Yes you did start some stuff, because that statement makes no sense whatsoever. And of course JRutledge "totally agrees" because he is used to arguing points that make no sense as well.
What does the color of ones skin or the plumbing in ones body have to do with whether or not someone has the ability to officiate a game? There are many fantastic officials at all levels that are of all races and genders. I would venture a guess that these are not the reasons that this assignor has developed this criteria for hire with all factors being equal. S/He probably has developed it because the amount of females and minorities calling ball or disproportiate. If the numbers were more proportionate, I would guess that this criteria would not play as big a role in hiring decisions and others factors would play in. This hiring order is not all that different from what you see in business today, therefore I would expect it to be the same here. Also, let me say that I am not opposed to this practice either. I believe that all things being equal, females and minoriities should be considered for positions over white males if the data shows that these populations are under-represented in the organization. Everyone should have an equal opportunity is the bottom line.
This is probably not the right forum to discuss this topic. It just chaps me when people say that people should be assigned to games because of their gender or race and not because of merit alone! Off my soapbox now.
|