what justification did the court offer regarding a regulation that would exclude boys from participating on girls’ teams, even t…
SOLUTION AT Australian Expert Writers
In Williams v. School District of Bethlehem, PA, 998 F.2d 168 (3d. Cir. 1993), a boy asserted his right to participate on the girl’s field hockey team. In a decision that dealt with Title IX (whether field hockey is a contact sport that would justify his exclusion) and constitutional issues, including a challenge under the state equal rights amendment, the court remanded the case for the trial court to determine whether there were physical differences between girls and boys that would justify excluding the boy. The appellate court directed the trial court to examine whether “boys are more likely to dominate the school’s athletic program if admitted to the girls’ teams.” In Force, what justification did the court offer regarding a regulation that would exclude boys from participating on girls’ teams, even though girls would be permitted to participate on boys’ teams? Do you agree with the court’s reasoning?
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA Ph. D. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER