asked. "Or were they in the part where they were taking off a sweatshirt?"
This is going to be the litmus test? Whether they remove a bra or a sweatshirt? Why? There's nothing about bras and sweatshirts in the law. If a man walks into a women's locker room, even if both he and the occupants are fully clothed and intend to stay that way, he is breaking the law.
It's an interesting topic, and the article presents it well.
Some of the things are kind of funny.
"I do not think the intention," Wettach wrote in an email, "was to alter long-standing practices that allow entry for purposes other than using the facilities – i.e., for coaches or journalists who do not enter to use the facilities, but to interact with the players in their professional roles."
So if I am going into the women's restroom or locker room just to "interact" with them, but not "use the facilities" it is ok?
"I think you should ask, 'Well when they have reporters in there, are the reporters in the part of the room where the girls were taking off their underwear and their bras?'" he asked. "Or were they in the part where they were taking off a sweatshirt?"
So if I'm just going into the bathroom and hanging out by the mirrors/sinks, but not the stalls where they are doing their business, it is ok?
Will be an interesting issue. My guess is that they will eventually pass an amendment that anyone going in due to professional duty (e.g. janitor) is exempt from the law. That would cover coaches, trainers, media, etc.
I don't know how this isn't political, but it's not the what, it's the who.....
always the unintended consequences. when there are too many chefs stirring the soup, it's difficult to come to decisions on who, when and how much salt you can add
Quote from: MU82 on May 30, 2016, 09:55:30 PM
I'll try really hard to make this non-political. If it gets there, I'm sure it will be locked -- and I wouldn't blame the mods.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/article80377557.html#emlnl=todays-headlines_newsletter
It seems that NC's House Bill 2 -- a.k.a. Hate Bill 2 -- has many parts open for interpretation that could affect sports.
Good to see that you tried "really hard." You actually made it almost 10 words into the substance of your post without going for the political angle. Nice work; you showed admirable restraint.
/It's no wonder the politics board got scrapped. Good riddance.
Yeah, sorry MU82 - there's no way this isn't political. So, you're warned, and locked.
And Chicos - STFU - It's not like I spent my memorial day trolling the board for potential politics. I browsed yesterday morning, and just got back to the board now *after* someone reported the post. Maybe you should try that rather than just complaining about the injustices you perceive against you.