89Falcon

Ok

OK

There is an abundance of case history where the SC has ruled specifically in favor of targeted socioeconomic groups. The "vague" and "broad" definition of "equal protection" has been utilized in many different applications. Your mentioned logic is similar to that which was utilized in Plessy vs Ferguson. Civil rights legislation exists to protect populations from blanket rules that unfairly impact targeted populations. There is no scenario where the UIL will prevent a kid who lives in the same area as other kids from participating in the same activities as other kids, simply for the reason of "time not served". That scenario will impact underserved communities more harshly than the others and it the reason why no such policy currently exists or will exist. I understand you dont agree with it.

Did you read the entire sentence?

There were a lot of things changing in the 1960s and 1970s. For clarification: it changed in 1981? Let me know when the proposed change happens. If the change happens you will be right, if it does not happen, I will be right.

Penal codes have nothing to do with equal opportunities for those targeted in equal protection and various civil rights legislation. Like I said, it is the reason no such rule has been or will be implemented. There is no scenario where a kid that lives in an area with other kids will not have access to the same opportunities simply because of "time not served" in the area. As mentioned previously, feel free to correct me when/if it happens.

It does apply to “any uniform application of rules” because some “uniform application of rules” impact certain populations more harshly. That is the purpose of the protections both constitutionally and statutory.

Making a rule that is equally discriminatory is not relevant. The protection and statutes exist to protect those in the example I described. As stated, no such rule has been created nor will be created for that reason. Feel free to correct me when it happens.

Ok, check back when it happens. The UIL has not created the mentioned rule before and they will not create any such rule for the reasons I mentioned.

Understood, but the scenario and factors I described is why there will not be a rule as the one suggested will be passed.

“Equal protection”? You cannot single kids out because of their social status and this is exactly what could be claimed if the rule was changed eliminating all kids because their parents move. It is also the reason that the rule is currently written the way it is. There are also multiple Federal statutes that would come into play. Example: Kid from area A (low socioeconomic area) moves to area B (affluent area) where parents got a job that improves their standard of living. School in area A says, "your kids can attend our school, and even though you live here just like our other kids, your kids are not allowed to participate in any activities with other kids".

Discrimination against a kid for financial reasons goes well beyond state law. UIL cannot maintain a system that forces families to "stay down" or "not provide" for their families with the threat of not playing sports.

People move all the time for a variety of reasons. The overwhelming majority of people in the state do not work for schools but still experience job changes and frequently have corresponding moves. Many of them have kids that go with them. The UIL cannot discriminate against kids because their families take new jobs. It is not constitutionally possible to have a "blanket" and "no exception" sit out for one year from sports.

It is usually job related.

There are reasons other than academic and athletic that kids switch schools. Most moves are not related to either of those but are the result of changing family situations.