It's just a blanket to keep us quiet
In the sun-warmed arenas of Southern California, a recurring question about fairness and identity has taken on new urgency: when a society commits to inclusion, how does it also honor the integrity of competition? AB Hernandez's sweep of the jumping events at the CIF Southern Section finals has made Moorpark a focal point in a national debate that no podium arrangement has yet managed to settle. California's 2013 law and the CIF's co-champion rule represent genuine attempts to hold two values at once — but the athletes standing in the shadow of that podium suggest the balance has not yet been found.
- AB Hernandez swept all three jumping events at the CIF Southern Section finals for the second consecutive weekend, reigniting a fierce debate over competitive fairness in California high school athletics.
- The CIF's co-champion rule — designed to soften the collision between inclusion and fairness — is being called a cosmetic fix by female athletes who say it only applies to finals, leaving an entire season of displacement unaddressed.
- Olivia Viola, who finished behind Hernandez in the high jump, went on national television to argue that a shared medal does not restore what was lost in the regular season, where no retroactive remedy exists.
- Critics contend that the very existence of the co-champion rule is an implicit admission that the competition is unequal — a procedural patch over a structural problem.
- The U.S. Department of Justice has now filed a Title IX lawsuit against California's education agencies, pulling the state's athletic policies into a federal legal battle that will outlast this track season.
On a Saturday afternoon in Moorpark, AB Hernandez swept the high jump, long jump, and triple jump at the CIF Southern Section finals — a second consecutive weekend of dominance. When medals were handed out, Hernandez stood at the top of the podium alongside other athletes, all designated co-champions. The arrangement was unusual by design.
California's Assembly Bill 1266, passed in 2013, requires schools to allow students to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity. To navigate that law, CIF adopted a rule: when a transgender athlete finishes first, the biological female athlete directly behind automatically receives an identical co-champion designation. Officials framed it as a balance between inclusion and fairness. Female competitors called it theater.
Olivia Viola, a track athlete at Crean Lutheran who finished behind Hernandez in the high jump, appeared on national television to explain why the rule felt hollow. The co-champion designation, she noted, applies only to the final CIF state qualifier meets — not to the regular season, where female athletes are displaced in leagues, invitationals, and dual meets without any retroactive correction. Those losses simply stand.
For many critics, the co-champion rule inadvertently reveals its own inadequacy: if officials felt compelled to create it, they were already acknowledging that something about the competition wasn't fair. The fix, they argue, addresses only the most visible moment while leaving the underlying tension intact. The rule also translates poorly beyond individual sports — in wrestling or soccer, a co-champion designation offers no practical meaning.
California's governor's office has defended the 2013 law as essential protection against discrimination, leaving CIF with little room to act unilaterally. But the dispute has now moved to federal court. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a Title IX lawsuit against California's education agencies, arguing the state's policies violate federal protections for equal opportunity in education. With the State Finals in Clovis approaching, the question of how to hold inclusion and competitive fairness in the same hand remains, for now, unanswered.
AB Hernandez crossed the finish line first again on Saturday afternoon at the California Interscholastic Federation Southern Section finals in Moorpark, sweeping the three jumping events—high jump, long jump, and triple jump. It was the second consecutive weekend of dominance. But when the medals were distributed, something unusual happened: Hernandez stood on the top step of the podium alongside other athletes, all designated as co-champions.
This shared podium arrangement exists because of a rule CIF adopted to navigate California's 2013 law, which requires schools to allow students to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity. When a transgender athlete finishes first, any biological female athlete placing directly behind automatically receives an identical co-champion designation. The intent, according to CIF, was to acknowledge both inclusion and fairness. The effect, according to female competitors, was something closer to theater.
Olivia Viola, a track athlete at Crean Lutheran High School who finished behind Hernandez in the high jump, appeared on a national news program to explain why the rule felt hollow. She described it as a band-aid—one that addressed only the most visible moment while leaving the underlying problem untouched. The co-champion designation, she pointed out, applies exclusively to the final CIF state qualifier meets. It does nothing for the regular season, where female athletes across California continue to be displaced in league competitions, invitationals, and dual meets. Those losses don't get retroactively adjusted. They simply stand.
The frustration runs deeper than a single athlete's performance. Hernandez, a senior from Jurupa Valley High School, has dominated the jumping events throughout the season. The shared podium images circulated widely, and they prompted a broader conversation about whether procedural fixes—giving everyone a medal, technically—actually solve the problem they're meant to address. Critics argue that if officials felt compelled to create a co-champion rule, they were implicitly acknowledging that something about the competition wasn't fair in the first place.
California's legal framework leaves little room for CIF to act unilaterally. Assembly Bill 1266, passed in 2013, is explicit: schools must allow students to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity. The state's governor's office has defended this framework as necessary protection against discrimination. But the law creates a collision between two competing values—inclusion and fairness—that no podium arrangement can fully resolve.
The tension extends beyond track and field. The shared podium system works, awkwardly, for individual sports where medals are awarded. It translates poorly to team sports or head-to-head competitions like wrestling or soccer, where a co-champion designation makes little practical sense. This inconsistency has become part of the larger complaint: that California's approach to transgender athletic participation is incomplete, applied unevenly, and leaves female athletes without meaningful recourse.
The dispute has now moved beyond the state level. Following Hernandez's dominant performances last year, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Title IX lawsuit against California's education agencies, arguing that the state's policies violate federal law protecting equal opportunity in education. The case positions California's athletic policies at the center of a national legal battle that will likely extend well beyond this track season. The State Finals in Clovis loom ahead, and the question of how to balance inclusion with competitive fairness remains unresolved.
Citas Notables
It's nothing but a band-aid fix from the athletic governing board. It doesn't actually undo all of the displacements that have happened throughout their entire league.— Olivia Viola, Crean Lutheran High School track athlete
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does the shared podium rule feel inadequate to athletes like Viola?
Because it only applies to the final state meets. A female athlete can lose her spot in league competition, invitationals, and dual meets throughout the season with no adjustment. The podium fix is cosmetic—it addresses the optics of one moment without touching the actual displacement that happened all year.
So the rule acknowledges unfairness while doing almost nothing to prevent it?
Exactly. If you're creating a co-champion rule, you're admitting the competition isn't fair. But then you're not actually fixing it—you're just making sure everyone gets a medal at the end. The damage is already done.
What about California's 2013 law? Doesn't that tie CIF's hands?
It does. Assembly Bill 1266 requires schools to allow participation consistent with gender identity. CIF can't simply exclude athletes. But the law doesn't address how to handle competitive outcomes, and that's where the real conflict lives.
Why does this matter beyond California?
Because the Department of Justice filed a Title IX lawsuit. This isn't just a state debate anymore. It's a federal question about what equal opportunity means when inclusion and fairness pull in different directions.
Can the shared podium rule be fixed, or is it fundamentally flawed?
It's fundamentally limited. You can't medal-adjust your way out of a structural problem. Until there's clarity on whether transgender athletes should compete in sex-segregated categories at all, every rule will feel like a patch on a deeper wound.