logo
Co-ed principals fight 'unethical' boys school-only rugby competition

Co-ed principals fight 'unethical' boys school-only rugby competition

1News19-06-2025
A group of South Island principals is rallying against what it claims are "discriminatory and unlawful" plans for a breakaway first XV rugby competition played exclusively among boys' schools.
A collective of South Island boys' schools last month confirmed talks were underway to launch a new first XV competition as part of wider collaborative efforts to improve educational outcomes for young men.
The new competition would include up to eight boys' schools across Canterbury and Tasman, and five schools in Otago and Southland.
The move has been met with widespread concern from leaders of co-educational schools in those regions, who fear the "devastating" impact on their school communities if top-flight rugby were restricted to a select group of schools.
A highly organised resistance began in earnest on Wednesday, when a letter signed by principals of more than 40 schools was sent to the South Island provincial rugby unions and NZ Rugby urging the sport's leaders to act.
RNZ understands a separate, individual complaint has also been laid with the Sport Integrity Commission.
The letter to the rugby bodies called on officials to step in and "help intervene in what would become a highly destructive competition" for both the sport, the wider education system and young people.
"Excluding boys in co-educational schools from top-level rugby against boys-only schools would undermine the inclusivity, competitiveness, and health of school rugby, harming the sport's future and the well-being of its players," the letter states.
The letter also raised concerns that the proposal "is driven by the desire to attract the best athletes to the boys' schools for their own success", creating an "arms race where schools aggressively recruit top players".
The morning's headlines in 90 seconds including what will happen to food after supermarket blaze, Trump's dithering over the Middle East, and winter car care tips. (Source: 1News)
One of the signatories to the letter, Darfield High School principal Andy England, said he believed the proposal was "unjustified and discriminatory".
"I think this move, if it was to happen, would be deeply unethical, potentially in breach of human rights, and the education and training act. Which are strong words to say, and I get that. But I'm saying them," England told RNZ.
Asked if the schools would consider laying a complaint with the Human Rights Commission or the Ministry of Education, England responded: "Yes."
"At the end of the day, it just seems deeply unfair that boys who go to school with girls are excluded from playing the sport at the level that suits them. How can that be right under the Human Rights Act or under the Education and Training Act?"
The Education and Training Act 2020 requires schools to ensure a safe and inclusive environment and to eliminate discrimination, which extends to sports participation.
England said his main frustration was that there had been "very limited communication from the boys' schools" about why they wanted to form a breakaway competition and how it would work.
Rugby officials needed to show leadership and get all the schools around the table "in a reasonably assertive way", so they can work on a solution together.
"I think we're all looking for some guidance from [the] rugby union. My speciality isn't rugby at all, but I can't see how this could be good for rugby. It's inevitable that some rugby talent will be lost through this if this goes ahead," he said.
"It also puts rugby development at the top level into the hands of the boys schools only, and how can that be healthy?"
The letter claims the collective of boys' schools plan to launch the new competition for 2026 on August 1. However, two principals involved told RNZ there are no firm plans or commitments in place.
Steve Hart, principal of St Thomas of Canterbury College, said he was aware of opposition to the proposed new competition, but he did not think it was appropriate to address those criticisms through the media.
"Until there is something concrete to discuss, I don't know how healthy the back and forward actually is," he said.
"Probably for me I think there's been an over-focus on rugby here, that's actually a tiny bit of what we're trying to do. It probably sums up New Zealand a wee bit in that we focus too much on rugby and people are missing the point on what the actual vision here is."
Hart referred RNZ to the statement provided to media at the time the plans for the breakaway competition were first raised, which noted the collective's aims of "exploring initiatives that include the arts, culture, sport and professional learning - designed to foster connection, belonging and pride among our young men".
Canterbury Rugby chief executive Tony Smail said his organisation shared some of the concerns of the co-ed schools about the proposed competition.
"The unintended and intended consequences of a standalone competition among boys' schools needs to be talked about. There is genuine concern that pathways are being closed for other rugby playing participants out there," he said.
"You'll have player movement out of the schools that aren't in the competition into the schools that are, and the flow on effect of that is huge. If you have one or two strong players from one school decide to leave, the risk is that their peers that are left at that school will give up, because they were staying in the game to play with their mates."
While the union sits on the governance group of the current first XV competition, which involves schools in the Crusaders' catchment area, it is not in charge of running schoolboy rugby.
However, Smail acknowledged Canterbury Rugby has a duty to work through the issues with all schools. He said he hopes to get the principals together in the coming weeks.
"We'd obviously love to find a way to break through and understand what those problem areas are that require the boys' schools to head off and see if there's another alternative that we can explore together," said Smail.
"What we've had among the schools are some pretty brave conversations at times, and I think this is another example where we have to get together, hear out all sides and see if there's another way through."
NZ Rugby's general manager of community rugby Steve Lancaster said while the national body does not control the governance or delivery of the secondary school competitions, it does have an interest in the potential implications the proposed breakaway competition may have on "participation, equity and the schools that are excluded".
"We know many stakeholders look to NZR for resolution of such issues; however, we do not have authority over school competitions that are organised outside of Provincial Union administration. That said, we remain committed to advocating for inclusive, competitive, and accessible rugby pathways for all young people, regardless of the type of school they attend."
A spokesperson for the Sport Integrity Commission said the organisation could not confirm the existence or otherwise of any complaints before the organisation.
rnz.co.nz
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump tells NFL team to restore Redskins name or he'll pull stadium
Trump tells NFL team to restore Redskins name or he'll pull stadium

1News

time5 hours ago

  • 1News

Trump tells NFL team to restore Redskins name or he'll pull stadium

US President Donald Trump is threatening to hold up a new stadium deal for Washington's NFL team if it does not restore its old name of the Redskins that was considered offensive to Native Americans. Trump also said on Sunday that he wants Cleveland's baseball team to revert to its former name, the Indians, saying there was a "big clamouring for this" as well. The Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians have had their current names since the 2022 seasons, and both have said they have no plans to change them back. Trump said the Washington football team would be "much more valuable" if it restored its old name. "I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington Redskins,' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders,'' I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington," Trump said on his social media site. ADVERTISEMENT His latest interest in changing the name reflects his broader effort to roll back changes that followed a national debate on cultural sensitivity and racial justice. The team announced it would drop the Redskins name and the Indian head logo in 2020 during a broader reckoning with systemic racism and police brutality. The Commanders and the District of Columbia government announced a deal earlier this year to build a new home for the football team at the site the old RFK Stadium, the place the franchise called home for more than three decades. Trump's ability to hold up the deal remains to be seen. President Joe Biden signed a bill in January that transferred the land from the federal government to the District of Columbia. The provision was part of a short-term spending bill passed by Congress in December. While DC residents elect a mayor, a city council and commissioners to run day-to-day operations, Congress maintains control of the city's budget. Josh Harris, whose group bought the Commanders from former owner Dan Snyder in 2023, said earlier this year the name was here to stay. Not long after taking over, Harris quieted speculation about going back to Redskins, saying that would not happen. The team did not immediately respond to a request for comment following Trump's statement. The Washington team started in Boston as the Redskins in 1933 before moving to the nation's capital four years later. The Cleveland Guardians' president of baseball operations, Chris Antonetti, indicated before Sunday's game against the Athletics that there weren't any plans to revisit the name change. ADVERTISEMENT "We understand there are different perspectives on the decision we made a few years ago, but obviously it's a decision we made. We've got the opportunity to build a brand as the Guardians over the last four years and are excited about the future that's in front of us," he said. Cleveland announced in December 2020 it would drop Indians. It announced the switch to Guardians in July 2021. In 2018, the team phased out "Chief Wahoo' as its primary logo. The name changes had their share of supporters and critics as part of the national discussions about logos and names considered racist. Trump posted Sunday afternoon that "The Owner of the Cleveland Baseball Team, Matt Dolan, who is very political, has lost three Elections in a row because of that ridiculous name change. What he doesn't understand is that if he changed the name back to the Cleveland Indians, he might actually win an Election. Indians are being treated very unfairly. MAKE INDIANS GREAT AGAIN (MIGA)!" Matt Dolan, the son of the late Larry Dolan, no longer has a role with the Guardians. He ran the team's charity endeavours until 2016. Matt Dolan was a candidate in the Ohio US Senate elections in 2022 and 2024 but lost. Washington and Cleveland had another thing in common — David Blitzer was a member of Harris' ownership group with the Commanders and held a minority stake in the Guardians.

Analysis: Consumed by Epstein, Trump has lost ground on the economy and immigration
Analysis: Consumed by Epstein, Trump has lost ground on the economy and immigration

NZ Herald

time11 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Analysis: Consumed by Epstein, Trump has lost ground on the economy and immigration

Other recent surveys find significant dissatisfaction with Trump's handling of the economy. When he was sworn in, Trump promised a new 'Golden Age'. It's clear that, six months into his presidency, the public isn't buying all the hype. Trump would like nothing better than to point to successes in his second term, and he has had some. The swirling Epstein controversy makes that difficult. Trump has tried to dismiss the controversy as Democratic-manufactured fakery, though this was always an issue generated by conspiracy theorists in the President's base. He wants Attorney-General Pam Bondi to seek the release of pertinent grand jury testimony, a dodge that doesn't address demands for full transparency. For now, he seems stuck, unless his threatened lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over a story that says he sent a risqué 50th birthday note to Epstein (which he denies) consolidates his base. The White House would like to change the subject, but when press secretary Karoline Leavitt tried to do that at the top of her Thursday briefing (Friday NZT), her lengthy opening statement helped to highlight apparent concerns about public sentiment on both the economy and immigration. Leavitt reeled off statistics trying to make the case that the economy is working for people. She provided citations of arrests as evidence that Trump is ridding the country of migrants with violent criminal records. It will take more than that to drown out the Epstein controversy and change public opinion about his other policies. Trump's successes This comes at a moment when the president has notched some clear successes. Congress approved the big tax cut and immigration bill. The Supreme Court has given him some victories, including a green light to fire thousands of federal workers. The airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities has brought a ceasefire between Iran and Israel and set back Iran's nuclear programme. Nato nations have agreed to increase defence spending. This past week Trump agreed to send Patriot air defence systems to Ukraine, paid for by the Europeans. That decision came after his public complaints about Russian President Vladimir Putin's continued assault on Ukraine and public perceptions that the Russian leader has played the American president on the issue of a ceasefire and settlement of the war. Immigration and raids Trump also has delivered on his campaign promise to tighten security at the US-Mexico border. Illegal crossings are at a low point. His problem is that people don't like other aspects of his immigration policy: the aggressive round-ups of undocumented and sometimes legal migrants, the deployment of US military forces to Los Angeles to quell protests, numerous legal battles over the deportations that have pitted the Administration against the courts. All have contributed to the reshaping of public opinion. The result is something Trump could never have imagined when he was sworn in: The public now sees the value of immigration more positively, and widespread deportations and the Administration's enforcement tactics less positively. Last year, 55% of Americans said they wanted a reduction in immigration, according to Gallup. Today, that's dropped to 30%. Gallup also notes that a record 79% of Americans say immigration is a good thing for the country. That's a 15% jump in the past year. Meanwhile, support for hiring more border agents, which is supposed to happen under the new 'big, beautiful bill' the President signed on July 4, has declined by 17% in the past year. Support for deporting all undocumented immigrants has dropped nine points, to 38%. In the Gallup poll, support for allowing undocumented immigrants to become US citizens has risen eight points to 78% - though that's a bit lower than the 84% in 2016. The percentage of Republicans who support a path to citizenship has risen from 46% a year ago to 59% today. The Washington Post's average of high-quality polls shows a clear deterioration in Trump's approval rating on immigration. In May, the average showed Americans evenly divided. The average so far in July shows 42% saying they approve and 54% disapproving. The protests that erupted in early June appear to be the catalyst for a reappraisal of Trump on immigration. Before the protests, his immigration approval rating was 49% positive, 49% negative. Since then, the average of the post-protests polls shows his standing at 42% positive, 54% negative. The economy and tariffs Before he was sworn in, public expectations for Trump were highest on the economy and immigration, according to a Washington Post-Schar School poll of swing state voters. In that survey, 62% said they expected Trump to do an 'excellent' or 'good' job on the economy and 59% said they thought he would do an 'excellent' or 'good' job on immigration. Also, 46% said they thought his presidency would help their finances, with 31% saying it would hurt them financially. Until the pandemic took hold in the northern spring of 2020, Trump enjoyed relatively strong ratings on the economy. Things deteriorated during the pandemic and judgments were about evenly divided just before the 2020 election. Today the public is dissatisfied with his economic performance. An Associated Press-NORC Centre for Public Affairs survey last week showed that 38% approved of his economic management and 60% disapproved. A Quinnipiac University poll put his economic approval numbers only slightly better: 43% approving, 55% disapproving. In the AP-NORC poll, nearly half (49%) said his policies have done more to hurt them than help them. About one in four (27%) said they have done more to help them. The rest said the policies have not made a difference. A majority said the new tax bill will do more to help the wealthy and that it will hurt people with lower incomes. In the Quinnipiac poll, 40% said they approved of his handling of trade, with 56% disapproving. Predictions that Trump's tariffs will trigger a major new bout of inflation have not been borne out, though all the tariffs are not in place. The Federal Reserve has been cautious about cutting interest rates because of the uncertainty around the tariffs. Trump continues to badger Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, whom he would like replaced, to cut those rates substantially. Many economists say a cut of the size Trump wants would risk an inflationary spike. There's history to buttress those concerns. In 1972, President Richard Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns, and the subsequent loosening of monetary policy helped unleash an inflationary rise. Trump continues to accumulate power in the presidency and exercise it to change government and major institutions. He plays a dominant role in the world. But his six-month report card provides indications that the public hasn't fully bought into his programme, warnings that he can't easily ignore.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store