A high school football player can’t be required to jump extra hurdles to make the team because he’s a foster child, a judge has rightly ruled.
And that ruling restored the entire football season for the Placer High School Hillmen of Auburn, which had just been yanked out from under them.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Judith Ford on Monday overturned an edict by the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) disqualifying defensive back Dalton Dyer from playing for the Hillmen because he hadn’t filed extra paperwork that the CIF required of foster children who transfer into a high school. Ford determined that the CIF rule violated California Assembly Bill 490, "Ensuring Educational Rights and Stability for Foster Youth."
As covered by the High School Sports Examiner, the CIF decision originally invalidated all five of the team’s games this year. The resulting legal brouhaha suspended a postseason game set for last Friday between two other teams, from Colfax and Oakdale – and threatened to throw the entire division into chaos. The Colfax team bus was already on the way to Oakdale when the chaos put the game on hold, so the shock and outrage are easy to imagine.
The CIF’s well-meant but cluelessly applied rule was intended to prevent schools from bringing in ringers to boost their teams. Dalton has moved frequently through no fault or choice of his own, as foster children unfortunately often do. The CIF rules require a “valid change of residence” to constitute, in the San Francisco Chronicle’s words, “the movement of a student and his or her full immediate family, and all their possessions, from one residence to another.”
The Chronicle report continued: “Since Dyer was a foster child … [the CIF ruled that] Placer High should have filed the paperwork for a ‘hardship’ transfer.”
After the lawyer dad of one of Dalton’s teammates got on the case, the National Center for Youth Law took it up. “Foster youth are entitled to a level playing field,” attorney Leecia Welch told the Chronicle. “They shouldn’t have to overcome barriers that other youths don’t face.”
CIF's spokesperson says the organization's bylaws "are constantly reviewed and revised to accommodate different changes" such as legal and societal developments. That's according to Stevan Allen of Allen Strategic, a Sacramento PR firm specializing in damage control, who is CIF's designated spokesperson on this issue. He didn't have specific information on how CIF originally determined that this rule jibed with any law protecting the rights of foster childen to access to school activities, and it would have been interesting to hear that discussion. AB490 took effect in 2004.
CIF's San Joaquin Section (CIFSJS)has posted a press release on its website in response to Ford's decision. “While we strongly disagree with the decision, we respect the judge’s ruling and will move forward in accordance with it,” CIFSJS Commissioner Pete Saco said in the press release. The website also gives an updated schedule in light of the judge's ruling.
For a look at the greater issues here and the depth of the CIF’s oblivion, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP, a federal program providing hot meals to low-income students) strictly prevents “overt identification” of students who qualify for subsidized meals. That means they can’t be required to line up separately, or carry a different colored lunch card – nothing happening in the cafeteria may single out those students in a visible way. In some cases, that rule has been interpreted as banning parallel cafeteria operations that sell foods that aren’t covered by the NSLP, such as a la carte items (the NSLP imposes strict requirements, including a number of components in the meal). The thinking is that it would be apparent which students were not able to get in the line for the a la carte items.
Given the philosophy behind the “overt identification” ban, you can see that the CIF has been on another planet. Yes, the concerns about cheating with ringers that motivated the rule are valid, but it doesn't take a legal genius or an ethics scholar to see that they're outweighed by basic legal and moral principles.
It's a shame that this brouhaha has disrupted the football season for many high school players and their teams' followers. The Oakdale team’s coach blamed the Placer High coach for not filing the paperwork, and gave the Chronicle some inane “the rules are the rules” quotes. But he and the CIF have missed a few points.
You don't have to be a sports fanatic to grasp the basic concepts here: Don’t make life harder for those who already face obstacles, for one, and put the kids’ interests first.
Comments
You are absolutely right, Ms. Grannan... you have absolutely no grasp on who the CIF operates. Which means that every single word critical of that organization is null and void. Are you a journalist or just a parent with the usual lack of knowledge as it regards dealing with situations like this? If you are a journalist you had an obligation to get the CIF's side of this story or, at the very least, learn a marginal amount of their governance. But why let a little thing like journalistic integrity get in the way of a story. Hopefully, in the future, when you comment on something... you have a reference point to do so. Otherwise I suggest you sit down and be quiet.
My point is that there's a greater issue here beyond the minutiae of sports regulations. The judge agreed, as we can see. My post is a commentary, not a news report. A more targeted, in-depth look would research whether there's a process for vetting CIF rules to determine whether they mesh with laws protecting the rights of children -- as Judge Ford determined that the rule in question did not.
It makes no difference whether you were commenting or reporting. You still have a journalistic requirement to know both sides of a story. But, let's give the devil his due... how could you possibly comment on a story where you do not know all of the facts?
And sports regulations are not "minutiae". They are the very foundation of sport just as laws (as you keep leaning on) are the very foundation of a society. And to suggest otherwise highlights just how naïve you are on this issue. And just because one sympathetic judge made an incorrect ruling does not make the judgment any less flawed.
Did you know that the section would almost assuredly have granted this student immediate eligibility had the proper paperwork been submitted as prescribed? Do you know who actually makes the rules CIF follows? You don’t need to do research to find out how CIF rules are “vetted”, Ms. Grannan. You simply could have called their office. By why let the facts get in the way of a juicy story, right?
State Law trumps CIF rule....imagine that. Your right Ms. Johnson, CIF Rules aren't minutiae, but state law trumps. Get over it.
Please state specifically the law you cite?
My guess is that you know nothing of the court ruling. Otherwise you would know that the judge over reached and interpreted something into the law that does not exist.
This whole situation was never about state... it was about an athletic director that screwed up and a school that valued a playoff spot over ethics. Sorry you disagree.
The law is Assembly Bill 490, Ensuring the Educational Rights of Foster Youth. I added a link to info about it when I updated the original post a few days ago.
In my update, by the way, I also quoted the CIF's officially designated spokesperson on how CIF rules are vetted. (Calling the CIF, which is what I did, IS research.)
I can see that the CIF folks appear to be on their own planet when it comes to their rules, but they need to get a clue that their rules are not god and that they need to be in accordance with state law, which (I suppose I have to clarify this) supersedes CIF rules.
CIF's designated spokesperson, Stevan Allen, in essence acknowledged this when he told me that CIF rules are "constantly reviewed and revised" in an effort to ensure that they don't violate state law. It's hard to imagine how the CIF's reviewers missed this lapse.
The point the judge made is that CIF rules must be in accord with state law, and this particular rule was not.
Actually, No Stevan Allen is NOT the CIF Spokesperson. That would be Emmy Zack. You didn’t know that because you didn’t do your research.
And even if he were speaking for the CIF (which he was not) on this issue calling Allen Strategic, Inc. is not calling the CIF!! So, no, you didn’t do your research.
And Assembly Bill 490 says nothing about athletics, which Ryan v. CIF San Diego Section ruled was "not a right but a privilege". Ever heard of that ruling? Probably not because he didn’t do your research.
And, no, enforcing the rules that the MEMBER SCHOOLS made is not acting as if their rules were “God” but, is doing the job they are hired to do. Once again, you mention nothing of CIF governance because… you didn’t do your research.
The fact is that it’s bad enough you are one of those Mom’s who believe the rules do not apply to you and your kid and want to go through the CIF Constitution and pick and choose the those you want to follow. What makes it worse is that you do so in the guise of a journalist. You personify all that is wrong with high school athletics today. Everybody should play no matter the consequences and damn the rules.
Shame on you for your masquerade as caring about this kid and kids like him because you sure didn’t give a damn for the kids from Colfax who were pulled from the playoffs because and adult didn’t do his job properly. And no matter how you try to spin it, that’s what happened here. Sorry Mom, you’re wrong... on a lot of things, because you didn’t do your research.
Rebecca. I called CIF, which is how one starts this research. They told me that Stevan Allen was the sole designated spokesperson talking to the press on this issue and gave me his number. Allen's firm specializes in damage control (that means "we're in PR hell because we screwed up, and we need someone to get us out of it").
You're right that AB 490 is not about athletics. It's about the greater issue of not placing hurdles in front of foster children. That's why the judge determined that CIF's clueless rule violated AB 490, because it placed a hurdle in front of foster children that does not exist for other children. That's what CIF SHOULD have spotted in the vetting process -- the one that Allen told me they regularly engage in.
I'm really sorry for the kids from Colfax, and anyone else who was messed up by this, but the fault belongs to CIF. They screwed up big time here. Their failure to ensure that their rules followed state law is what led to the entire disruption and the judge's ruling. (Numerous newspapers have editorialized to say the same thing; I'm not out on a limb here.) I understand your anger if it's on behalf of the Colfax team, but you're misdirecting it. It should be aimed at CIF, because they screwed up.
Here is where you (and the judge for that matter) continuously get it wrong. There was no greater obstacle to that foster child than exists with ANY student who transfers from one school to another. Paper work is required on ALL transfer students. Otherwise, there is no accountability for the student or school that is doing something wrong. Without paperwork it would be the Wild, Wild West where anything goes. Or is it OK for you that after putting in 3 years as a back-up quarterback that your son can be immediately replaced by the hired gun from the neighboring school with no accountability? Sounds like it is. Additionally, what you fail to grasp, is that historically foster kids who file that hardship paperwork are AUTOMATICALLY approved!!! The one and only reason that foster child caused Placer to forfeit games is because the AD at Placer didn’t do his job and file the Hardship paperwork. Under the rules (which, once again, the schools, not the CIF Office create) the Sac Joaquin (we’ll get back to them in a second) section had no other choice but to REQUEST (yes, request as the section cannot FORCE a school to forfeit) that they forfeit those games. The school did so by their own choosing. It was only after a parent whose kid was not going to make the playoffs (remember… Placer forfeited these games in the middle of the season and it was not until the end of the season when they were not going to make the playoffs that any stink was made by Placer) got involved that this even went to court.
Second, you keep saying the spokesperson for the CIF is Mr. Allen. He is not. See, what you still refuse to accept is that you know nothing about CIF governance. Mr. Allen is acting as the spokesperson for the CIF Sac-Joaquin Section. Not the CIF. The CIF is divided into 10 sections with the state CIF being the umbrella head. Different sections have different rules. The Sac Joaquin section does not employ a full time spokesperson because they do not have it in their budget. So, they employed an outside PR firm and an individual who knows CIF governance only a tad bit more than you do. He’s never attended board of directors meetings, he’s never served on a council, and he’s never attended state federated meetings. Why the section hired somebody with no background in CIF governance is beyond me and there was no need to get a PR “crisis” firm involved in the first place because THERE WAS NO CRISIS!!!! A bad decision by a judge does not amount to a crisis.
And I know numerous papers have editorialized the same thing and I am taking them to task just like you. And I am angry because they just like you they do not take the time to get the facts before running off at the mouth about something you know little to nothing about. Had you done a modicum amount of research all of the stuff I am telling you now would have and should have appeared in your apostatizing editorial. And before you respond with “they placed an unfair obstacle in front of this foster child” please, please read my first paragraph again. Stop saying it is the CIF or even the CIF Sac Joaquin Sections fault and start laying the blame where it belongs… on the AD at Placer. That’s why you are wrong and that’s why I am angry.
Unfortunately, I know this is a waste of time and I am just spinning my wheels. The toothpaste has alread been squeezed. And why would you ever let the facts get in the way of a good story. Instead you'll continue to push an incorrect position rather than get the facts. What a sad lesson you continue to promote.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!