Ah yes, I had forgotten.

*facepalm*

Not WNIT!:eek:

There is a WNIT?

Who knew. :)

You know I cannot say you cannot learn something here all the time.

Peace

I only knew because a guy in my new association down here was going to a game hosted by USF here in St Pete. I did not seek it out.:cool:

Tom, I don't want to come across as blowing this off. I'm definitely not doing that.

I'm well aware of the racism that haunts our history and our present. While it's not nearly as pervasive as it used to be, nor is it considered at all acceptable in any circles I've been in; I know it's still there.

I doubt whether there are currently people in power who don't think blacks are smart enough for the jobs you mention. Well, that may not be true. I doubt there are a significant amount. While one is too many, the unfortunate fact is that racists are not generally cured. They die off.

Racism is slowly (too slowly) dying because the children and grandchildren of racists are interacting with children of other races. They are playing, working, and fighting along side each other.

Maybe part of my problem is I'm too analytical. I'm trying to analyze a problem that is essentially one of the human condition. If blacks are being supressed in the officiating ranks, it seems to me there would be statistical evidence to back it up. The problem is figuring out a few things to determine whether this is true.

First of all, what's the break down of the officiating population as a whole? Does the break down of NCAA tourney refs represent that?

Maybe that's not the proper comparison. Maybe we should compare it to players; but I don't think so.

I suppose the best way would be to find the racial breakdown of the personality types that are most likely to officiate and compare that to another impossible number; the breakdown of officials everywhere at all levels.

I realize this issue is extremely complex, and attempting to break it down into numbers can come across as insulting. That's not my intent.

First of all can we stop talking about racism alone? Racism is about a feeling of superiority of one race over another. This is not about an individual, this is about an institution. You might at one time had people with certain feelings, but that is not as clear anymore considering the places people now come from and the age of those attitudes not being acceptable. The best example of this is the way college football coaches are hired. There is a system and a structure in place that would not even consider Black players to become coaches, then coordinators, then head coaches. It is kind of hard to get to a level when people do not think you can work at the lowest of levels. Then once they work at similar levels, then you do not have your alumni get behind those coaches to run the program. Things are changing but there is a long way to go.

We need to discuss discrimination or institutional racism which means the system and the workings of the system did not give all people an opportunity. You can have individuals who are not personally racist or sexiest for example, but still have an institution to run that accomplishes the same thing. Women's college basketball has gone out of their way to recruit, develop and identify qualified officials. There is a coordinator that goes out and identifies younger women and even African-American officials and gives them games at the lower college levels and grooms them to be D1 officials down the road. So much that many males are left out and get upset about that fact.

The way you overcome that institutional action is to change in the inter-working of that institution which John has already done by advocating younger officials and advocating the philosophies he used when the coordinator of the Horizon League. John hires good people, but it is possible there was a structure in place he is willing to change. I know he has advocated a national system instead of the usual each conference assigning games. That might open things up to all kinds of people. I will not mention names, but 15-20 years ago, guys were getting opportunities at the D1 level because they were asked to work the game, unlike they have to go to camps to get a sniff at the college ranks. That is not a knock on them, it just is the truth. I am sure there were not the efforts to get a broader pool of officials from different places like there is today. That did not have to just deal with race, that could have been where you live and who you knew personally.

Also keep in mind John does not make the decisions about the assignments, the committee does. He has input, but he does not just have the final say. They take information from John's system and conferences have to make recommendations, but it is not all on John's shoulders and it is really unfair to credit him with this burden.

Peace

I'm glad the moderators have not shut this thread down yet. The only way we can get past some of this stuff is to just let it out. I hope we can let it out in a respectful manner.

Real quick before I go to bed.
Rut, that's exactly what I'm looking for. It'll give me something to chew on tonight.

Tomegun, you're exactly right and I was just thinking the same thing. Everyone has done a good job of staying on topic, I think, and keeping their heads.

This is a good thing.

Is SEVERAL enough? (anyone have a definition of "several"?)

My point is, if you want a certain minority to reach the top level, then you need a large enough pool of that certain minority advancing through the ranks.

If your favorite minority is blacks, then I am not informed. I have not seen a count that anyone has made.

We have a certain minority here that I have not seen do HS varsity games. But when I try to think of that minority doing subvarsity games, I can think of only 1 in our area and that person is moving up the ranks by doing a good job. However, there certainly is not a pool of any sort to choose from when assigning varsity games. Is that discrimination? And is everyone, regardless of minority status or majority status, qualified to work at the highest level?

VERY WELL STATED TOMEGUN!!!

I don't disagree with anything you've just said. Real and valid cases of racial discrimination and racism have existed and even still exist and should be dealt with.

But, care must be taken not to claim broad racism exists in areas where the data just doesn't support the claims. That will only hurt the ability to address real cases.

The point of the following is to illustrate that, sometimes, perceived imbalances and attempts to have action taken don't always come out as hoped. The group trying to make a point about inequities would have been better served to consider the situation from a neutral point of view before making a issue...

A few years ago, a local unionized employer had a grievance filed against it by a group of black employees with the claim that they were being discriminated against in overall job hiring. The employer, rather than taking a position on the issue, referred the issue to an external agency that was well respected in matter of minority affairs. After they completed their study, they released their conclusion. Their conclusion was that minorities in general were only slightly underrepresented and but blacks were substantially overrepresented based on the local population and the company needed to hire more Hispanics and Asians and fewer blacks. Needless to say, the group that filed the grievance was a bit upset with the result

{wow} When will we understand the difference between those forced to be/born an American & those who come here of their own free will? Helluva difference...

What is the solution?

In College Soccer officiating the push for diversity has resulted in Female and/or Minority referees being able to go to the pre-season NISOA camp on a full scholarship simply by indicating on the application that they are a minority. A non minority camper can not get a full scholarship unless they have secured written recommendations from current "National Referees" (Big Dogs), and/or conference assignor, and is not automatically granted.

Local referee associations are "encouraged" to subsidize or arrange free assessments which non-minority referees are required to pay $80 or 1/2 of the game fee whichever is higher to the certified assessor.

I firmly believe in non discrimination and equal opportunity. I also believe that reverse discrimination is wrong especially when I am forced to financially subsidize it.

No one is forced to be/stay an American. This Country has no impediments to leaving. A person who believes that their God given rights can be better realized elsewhere have the freedom to act on that belief.

If you really feel this way then you should really be in favor of equal opportunity and affirmative action. Those things exist for a reason and the argument against them would only seem to prolong it.

See, I don't know of anyone who can say racism and/or discrimination doesn't exist. Someone was thoughtful enough to put certain mechanisms in place to combat this. For the people who would want to do things fairly, the argument shouldn't be with those discriminated against, it should be those doing the discriminating. Flush them out and tell them, "Would you knock this off? Your actions are costing me!"

People who do this should be social outcasts. Sure, it will never happen because many of these people, and their friends, are in positions of power. But still the argument may be directed at the wrong group because we know this is real.

When are we going to get rid of these labels? I don't refer to myself as an African American because I've never been to Africa. As a matter of fact, my ancestors may have been here before some people referred to as Caucasians. Doesn't that make me more of an American than them? Where is the term European American? I would think that would be more PC.

As time goes by, those boundaries are being broken down because more people are mixed.