A Goofy Foot in Mouth

I have written about Justice Scalia here and here in different contexts.  I am not going to talk about his jurisprudence or personality or anything like that.  We all mourn his loss and the effect it will have on the court.  But what strikes me as interesting and inspiring through the ongoing political debate and retrospectives on his life, was Scalia’s notion of  originalism.  The idea is that you interpret the constitution as it was originally written.  We should view it in the context of the Founders as they wrote a spectacular document that broke from centuries of tyranny and oppression at the hand of dictators and monarchs, sometimes with self-declared divine powers.  The thing is, we have no perspective to really view institutional tyranny, so as we view questions of legality, we have to trust the framers that they had more important life experience in this case, than we do now.  We have no idea how to make a decision in the shadow of tyranny, so we trust a bunch of guys and the way they viewed the world 240 years ago, because in this respect, they are smarter than us.  Think about that for a second.

This triggered a thought from my past.  About 20 years ago I was called for jury duty.  I believe the case was in Sommerville.  The accused was charged with grand theft from a Home Depot.  As the jury listened to questioning and testimony, there were constant objections to certain lines of questioning.  We had no idea why, but by the end, all we really heard was that the defendant loaded up a shopping cart, walked it past the checkout machines, was confronted by a clerk, and then left the cart and walked out the door.  There was very little evidence of anything.

As we entered the deliberation room, the foreman reviewed the evidence, we talked a little and then voted.  Everyone voted guilty except me.  Over the next 15 minutes I led a discussion about the impact of the actual evidence.  I had wondered, did he just leave his wallet in his car?  Did he forget an appointment and had to rush out?  We eventually concluded that while everything pointed at theft, there actually was no real evidence that he was guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.  We found him not-guilty.

After the verdict was read and the defendant released, the judge asked us to come back in his chamber to debreif.  He asked us point blank, why had we found him not-guilty.  Silence.  I piped up, ‘there was no real evidence against him. Every time the prosecutor tried to add something, there was an objection, sidebar, and it stopped.  There was no evidence.’  The judge understood.  Turned out that the prosecutor got the case that morning and since none of the evidence was ever disclosed to the defense, it was inadmissible.  What sucks, this kid had a rap sheet a mile long.

As much as his innocence may be a travesty, I am proud of the fact that I made it clear to the government that due process and the rule of law is more important to our judicial system than just getting the bad guy at whatever cost.  We all deserve that level of justice.  That is what originalism is about.  While short-cuts today seem ok, the Founders would have been purists.  They know that you actually can die of a thousand cuts.  You can’t evolve perspectives on how you enforce the laws.  Just ask people in 3rd world countries what life is like when justice is flexible.  When you have one original standard, it makes it clear how to stay true to it.

I’m reading a book by ex-SEAL commander Mark Divine called Unbeatable Mind.  It’s a self-help styled book about personal growth and mastery, chock full of techniques for leadership and how to make yourself a more effective person.

One section particularly struck a chord as I have been working a theory about political philosophy that emphasizes personal responsibility as a means to limited government. Coach Divine talks about sheep as a metaphor. A flock of sheep will be grazing in a field, going about their business as if nothing else in the world impacts their existence. Meanwhile, the wolves spend all their time trying to find ways to scheme their way onto the plateau to harm (aka eat) the sheep. Up above watching over the defenseless sheep is the sheepdog, who pounces on the wolves if they get too close or pose too serious a danger. They exist to protect the flock of sheep.

The sheep are ordinary citizens, the wolves are terrorists or general bad guys, and the sheepdogs are the military or other first-responders and righteous citizens.  Coach Divine’s SEALFit program is all about building people up to be the future sheepdogs.  Many participants are pre-SOF candidates or like me, just looking for a full mind/body philosophy to train me to be the best person and leader I can be.

There is a section on training to be “sheepdog strong” that really got me thinking about the general populace’s perspective on protection. Coach talks a lot about what sheepdogs need to do to be prepared to protect others and what it takes to have that level of commitment and focus on the task. But I question why the sheep don’t care about their own security?

I read a tweet the other day something like, “I know the biology of the frog we dissected at school but nothing about how a mortgage works”. It struck me as poignant that in many cases we really are teaching the wrong things to kids. And if we take this life-skills question one step further, why do we not teach personal awareness and security?

Many of the simple strategies for developing sheepdog awareness can be taught to anyone. And why not?  Sweeping your eyes around a restaurant, looking for the egress routes, identifying choke points and vulnerabilities, scanning for threats, being vigilant in crowded public places, etc.

These are all strategies that could be taught.  Taught to adults and to children. They could be ingrained at a younger age with the notion that protecting yourself and your fellow citizens is both a virtue and a responsibility.

More importantly, as we watch the wolves and we see them strategizing against not only the sheep, but also the sheepdog, then we should recognize a need for change.  It is impossible to dedicate requisite numbers of sheepdogs to protect us against a crafty and more formidable pack of wolves. The liberal mentality that we can always rely on the sheepdog is a fallacy.  That world is gone. The sheep need to be their own sheepdog. This requires getting off their asses and taking it seriously.  Even if you can’t be a professional sheepdog, you can train to be sheepdog strong. You owe it to society, you owe it to yourself.

Back in 1998-99 I taught 2 for-credit classes at Northern Essex Community College.  I don’t remember all the details here, but most of it is clear.  The first course was a 1 credit Intro to Computers class and the second was a 3 credit Intro to MS Office class.  I enjoyed the act of teaching and even contemplated teaching full time as an adjunct for a while.  But those plans were quickly squashed, not by me, but the MTA.

The Massachusetts Teachers Association is one of the most powerful unions in the country and certainly in the Commonwealth.  I am not very versed on union shop rules yet I absolutely hate the notion of unions in general and remember wanting to strategize on eliminating them when I was in college.

As a condition of teaching as an adjunct, I had to pay union dues and if I elected not to join the union, I still pay “agency” fees.  The thinking is that I am still benefiting from the negotiating practices of the union.  While I fundamentally hate all of this, I could accept it.  My problem was with the fees themselves.

I didn’t earn much as an adjunct, maybe $1,100 per credit.  For me it was about the experience.  But I remember that the fees were outrageous.  I want to say that it was near $200 to pay these agency fees annually, no matter what you made.  I don’t remember working it all out but if I remember that if I worked full time as an adjunct I was paying 2% of my income for the union to negotiate my 3% annual raise.  That’s a 1% net increase or less than the rate of inflation.  Whatever the fee, I refused to pay it.

And so after the first semester I got a warning letter, and after the second semester I got a letter that I would not be allowed to teach again.  I was blacklisted.  I wrote letters back and even to the school newspaper, ‘we give them 2% to get 3% which means that our net raise is less than inflation?  The MTA is making us teachers lose money?’

California teachers to the rescue.  A group of teachers felt the same way about the obligation to pay agency fees and so they filed a lawsuit.  That case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association was granted cert on June 30, 2015 and just last month on Jan 11, 2016 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments.  The question aims to resolve if Abood v Detroit Board of Education should be overturned.  Abood certifies the union shop clause at public colleges.

I listened to most of the oral arguments and have a feeling this will be a 6:3 vote against the petitioners, who lost in the lower courts because of the Abood precedent.  People complain about the Robert’s court because of warped commentary about a very select group of controversial cases, but overall this court takes stare decisis (legal precedent) very seriously.  So while I have hopes for legal vindication such that I can petition the MTA to restore my good name, I do not have much hope.  Stay tuned to the court, maybe they will overturn this insane government imposed bureaucracy and I could teach again in the Bay State.  Not sure which is scarier, my good name, or me teaching?

6/28/18 UPDATE:  Friedrichs ended 4:4 because of the death of Justice Scalia.  However, enter Janus v AFSCME.  Justice Kennedy in his final opinion, found that public sector unions could NOT force employees to pay union dues even if they were not members as this infringed on their 1st amendment rights because Unions engage in political activities supporting candidates and positions.  Hooyah SCOTUS!

I just finished reading Team of Teams by General Stanley McChrystal.  This is the best non-fiction and the best business book I have ever read.  If you manage people, you owe it to your staff to go read this book…NOW.

I will condense to a super-abbreviated summary here.  In 2003-4 Al Qaeda started rapidly ramping up terrorist activities inside Iraq.  General McChrystal took over a special Task Force charged with fighting back and enabling the new Iraqi government and military to provide peace for the country.  While US soldiers won each battle, they quickly found that they couldn’t respond with the swiftness of the Al Qaeda insurgency and they lost ground almost as soon as it was taken.  They were constantly in a very slow reaction mode.  The general and his staff began to realize that the command and control hierarchical nature of the military was not able to adapt as quickly as al-Zarqawi’s lose network of terrorists.  So the General’s senior staff took about an unprecedented flattening of his team to adapt to the insurgent threat.  Some notable achievements:

1. Every single day over 7000 people across the world were connected in real time on a video conference call to share every bit of information they learned.  This was a mandatory 90 minute meeting that was later identified as the foundational component of what they called “Shared Consciousness”.  Rather than information following the chain of command, it went to everyone immediately.  You don’t know what other people need to know or what they have to contribute to a topic, so share it all.  Including highly classified intelligence.
2. When the task force started operations, the general would approve all missions and like all military structures, planning and approvals would flow up and down the chain of command.  These often took so long that by the time the mission was executed, the opportunity had passed. This was replaced with what he calls “Empowered Execution”.  Leadership sets broad guardrails and objectives, you trust your team to make choices that follow those guidelines.  In 2003 the Task Force was running appr. 20 missions a month, by 2005 they were conducting over 300 a month, almost none approved by McChrystal, Pentagon, or any local brass.
3. Leadership’s responsibility is to instill the notion of “Resilience Thinking” in your team.  Like the SEALs, don’t train for the mission, you train for situations.  Because you never know what situations will present themselves on a mission, be ready for anything.  Be resilient in the face of adversity.

There is a ton of great historical perspective on how the US evolved into a state of efficiency management practices that have largely proven ineffective in a complex networked world.  Complex is different from complicated.  Complex reflects the notion that we are so interconnected that it is impossible to predict a series of events because too many variables impact a result.  Classic butterfly effect.  So unlike the way management used to try to plan for complicated scenarios, they are now ineffective.  Complicated reflects the notion that you can role play and assign probabilities to all potential eventualities.  This hasn’t worked since the 80’s, you need people that can be resilient and act on their own.

I have long struggled with defining my own management philosophy wherein I have felt that much of the costly overhead of an organization (HR, Finance, Purchasing) and all of the governance (policies and procedures) needed for each is a waste.  I would set guidelines for my team and let them perform those support functions for themselves coupled with technology.  In addition, I have no respect for organizational egos that are hellbent on protecting turf.  I think Holocracy takes the reaction to these norms a small step too far.  Yet I respect what Zappos is doing to directly enable their associates.  I also admire the way Return Path’s Matt Blumberg shares information openly with his entire org.  And I love the way some startups like Moz post their financial activities openly to all employees.  Everyone should be invested in the mission.   I have come to believe that Empowered Execution when your Resilient team has a sense of Shared Consiousness coupled with a mission statement and set of guiding principles, is exactly how I want people to operate.  Question: Boss, can I spend money to buy this software package?  Answer: Our goal is a 10x return to our investors, does the purchase execute on that goal?

While I am a little ways off of bringing this management philiosophy to my own company, I developed a pitch to the leadership of my ‘day-job’ organization (+150 people) to follow a structure very similar to General McChrystal’s precepts.  I saw him speak to our company about a month ago (super-geek moment; I got to ask a direct question) and I have to assume that he did so in exchange for the opportunity to pitch a consulting gig to impart this philosophy to the Sr. Leadership.  I doubt anything will move on a larger scale, but I am excited at the possibility of proving it can work at the micro-level.

 [from my book] 

Back in June Taylor and I went to see some of the women’s World Cup games in Ottawa.  Added bonus was that there was a jazz festival running across the city at the same time.  In addition to 2 great games we got to see…

The Roots – My favorite.  Everyone should watch this set.  Amazing

Bria Skonberg Quintet – A lot of fun, old style jazz

Eric Boeren 4tet– Hard core musicians.  Bassist was amazing.  Drummer was intense

Harea Band – Fun and funky band.  Taylor’s favorite

Renee Rosnes Quartet – Relaxing show, xylophone was cool

War – Got there late, but we still got to see Low Rider and Why Can’t We Be Friends

Chris Botti – After about 10 minutes we walked out.  So boring

Last week I saw the Roots again at the House of Blues in Boston.  When I bought the tickets I was so excited to see them again.  I was actually disappointed.  The set list was very similar, including the covers.  Which included a fun version of Sweet Child of Mine.  What really impressed me the most at the jazz festival was that the musicians acted like musicians.  Real artists.  You could see them playing off each other and riffing on things that were obviously improvised.  But the Boston show, with much more expensive tickets, was over-produced and plastic.  It just wasn’t the same.  They brought in some idiot “Justin” kid to rip on some all LCD beat box electronica thing.   He just pushed buttons to play micro tracks of samples. Boring.  And then they had some guest singer who was trying to be a combination of Jamiroquai and Prince.  He sucked so bad that everyone around us was complaining and he killed the whole room for 10 minutes.  No one was dancing.

I learned an important lesson at this second show. Venue matters.  The jazz festival brought out the best in the musicians as they must have been inspired by all the talent surrounding them throughout the city.  But when you sell tickets to kids that have no interest in the music, the performers play down to the crowd.  It’s sad, but I can’t help think it’s true.

We hear about sports teams playing to their level of competition all the time.  And you wonder about the motivation and rationale for such action.  When you see that this mentality can exist in other life-genres, it makes you wonder about how often we do it ourselves. I know I have.  It certainly is the reason that successful people want to surround themselves with top talent.  It further reminds me that for others to perform at their best, I’ve got to do my part to surround them with inspiration as well.  At some point, I will create a ‘venue’ of my own.  I will do my best to inspire those that work with me in that quest.

I’ve watched Admiral McRaven’s UT speech a dozen times, I’ve made the girls watch it and I have recommended it to others.  I am a huge fan of commencement speeches.  Some reflect thoughts on policy, others on the future, and some are just flat out inspirational.  I use them as tools to remind me why I do what I do, to stay the course and push myself harder.

I now have a new inspirational video.  But only in so far as it is a reminder of what I should have been doing for the last 25 years.  Special thanks to Jim C for posting a link to our graduation video.  HHS class of 1990, what a trip.

Haverhill High School Class of 1990 Graduation

Observations

• It’s hard to remember a time when the obnoxiousness of our administrators calling out students as “learning disabled” and feigning praise on the top students, was acceptable
• nevraC windbreaker scholarship – I totally forgot about this one!
• Hair:  Girls=big, guys=mullets… even under the cap
• MassHole Accents – OMG do you all still talk that way?  Sure hope not
• Delivery of speeches – I remember being coached this way.   Jerky.  No flow.  Awful.
• Naivety in the speeches, too funny.  We were so young
• Danika D…so sad.  Steve B…surreal to see him on film

Our 25th reunion just happened over the T-Day break.  I went to Haley’s NHH&TA banquet and so I missed the festivities. 

 Thoughts on 25 years:

• So many goals not achieved
• Career = Spectacular failure
• Other massive failures
• I still can’t believe how fresh high school is in my mind
• So little of what I thought and predicted for myself, ever came to be.  But instead I did numerous other things that I never thought would come to define who I am.  Extremely special thanks to family and friends for pushing me into areas that were instinctively uncomfortable
• 43 used to seem so old to me, but I still feel pretty young and I’m in better shape now than 1990
• As I type this, I have a 16 year old soccer player, a 13 year old equestrian, I am the only one who really craves skiing anymore and Tailgating has become a way of life (to the dismay of many)
• Writing is my biggest talent and I read more than most of my peers… MoynaBitch and Fitzy would shit themselves
• They remade Point Break
• The first version of my current product idea came to me in an OM class in 1992.  See “procrastination”
• I remember thinking that the Internet was stupid and Amazon was dumb for selling books
• I draw pictures for a living, and they are of computer systems instead of houses
• New cars are not that exciting to me anymore and I rarely opened the hood of any car I have bought in the past 15 years

I’m sure there are other oddities about the last 25 years that would utterly astonish the 18 year old version of me.  I wonder how many of my classmates feel the same way.  I wonder if any of us actually stuck to our plans circa 1990.  Did Laurie, Jen, Mr. Wrenn or Dr. Fowler-Finn inspire anyone?

This is a partially baked thought, so I assume there are tons of holes in my logic, but I thought it needed some attention.  I firmly believe that compensation should not be static.  There is a floor, or salary component to everything we do.  A minimum understanding and commitment from the firm to the employee.  But I also believe a significant component should be flexible, even to the point that an unprofitable firm should budget for variable compensation.

I am all for job satisfaction and doing what you love and all that touchy-feely crap.  But at some point, we all recognize that everything comes down to money.  If a company makes a promise to the employee in the form of salary, that employee needs to make a commitment to the company.  I would not want just a commitment at that base minimum level, I want an employee to want the company to excel.  Because the employee wants the company to do well, that person should want to kick ass in what they do.  That commitment has to be rewarded.

Employees should treat the company as if it were their own.  I want them to feel part of the organization as if it were a family.  The company’s success is their own.  If the company succeeds, so should they.  But what if you kick ass all year only to fail or the product fails?  We live in a culture that only rewards accomplishments.  As far as promotions go, I would agree.  But there has to be a reward for effort.  You have to encourage your people to embrace the team, to devote themselves to the effort.  If we encourage people to take risks, it seems wrong to penalize them for giving it their best.  And this is where I think effort based compensation can play a part.  I want my people devoted, but not fearful of taking a risk.  Someone who plays it safe and doesn’t push the limit is no good to me.  It’s like I tell people skiing, if you don’t wipe out at least once a day while on the mountain, you haven’t been pushing yourself hard enough.

People would probably accept a lower overall base salary knowing that there was a non-profitability based component based on how hard they tried.  At the very least you encourage people to feel invested in the company, reward them when they do, and have a mechanism to reflect those that only skate by.  Skaters aren’t necessarily bad, they sometimes serve a pupose.  But those that excel want to see a difference.  In fact, the effort based component should be made public within the company.  No?

I would define a fair compensation package as below.  I think effort counts

• Salary = Compensation for doing your job
• Bonus = How hard you work, how much you go the extra mile (not based on profitability)
• Profit sharing = Everyone should share if the company makes money
• Equity = Based on performance or an individual’s direct contribution to success

It seems so easy to me, this is how I would do it…

Chuck Todd: Welcome to Meet the Press Mr. Rutstein

Me: Thanks Chuck. Glad to be here

CT: Before we get started, how goes it on the campaign trail?

JR: Great. I feel fantastic, we’re winning on all the important issues and I am doing better than anyone expected. People told me that it is a grind, but I am enjoying meeting lots of really amazing Americans and here I am on Meet the Press having a great hair day. No comb over needed to cover up anything going on here! [pointing to head]

CT: Are you trying to make a point about Donald Trump’s hair?

JR: What? Of course not, I didn’t even say his name. You are already starting conspiracy theories about me? Haha. All I did was talk about my own hair

CT: But mention of a comb-over must be a reference to Mr Trump? Should you apologize for a personal attack?

JR: Attack? Only you would think that. My grandfather on my mothers side had a comb-over. It was awful. We used to make fun of it all the time. I would joke with him about it. What are you hiding under there? A comb-over must be made for covering up things. I wonder if that is a metaphor. Chuck, how can you be so incompetent to read that statement as a reference on someone else? I was talking about me.

CT: Are you saying that Mr Trump is hiding something?

JR: No of course not. You said that.

CT: Then what are you trying to say?

JR: I was just pointing out that I am having a good hair day and that got me to thinking how long ago it was normal to have comb-overs to hide baldness or other stuff. I don’t have to do anything like that and I am proud of that fact.  

CT: And that’s it? You don’t think you are commenting on Mr Trump in a way that is unfair?

JR: No. Mr Trump is a very successful man. He has made a lot of money, as he so often points out, on properties all over the world. I really find it incredible that he sold his Atlantic City properties and made a lot of money on them right before the whole market there fell apart. As I travel around the country I meet people that work in jobs that are being systemically eliminated by the market or technology or competition from overseas. It’s heartbreaking when you see something falling apart like that. You see it happening to real people, just like the folks in Atlantic City. I know lots of people that lost their jobs in 08-09. I just tell them that if I were President that I wouldn’t give up on them. I wouldn’t abandon their jobs and let it go under. I would work with them. Work with their leadership. Work with the local government to find a way to help them reinvent themselves or the product or the market in a way that let them be successful. That’s what great leadership does. I want to be a leader that is great and wouldn’t cut and run.

CT: So Mr Trump abandoned the people of Atlantic City?

JR: I didn’t say that. I don’t know what he knew when he decided to sell those casinos. I just know what he has stated for the record, that he made a lot of money and now Atlantic City is near failure.

CT: But you are saying that he has a tendency to not support the notion of sticking with something when the going gets tough?

JR: Where are you getting this from? I was just talking about how I would do things. This country is in debt. United States as a business takes in less revenue than we have in expenses. No one can continue to live like that.  The good news is that we still have a huge balance sheet and intrinsic value. So we still have a lot of potential to use all that capital and natural talent of the American people to rebuild this great country. Would I as President choose to sell now and still make a big profit by liquidating those assets and giving up on the American people?   No. But I wish I made lots of money and could live an extravagant lifestyle and travel on private jets and helicopters, no matter what my financial situation and the finances of my friends and neighbors.  If I did, and then let’s say over time, just like the US government, I found myself deeply in debt, and I filed for bankruptcy numerous times, well I am the type of person that has the capability to roll up my sleeves and cut back my personal spending habits and find a way to use my God-given resources to rebuild. If the bankruptcy court told me that I could only live on $5,000 per month instead the $75,000 that I had been spending, I would find a way to do it

CT: Mr Rutstein, you are describing the exact situation Mr Trump went through in the late 90’s. Are you making a statement about Mr Trump’s bankruptcy practices? Or how he handled his personal lifestyle while in bankruptcy?

JR: No you are making that inference. I am talking about how this country needs a President that can survive financial tumult without giving up on the American people. Our current President has resolved the fact that we should just concede certain realities of the economy and I don’t feel that way.

…..

So you see where I am going with this. The guy is not that smart. You use his own words against him but just in general pronouncements about reality that could be linked to his actions or persona. But you let the press make the linkage and perpetuate it as news. Never do your own dirty work.  If you see a team working successfully out of the ‘wildcat’ formation, you wouldn’t try it too?  The guy found a winning strategy, steal it!  Come on political operatives, this isn’t hard. Trump is a joke, just make it easy for us to see.

Tomorrow my older daughter, my first born, goes under the knife to repair a torn LCL, evaluate bone fragments from her knee cap and check her ACL. All damaged about 2 weeks ago in a high school soccer game. Tay thinks she was close to scoring on a crossing pass. She was going to tap the ball around the goalie and dribble in for an easy shot. She doesn’t remember the tackle, just the after effects of laying on the ground screaming in agony after being taken out by the goalie.

This was the 7th minute of the 2nd game of the season. What hurts her and what stings is that she busted her ass all summer to get in shape. We worked out almost every day. And when we didn’t work out, she did body weight workouts in her room: squats, situps, supermans and pushups. She even ran on vacation and tempered her eating at an all inclusive resort in Mexico.  She went to soccer camps.  She was in the best shape of her life and it showed on the field. Her coach even told her so. When you put in the effort and get recognized for it, when you feel it and it shows, there is no feeling like it in the athletic world.

And then you get your knee blown out going 110% for a ball. Doing your job. That’s just not right. I was 120 miles away at Haley’s horse show and I knew exactly what Taylor was feeling when Megan said they were heading to the hospital. I had to walk away from the show. I almost crumbled. Both Taylor and Haley have complete commitment to their craft and it sucks to see that taken from them.

When I saw Taylor the following day, she said exactly what I expected. “I worked so hard all summer…” That feeling of sadness in me came back. But then she said something that took me completely by surprise and made me respect her as an athlete and as a student of the game. Taylor always talks about how she sees the art, the beauty of the game and how amazing it is when it is played right. A perfect pass. “Good ball”. Great shot. Ball control and movement. Possession. Taylor said to me, “We didn’t even get a free kick out of it.” She went on to describe how there were only two referees on the field and that if there had been an AR in position, she would have been tracking back with the ball, looking right at that spot and would have seen the foul. Taylor is a trained referee, she knows how she would have been positioned for that play.

Our standard leg-day workout includes; extensions, curls, calves, squats, inner and outer thigh, and a cable workout to strengthen the kicking motion in both legs. Taylor’s legs are not weak. This kind of trauma does not come from a tackle that hit ball first; a clean tackle. Her team deserved a free kick. Taylor deserved to earn a free kick for her team.

This got me to wondering why there were only two refs on the field at a varsity high school women’s soccer game. We have seen this before in rec. But Taylor has been a referee at U11 games where they staffed the full complement of a referee and 2 ARs. I further wondered, would this situation conform to Title IX? Would there ever be a varsity football game played without a back judge? Certainly not in Texas, but even in New Hampshire?

I don’t really know much about Title IX. I have been reading a lot over the past few days but I admit that it is confusing. The original law didn’t even talk about athletics. That came through the written regulations. Is this fair? Does Tay’s team deserve better treatment? What is the minimum standard for officiating a soccer game? I admit that I don’t know what the men’s varsity team gets, but if 3 is required for safe play, could they be being cheated too?

I absolutely hate the idea of suing to affect change here. And I know the kind of budget constraints and gimmickry that schools play to balance myriad programs for students. But I just feel that there needs to be some acknowledgment to the game that was actually played, that Taylor’s sacrifice meant something. Do injuries occur for fair play? Yes. We see it in football and hockey all the time. But this was different. This feels different and I would probably say that even if it wasn’t Taylor. I admit that my zeal for this cause would not be what it is if it wasn’t my kid. I know Title IX is meant to level the playing field for funding of the programs within a school between the genders. But I wonder if officiating is part of that overall definition and if not, shouldn’t it be? I wish I knew the answer to that. I would certainly work to right that wrong. Because next season, I want to see 3 officials on the soccer field: That’s how Taylor would do it if she was in charge.