wouldn't Manual's Basketball Coach, Derrick Booth, make his athletes comply?
Dreadlock Gate is a perfect example of the problem with discipline in District 150; discipline is meted out differently from school to school.
 |
| Manual basketball players at Friday night's game against Central |
 |
| photos pjstar |
 |
| click images to enlarge |
53 comments:
There is another editorial in the pjstar today related to this issue.
I find it amazing that they continue to inflame this issue, when you can look on their website and see any number of photos with Distrcit 150 basketball players wearing dreads.
If there is a rule of no dreads at Central, that rule must be applied across The District.
The same could be said about grades and elgibility. I believe that different teams have different standards as well. I could be wrong, but I remember Manual fans complaining about that last year before the Peoria High Sectional game.
Manual always does what Manual wants. It's the one school that doesn't have to follow any rules. Maybe next year it will become a normal high school again.....
There should be a solution, not ultimatums on a case-by-case basis. Dr. Lathan just doesn't like inclusion--she's all about excluding everyone else from the decision-making process. As long as the school board allows her to get away with these methods (which include excluding the board) nothing will change.
However, there is no reason that the PJS shouldn't weigh in on the subject--the press and the taxpayers have a right to speak their minds--and Emerge, also, allows us that forum.
There are many flames that need to be fanned.
I should make it clear that I am not necessarily in favor of outlawing certain hair styles. It shouldn't be a racial issue. At the moment, there don't seem to be any white basketball players who want to wear long hair--actually, they aren't that many black kids who want to wear dredlocks.
However, I do object to the way this issue has been handled by Lathan. Rules for teams in 150 have never been the same at all schools in the past. I don't know if I think it's right or wrong, but I do think if there is to be a change, there should be discussion about the issue.
Lathan just shouldn't allow already divisive issues to fester because she can't handle input from others. District 150 has to live with (or work to change) her rules after she leaves (and she will leave). One thing I know for sure is that Danny Ruffin should not have borne the burden of this argument--his punishment is completely uncalled for.
Sharon - there was discussion about the issue - back in 2010. At that time the policy was changed that allowed individual coaches to set their own rules for players' appearances.
Ruffin is bearing the burden of this argument because he and his staff ignored those new guidelines.
See the excerpt below? I would ASSume that The District spoke with the students that ALLEGED that somebody told/implied to "players with dreadlocks" that they should cut their dreads.
From the pjstar...
"Neither Alston nor his son were directly involved in the incident that led to Ruffin’s five-game suspension.
Alston’s 2010 challenge, however, led District 150 administrators to order an end to a long-standing tradition that allowed coaches to set appearance guidelines for players.
The issue came up again this season when a basketball assistant reportedly told players with dreadlocks they had to cut their hair, or implied they had to cut their hair, according to slightly varying accounts from different sources.
Ruffin maintains neither he or his staff told players to cut their hair or suggested that coaches prefer short hair."
You forgot this part of Pam's story:
"The district conducted an investigation, according to sources, which ultimately resulted in negotiations that ended with Ruffin’s five-game suspension."
Why would Ruffin negotiate if he did nothing wrong?
We are being asked to take the word of people (administrators) in whom I have no trust. I have heard at board meetings, etc., and read (in FOIAs) falsified statements where these people dance around and stomp on the truth. Why is it that no one has produced a document stating the new policy? If it isn't in writing, it doesn't exist.
Board meetings exist to deal with policy in public. This issue is not a personal problem related to Danny Ruffin only--it is NOT a personnel problem. If the rule now applies to all of District 150 teams, it must be in writing--let's see the document.
There was no document before because coaches were allowed to have their own rules. If the District and/or superintendent has usurped those rights, there must be something in writing. However, only the board can hold her feet to the fire.
And THAT is why the board doesn't address your endless questions at board meetings.
Never mind that Ruffin himself negotiated his suspension. Them darn administrators must by LYING.
How does one reason with the unreasonable?
"We were told not to and we haven’t, period,” Ruffin said.
Ruffin knew the policy had changed. Why didn't those lying, cheating administrators or Board of Ed hand deliver Sharon Crews a copy of the new policy when it changed? Otherwise, it apparently doesn't exist.
Heck, why didn't they hold a public hearing on whether or not a non-professional employee should be suspended? Never mind the fact Ruffin NEGOTIATED his own suspension. The public has a RIGHT TO KNOW!!
If I request it through a FOIA-haven't yet-- that is exactly what they should do.
District Policy 7:20 states, in part : “The District will not tolerate harassing or intimidating conduct, whether verbal, physical, or visual, that affects tangible benefits of education, that unreasonably interferes with a student’s educational performance, or that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment.”
Is preventing a student from playing school basketball simply due to the length of his hair a form of harassment? I’d say yes.
What do you do about swimmers? Can they wear their hair any way they want to--no! Swimmers have to follow some very rigid rules with regard to hair, jewelry, tatoos, etc. Is that harassment? Your definition of harassment is indeed questionable. By your definition any rules with regard to dress are harassment. Doesn't District 150 have a dress code? Is that harassment?
With your definition of harassment, all rules could be considered harassment.
Earlier someone said that Ruffin negotiated his own suspension. Please explain that. Did it go something like, "Danny, which do you want a 5-day suspension or to give up being a coach altogether." Is that called negotiation or a choice. What were Ruffin's negotiating chips, so to speak?
Do coaches get to choose the players for their teams? Who decides the criteria? Again playing basketball is not a right. Students may have a right to wear their hair a certain way. Basketball players, in the past, have not.
Someone said there was discussion in 2010--who did the discussing? What it a discussion or an edict? In District 150 a student is not allowed to wear his pants a certain way--is that harassment? What is the difference between rules about hair and rules about pants?
This issue is a bit more complicated than some of you believe it to be. Fairness and a spirit of cooperation,etc., are not the order of the day in District 150.
By the way, I was totally against rules about hair in the 60s--white kids with long hair and black kids with Afros--should not have been an issue in the classroom. District 150 lost a lawsuit over a white kid with long hair. However, I do believe that athletic coaches may have good reason to control hairstyles.
Booth's Manual basketball players are allowed to have dreds. Ruffin's Central basketball players were not. Yea, I'd call that harassment.
Get over it . Sour grapes. The kid was not good enough to make the team.
Again--there has always been a difference in rules for teams for sport to sport and school to school because the coaches were considered the authority. I am not saying that was right or wrong, but it's the way it was forever. Therefore, if the current administration wants to change the rules to make them all uniform, then that calls for input and discussion--Lathan doesn't do cooperation. And as long as that works for her, she will continue to do it. My complaint is with a board that allows her to be a maverick. It's strange when a maverick doesn't want any mavericks working for her. Ruffin should not have been caught in her crossfire.
And the conversation devolves into an attack on the kid's abilities...
It is the COACHES team. Everyone on the coaches team is a reflection on that coach. They need to say thanks coach for making it so i don't look like Whoopi Goldberg
Coaches do still have a lot of autonomy, but it isn't unchecked. They still have to abide by the overarching District policies. Sometimes there's a specific policy on point, sometimes there's not, but there is nonetheless a broader policy such as discrimination and/or harassment. That's what Copland was trying to get at.
The Superintendent enforces the board policies. That's what she did here - and make note that it was to protect the district.
Now, Ruffin might feel he has a right to make team rules that require a student to cut his hair, or that he was unfairly suspended by Lathan. But he, like all employees, students, parents and community members, has an avenue to take it to the Board, the Uniform Grievance Procedure (2:260). He didn’t do that when the decision was made in 2010/11 to no longer require basketball players to cut their hair, and he hasn’t done it since he was suspended.
Oh yes, because the board has shown how fair and open minded they are. And Lathan would certainly not retaliate even harder against Ruffin. Going to the board as a someone with a legitimate complaint always works. Just ask Kingman teachers, Tyng teachers, Garfield teachers, parents trying to get mid term grades, or supporters of demoted principals. Those all went really well for everyone.
Eventually there comes a time to put up or shut up.
An Indiana couple recently filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of their son due to a requirement by the school basketball coach that all players cut their hair to a certain length.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/community-weighs-in-on-hoops-haircut-flap
The lawsuit was filed in December 2010 and is still pending. Prior caselaw may not be on their side, but public opinion appears to be.
From the article:
"Residents weighed in on the issue Monday night, most agreeing with the boy's parents.
"I just think he should be stipulated to tie his hair up or something like that," said Anthony Johnson. "To cut it off, I think that's taking away a person's mind, body and soul sometimes."
"I think they should be able to wear their hair the way they want to on a basketball team or anywhere else," said resident Aleigh Class.
"It's discrimination, plain and simple," said resident Jesse Summers. "I hope they get what they are after."
All of the above is why it is a good thing that the PJS is getting involved. The public doesn't know what is going on in District 150. These are public schools and as the school system goes, so goes the city. Public schools exist for a reason--were instituted for a reason. And that reason isn't all about giving children what they want. It is about growing citizens who can behave like adults and take on the responsibilities of adulthood. In the past athletics was all about helping these young people grow into responsible adults. Now athletics is all about a pathway to big money--and let's take a good look at the lives that our professional athletes are living--and the bad examples they are setting.
Ruffin should have just cut the kid from the team. Problem solved. Sounds like he wasn't good enough to play varsity ball anyways.
"rule must be consistent across The District"
Um... why? They are different schools. Don't like it where you are at go to a different school. Don't like playing for Ruffin by Ruffin's team rules, go play somewhere else.
If Manual wants to do things a little different, well so be it. The idea that there should be some monolithic culture and rule set that covers every single school is ridiculous. They are not all the same.
Results are what matter most. If keeping your team clean cut helps you get there, well suck it up.
There will be plenty of times in life when you have to dress a certain way. Get over it and man up.
I totally agree with this comment. However, the law won't support it.
How does the law not support it?
If there was inconsistency on the same team, that is one thing. If there was inconsistency in a single school, that is one thing. But we are talking about different schools with different coaches and different teams.
If there is inconsistency is it because of discrimination? Can you prove it?
Differences between schools is a problem? Nah. Not buying that.
Some schools have uniforms. Some do not. Is this a legal problem? I don't think so.
To add... Were the rules clearly stated up front? If so... I fail to see where the grievance is. All I am seeing a kid who got all butthurt because he was told to get a haircut. His father got butthurt too. Well.. hair grows back.
If some college recruiter comes along from a school that requires haircuts, you think he is going to turn that down?
"However the law won't support it?"
What laws govern high school sports besides the IHSA rules?
I agree with Mahkno.
My daughter played a varsity sport at Richwoods. Performance expectations to make the team and practice obligations were MUCH different than that of the other District high schools because different student body, different athletic ability as it relates to this sport, different interest level of the students, etc.
What, do students lose all rights as a private citizen when they step into a public school building? I think not.
This District has far greater issues to deal with, rather than a young, black, man, with grades and demeanor good enough to play basketball has dreads or not.
Issues of discipline MUST be meted out equally across The District and not school to school, otherwise The District would be wide open to lawsuits based around issues of equality.
Additionally, just because a group of people (or parents) have bought into a "code of conduct" "for years" does not mean they forfeit all their rights, unless explicitly stated and agreed. You guys know this.
Emerge, I'm trying to sort this out. I am not sure that "civil rights" are involved here. No one has to play basketball. No one has to work at a company that has a dress code. If the codes are racially motivated, then I would see the unfairness. Maybe the code should be about length of hair, not style. Maybe the hairstyles should not be part of a coach's latitude in running the team.
My whole point here is that--since the coaches' authority has been accepted for so long and is a tradition, etc.,--there should be more discussion and more input for others (especially the board) before the rather under the radar decision of 2010. My complaint is with Lathan's way of making decisions--very one-sided, subjective, and hasty decisions.
One other point--I think I know basketball coaches well enough to know that if a boy with dreadlocks had the potential to be an asset to a team, the coach would work overtime and bend over backwards to work such an issue out.
District 150 has made too many decisions based on the complaint of one parent--never, never a good idea. One parent is often an exception, not the rule.
I'm not sure how the 2010 decision was "under the radar". Coach Ruffin knew about it, as did the other coaches. And there's really not that much to discuss when the sole issue is "we think this could be unfair and subject us to a lawsuit so we're not going to do it anymore".
What other coaches? What sports? What schools? If it's going to be an all District 150 policy, then all coaches and all students and their parents should know about it. If students with previously outlawed hairstyles do not know the policy has changed, how is that fair?
Yes, it was under the radar. Face it basketball is the all important sport in Peoria--the school board needs to be in on these decisions, too. The school board, not Lathan and not Ruffin, would be the ones sued.
The President of the board stated tonight (after audience comments) that Dr. Lathan followed the chain of command and lets them in on all her decisions (referring to the Ruffin case). I can't quarrel with the "legality" of the suspension. The board certainly has a right to question the decision--and if I were a board member, I would want a public discussion about the major change that has just been decreed with regard to the authority of coaches. Certainly, students need to know if there has been a change in hair style requirements for teams, etc. Were it not for the PJS nobody would know anything. Isn't the District responsible for communicating changes to teachers, parents, and students?
Don't worry about seemingly being wrong, Sharon. I'm sure that Lathan really was usurping the board's authority on this matter and acting like a maverick by not involving anyone in the decision, just like you said. I mean, can you really believe Crawford when he said Lathan involves the board in these decisions? He's probably just trying to cover for her now. We all know how the board and administration can't be trusted.
I guess you didn't read my last post. I think she might be usurping their power in changing policies. The suspension is not the real problem. The reason for the suspension is the problem. I don't honestly know who is responsible for changing policies about extra-curricular activities, but I know the board has the ultimate authority--power is just delegated to the superintendent.
That's dastardly- usurping power from them...and telling them all about it as she does it.
I can handle your sarcasm. However, I am still trying to figure out the division of power in District 150.
In 2009 board minutes, the board voted to fire a football coach. If the board votes to fire a coach, why wouldn't their vote be needed to suspend a coach? I am just asking and hope for an honest answer.
Also, in 2009 the board voted on a change in bell schedules. If a board vote was required to change when classes begin and end, why wouldn't the board be required to vote on changing semester courses to year-long courses. The decision was made and rescinded without a board vote. Please explain why the board vote was required in one case but not the other?
The policy regarding the superintendent's ability to suspend (not fire) an educational support employee has already been referenced and described in detail (including the importance of the "comma").
The board can choose to vote on whatever it wants. There are some items, such as firing an employee, which do require a board vote. You assume that the vote to change the bell schedules was REQUIRED. I don't think they were required to vote on the bell schedule, but chose to for whatever reason at that time.
Sharon do you really think you'll get any type of honest answer? I mean really--all the talk of teams, coaches, sports and rules is interesting, but isn't the real issue Lathan and her culture of intimidation? WHY is this allowed? I feel fortunate not to live in Peoria and have to pay taxes which pay the salary of a corrupt tyrant who simply exists to make her subordinates miserable. Isn't the real question why this battle was the one she chose when she is leading a FAILING school district. Kids can't read or write or do math but lets fight about basketball. Oh yeah--let's also give her more money (which is all she cares about) and more time to promote her failing policies. Since the BOE obviously has no interest in holding her accountable it's time for the citizens of Peoria to hold their ELECTED board members accountable and ask that other local politicians step up to the plate. Remember Lathan is not local. She does not care about this district the city or it's children. She's hanging here collecting a fat check until she can move on and fleece some other district. BUT no one is going to want her. She can't do anything! All she knows how to do is stir the pot and make chaos and corruption. I'm not sure I've ever seen anything so sad. The children of Peoria deserve so much better than this. This is disgusting.
Who's running for School Board next year for Ross' seat? Just Ross, right?
Hmm. Someone who doesn't live in Peoria is asking Peorians to stand up and ask other politicians to step up to the plate. That's so inspiring.
We did have a homegrown, local Peorian as Superintendent, and most of you STILL called for his head.
He retired because of health issues.
IMO, if Jesus was superintendent, some of you would probably be call for his head too for some reason, no matter if discipline was in check, grades were going up, teachers & parents were happy, and finances were improving.
A superintendent will never, ever be able please everyone all at the same time.
Dennis, there are some very serious problems in District 150. I realize that you have a job that requires you to present positives about 150. Presenting the positives is fine, but you can't expect us to ignore the negatives. Discipline isn't in check, legitimate grades aren't going up. and finances aren't improving. And none of these things have been in check for quite some time because those chosen as leaders, I firmly believe, are making decisions that worsen those problems.
I have watched while Manual High School has systimatically been so damaged that very loyal Manual grads no longer want their children to go to school there.
The issue of substitutes was brought up last night. It is quite obvious that there are subs in the area who simply will not go to the 150 schools where discipline is at its worst--and that is a problem. It will be a problem when trying to find full-time teachers, also.
Forget discipline, grades or finances. A basketball coach's ability to require players to cut their hair has been infringed!
Health issues, Dennis? Come on! He is running Carver. What health issues.
And this hair BS. Let's just get rid of all rules. How about no uniforms either? Maybe some kids would like to dress like their parents. Isn't it their right?
Vomit.
Sharon, unofficially, after January 1st, I won't be presenting any positive or negative aspects on Dist. 150, or any issue for that matter. Unless some other funding comes through. So we will see.
Coaches have always dictated the appearance of their athletes. I just don't think that that is a bad thing. I wished parents were as concerned about their children's actions at school and their academics as they are about the sports. This administration only reacts. It never is out front dealing with issues. Suspension of Coach Ruffin was a terrible decision. What this means is the superintendent has a problem with Coach and she will figure out a way to continue to harass him in some way. Ask the question? What had Coach done to be one her bad side.
If every one checks other players have dreads and long hair. Coach you had better watch your back. Knowing how she works you may be on her hit lieu.
I'm still for coaches requiring players to shave their heads. Then there would be no problem interpreting what is too long or acceptable (like cornrows).
Dennis, I'm sorry to hear that--hope the funding comes through. I don't mean to put you down for being positive. I just hope you understand that many of us who complain want the best for District 150. I know that it isn't all Dr. Lathan and/or this particular board. They are doing what schools all across the country are doing--or worse yet not doing. It's the trend of the day in education and I hope it stops soon before public education has no credibility at all.
The City of Peoria has one of the highest levels of lead based paint in the State - particularly in low income housing areas. High levels of lead translate into more crime and lower student performance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/08/study-getting-rid-of-lead-does-wonders-for-school-performance/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701073.html
Post a Comment