- May 25, 2010
- 1,070
- 0
And as long as people are coerced into succumbing to attitudes such as those expressed by the archbishop, the more likely it will be that a silly kid might be aiming to ruin this girl's fun.Maybe there were some young men just enjoying tackling her, too much. I mean boys will be boys. And it only takes one silly kid to ruin this girl's fun, while she is playing football.
I agree. It's a private school. Parents choose to send their children there. They should pick a school that is the best fit.
I also support the national high school federation's stance that football is a co-ed sport, meaning girls are welcome. I just believe private schools should have a right to make their own rules about stuff like that.
The buildings where most archbishops work are tax-exempt, which means that almost everyone else in a given locale has to in some way contribute to making up for the revenue which is not collected. The tax exemption does not attach to all church property, of course, but is reserved for buildings which serve the mission of the church. The archbishop's expressed opinion and decision rendered in this matter are, by definition, part of his duties in keeping with what he feels is the mission of the church.
For a number of reasons, unlike many people who wish for there to be a greater divide between church and state, I do not have an absolute objection to 'private' schools receiving public funds. There are programs which serve the common good - e.g. reading specialists for special-needs students - that the public ought to be comfortable with supporting. But when a primarily private school system *does* receive public monies either directly or indirectly, then the public has a right to scrutinize its affairs.
In short and in closing, the blanket statement "it's a private school - they can do whatever they want" is neither entirely accurate nor should it be deemed acceptable in a society which has a moral obligation to work towards reducing gender-specific discrimination.