Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey
Probably, but I don't think that was Nevada's point. I think this is ultimately about equality.
First of all, there's no such thing as "reverse discriminaton/sexism/bigotry." It either is or it isn't. If you use race/gender/creed/color/sexual orientation/etc. in your evaluation of somone, that flies in the face of equality, period. I think we can all agree with that.
If I'm comprehending Nevada's words correctly, I believe he wants to evaluate officials as individuals, and not favor any group based on the aforementioned. I can't honestly see what's wrong with that.
|
There are some who would disagree with this. At least, they would disagree with the idea that you shouldn't consider these criteria when assigning games. Rut has mentioned several times that it is helpful to have a racially mixed crew working a racially mixed game. That flies in the face of equality (although I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment).
Also, the counter to the point you impute to Nevada (I think you may be correct in your assessment of his point, but he can speak for himself) is that currently the men's side does not have equal opportunity for women to officiate. I have no idea whether this is true, as I have not been a woman trying to work men's college ball; nor have I really talked with any who have to get a better understanding.