3-5-2007
Oregon's State Supreme Court gets to weigh in on the scheduling techniques of the OSAA. A lawsuit that began in 1996 claims that the student organization is discriminating against the Portland Adventist Academy based on the times their games are scheduled in the 2 A basketball championship tournament.
Legal counsel for both sides stood before six of the seven justices (Justice Kistler was not in attendance) presenting their case in a packed classroom at Lewis and Clark Law School.
Seventh Day Adventists celebrate the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. In some years, the PAA basketball squad has made it's way into the end of the season tournament only to have one of their games booked on Saturday afternoon. The students can't play so they are forced to forfeit. Officials want the organization to allow the team to move it's game into the evening hours claiming that such a move is a reasonable consideration.
Conversely, the OSAA says rescheduling is unreasonable because it is unfair to other teams. By adjusting the start time of the PAA, some teams may have more or less time between contests. Also, by holding three games in the evening it makes it tougher for fans to attend certain matches.
It's up to the court to determine if rescheduling is a reasonable request that does not put unfair burden on other teams. There will not be a verdict in this case for a while, possibly months.
Some interesting side notes from the presentation of oral arguments . . . .
Both sides of counsel were interrupted repeatedly with questions as is the case in these types of presentations. However, Justice Gillette added a new twist, frequently correcting the grammar and word choice used by counsel. The best example may have been when one of the attorneys referred to a statement in one of the documents as a "falsehood" when it was actually an "inaccurate statement." To laypersons like myself it may seem trivial but the Justice explained that a falsehood, technically defined in a court of law, is a lie whereas this was merely a case of confusion. It's one thing to call someone a liar and completely different to point out one of their facts is skewed.
Before and after the case, students and faculty got a chance to ask questions of the court personnel prompting one student to ask how the court felt about the recent decision on their tobacco settlement ruling. While the question did raise laughter and some good natured jokes from the justices they declined to comment.