Age-ism Bias
 

As I look over and reflect on the various games I've seen this season, it seems as though I have seen about as many "older" refs as I have "younger refs" working games. Even crews wherein one ref is noticeably younger or older than the other one (or two). It is refreshing to see that age-ism is a factor that assignors (at least in my area) are aware controlling.
Similar trend on these NCAA games I have been watching--older refs with younger refs--well done assignors.

At least at the NCAA level, it seems that there are guys you really do not know their age. Guys that look much younger are actually older than many people think. One of the benefits for staying in shape and other products that might hide other age determiners like dye. ;)

Peace

Isn't it still a form of ageism if assignors are selecting officials with the intent to avoid the appearance of favoring any a specific age group?

For example, on a 3-man crew, the first official is selected based on his/her qualifications and happens to be 61 years old. The next best official (based on evaluations, ratings, etc) is 57 years old and gets a spot on the crew. But that last spot comes down to the 3rd best official available in the pool, a 62 year old, and the 10th best official in the pool, a 32 year old. The rankings are based on a combination of current and past performance evaluations. If the 32 year old gets selected just because the crew already has 2 older refs, then the 62 year old has been discriminated against because he's old.

You could apply this to any "-ism". The key to deciding on if it is inappropriate is if the decision was made based on the element in question (race, age, gender, etc). Qualification should always be the biggest factor in decisions like this, but there are plenty of other factors that would be completely appropriate to use in selecting the 32 year old in my example. If you want the 32 year old to learn from the two best officials in the pool, that is an acceptable reason to put him out there. If the thought is I'm making sure to protect the opportunities for one group in this case, it comes at the expense of limiting opportunities for another group.

@JRut: ha ha--well, I guess the ''just for men" conditioners really work--and there's prolly lots of dyed towels in their hotel rooms that the refs had used for hair dyeing.

@Boomersooners: OK, so based on what you're postulating with the "method of selecting officials" example---then age-related bias could still be in-effect even though it may appear to be an "age-balanced" crew.

But my main point upon which this observation of age-balanced crews was noted is that --at least on the surface--there is some level of equity no?

I always leaned toward younger officials being put with vets so they could learn more. Never really crossed my mind they did it for bias purposes.

I don't know that calling what we are discussing is actually a bias or "ageism". If age (or race, gender, etc.) is used as a determining factor in making the decision, then it is a form of discrimination even if the goal is to avoid the appearance of bias or discrimination. The intent may be genuinely good, but it boils down to an official missing out on an assignment because of his/her age and not ability or qualification. Other than a narrow subset of exceptions, I don't think this is a good practice even if the intention is good.

Dad's point of pairing more experienced and less experienced officials together to provide mentorship is perfectly acceptable. The term younger and less-experienced are often used interchangeably, but in Dad's case I think he's suggesting experience is the determining factor.