‘Minorities’ aren’t who you think they are on this state sports board | Opinion
Fight, MSHSAA, fight.
That would be my advice to the more than 720 members of the Missouri State High School Activities Association, a private nonprofit organization that governs high school sports and other activities in the state. The organization is being sued by state and federal officials over its diversity policy.
When former Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey claimed white men were being left behind because of Starbucks’ diversity, equity and inclusion policies, the corporate coffee giant challenged the state’s argument in court and won.
MSHSAA should do the same.
I say this with all sincerity to my white male brethren from around the state: A policy implemented to ensure underrepresented groups have a seat at the decision-making table isn’t a slight against you.
Representation matters.
Besides, 70% of current MSHSAA board members are white men. If you ask me, the board needs more diversity, not less.
According to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway’s office and Cassville Superintendent Merlyn Johnson, MSHSAA denied Johnson one of two at-large seats on the organization’s 10-person board because he is a white man.
Nevermind that Johnson was eligible to run for one of eight in-district seats, according to MSHSAA officials.
In the lawsuit, Johnson claims he was told he did not qualify for the position solely because of his race and sex. Later in this column, I will try to make a rational case of why he wasn’t the victim of race- or sex-based discrimination.
Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to intervene in what I could only describe as the state’s cultural war against MSHSAA. In a news release, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said racial and sexual quotas are offensive, demeaning and illegal.
“They are especially harmful when they exclude qualified candidates such as Dr. Johnson from public service,” she said.
According to the lawsuit, MSHSAA allegedly violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating against Johnson. But the DOJ’s argument in court documents that MSHSAA is a state actor that lacks a compelling interest in having a diverse board of directors is fundamentally flawed.
Any organization that represents a wide range of public and private middle- and high school students, administrators and others from different parts of the state has not only a vested interest in diverse perspectives, but an obligatory one.
MSHSAA officials have repeatedly denied its policy is discriminatory. And if you read the actual verbiage, the organization could and should be able to make a compelling case in court against the assertions being made by state and federal officials.
“The Missouri State High School Activities Association is aware of the U.S. Department of Justice’s filing seeking permission from the court to intervene in pending litigation concerning the Association’s board selection process,” MSHSAA spokesman Andrew Kauffman wrote in an email. “As we’ve previously stated, MSHSAA respectfully disagrees with the allegations contained in the filings.”
Policy not discriminatory
The policy in question reads: “These (at-large) positions are filled by candidates representing either the under-represented gender of the current board or an under-represented ethnicity of the current board, to further represent the needs and desires of all member schools and student-athletes.”
But the most important part of this legal fight that state and federal officials may have overlooked: According to MSHSAA, the policy is designed to diversify the 10-member board and requires candidates to meet the same base qualifications as other members, with the focus shifting based on board demographics.
For example, if the roles were reversed and the majority of the board were African Americans or women, then the underrepresented group — white men in that case — would be eligible for the at-large spots. That’s not racist or sexist. To me, that’s a fair and equitable policy to ensure no one group is left out.
Instead of being sued, MSHSAA should be applauded for recognizing an issue and addressing it to see that more diverse voices and backgrounds were included on its board of directors.
Why is DOJ investigating?
MSHSAA was formed in 1926. About 22 years ago, the organization expanded its board from eight to 10 directors. According to its own research, MSHSAA found that prior to the addition of the at-large provision, no woman or member of a minority group (with the possibility of one exception) had been elected to serve on the board through the normal nomination process.
I find it rather ironic that the DOJ would challenge a policy that ensures a nonprofit’s board includes perspectives and representation from underrepresented groups. Logically, that just doesn’t make sense to me.
In this country, the DOJ is supposed to enforce federal law and protect civil rights, not dismantle, subvert or fight against them. Why would the federal government waste valuable time and resources litigating this?
It’s been widely reported that the DOJ has spent considerable time and money going after President Donald Trump’s perceived enemies and targeting institutions that promote fairness. In Trump’s MAGA-verse, diversity, equity and inclusion is frowned upon — which would track in this instance.
MSHSAA’s policy constitutes “systematic unconstitutional race and sex-based discrimination,” DOJ officials argued in court documents.
But if you study the demographics of MSHSAA’s board — currently composed of seven white men, two white women and one African American man — you would be hard-pressed to say white men are being systematically excluded from serving.
This story was originally published April 7, 2026 at 5:08 AM.
