Miltenberg: “Title IX ignored by Christian Valley Academy,” Talon Marks


The discrimination faced by Sonya Herrera’s daughter, E.H., at the hands of Christian Valley Academy as a female football player is an injustice that should be resolved by allowing E.H. and those in the future to play against male competition. Initially, the Herreras had thought that the private Christian school wouldn’t have an issue playing against a girl until the school canceled the upcoming March match because of the E.H.’s sex. Pastor Joel Mikkelson of Christian Valley claims that it is by the “authority of the Bible” that the Warriors refuse to play Cuyama Valley High School, a public school that does not follow such outdated ideals. Had E.H. attended Mikkelson’s school, maybe then his argument would hold more credibility, but since she does not it doesn’t and even then, it is a misogynistic mindset that fails to act according to the rules of the California Interscholastic Federation. To clarify, the California Interscholastic Federation is the governing body for high school sports—both private and public—and one of the rules it outlines is that every member school must abide by Title IX. This title is what keeps discrimination from ruining sports and also, coincidentally, is what is working in favor of Andrew Miltenberg, the Herreras’ legal representative on the topic as well as one of the most prominent attorneys involved with Title IX. For religion to bar students from enjoying simple activities like sports is yet another example of why it is sometimes assailed by more progressive folks in online discourse. It is the case of E.H. that allows Cerritos an opportunity to think on the moral and legal lessons it holds for everyone: that discrimination of such degree in this day and age is inexcusable, even if it doesn’t compare to the injustice suffered by the opposite sex in the eras such as the 50s. Although laws like the First Amendment might enable discrimination to an extent, it is more effective when the actions of the citizens it protects don’t directly affect other people. This case could set the precedent for similar situations in the future as compared with Mahoney Area School District v. B.L., where it was decided that a student’s off-campus speech was protected by the Constitution.

Click to view article