MEN OR WOMEN

[Kevzebra]

Originally posted by Zebra1
A little off subject, but in my position, my officiating friends are calling me crazy. I have a SOLID chance of going D1 Womens next season. My thing is I absolutly love working a good HS boys game over a college womens game. I like the play better, and not to open another can of worms, but working in front of sold out gyms and arenas is awesome. I think the only way you'll work in a sold out gym for women's is to work at UConn, Tenn, Duke........... My thing is if I do get picked up on the Men's side this year, I will be starting at the bottom again and probably have to work my way up the ladder a little bit longer. Anybody ever been in this sitch? Any comments would be appreciated.

My thoughts are this: If you enjoy doing HS, then stay there. If you are merely going to Womens D1 to say "hey I am a D1 official", then you need to move on to some other avocation. You will still have a "pecking order" to get through at whatever level you go to (and yes this order includes ME)! You have to love the game you do, whether it is HS, College or Pro. If all you want is to pump up your ego by officiating, then stay wherever you are.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by BBall_Junkie
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?

Nothing. And no one said it did. Not sure what you're complaining about here.

S/He probably has developed it because the amount of females and minorities calling ball or disproportiate. 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.

So then what are you complaining about? That's all Homey and Rut said should happen. For years and years, women's basketball had been dominated by male officials (and to a lesser extent coaches). This is bad for two reasons.

1) Women were disproportionately represented in the officiating ranks, just as you mentioned.

2) The participants in the games were women, yet women were the underrepresented group, as Homey pointed out.

Now assignors for women's conferences are trying bring more female officials into their ranks to eliminate those disparities.

Why ream Rut for nothing? There's plenty of other stuff he says that's wrong. It sounds to me like you agree on this one.

[BBall_Junkie]

I took the comment "Those are the people playing the game. Those should be the people reffing the game" to mean that only women should ref womens games and that games that involve mostly minorities, minorities should ref those games. In other words the demographics of who is PLAYING should determine who calls the game. If that is not what was meant and I misunderstood, then I apologize.

The point I was making was people should be chosen to officiate on merit. If assignors were to hire officials based on the way I interpreted the comment above there would not be equal opp and we would lose a lot of good officials.

Now if you have equally qualified officials from each category we have talked about and you only have one female on staff, then the equally qualified (to the white male official candidate) female ought to get a shot. That is all I am saying.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by BBall_Junkie


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.

Of course it does not make sense to you, it is not your way of thinking.

Originally posted by BBall_Junkie

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?

The exact same as where an official lives, what school they graduated from and what school they support (giving money to an Athletic Program for example) might play apart in what conferences you might be able to work or not. Cooperate America does this all the time. Ask Walgreens why when I go to their stores on 53rd and Ashland (Englewood area, All-Black community), why the entire staff is African-American? But when I come to the Western Suburbs, there are not one African-American in the entire store? Ya think it might be because Walgreens recognizes their customer base would like to see people like themselves working behind the counter? I was a Manager for a Walgreens Store (the Ashland one BTW) and that is exactly the objective that Walgreens lives by. Walgreens in Manager training would instruct the hiring of staff based on factors that reflected the community the store would be located. I am sure the Assignors of Conferences try to accomplish the same thing. You might have to tell McDonald's and Burger King the same thing, if you feel race has nothing to do with their marketing or hiring practices in certain communities.

Originally posted by BBall_Junkie

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.

Well merit is a fallacy. Just try to apply to college an not indicate where you live, who your parents are (did they attend that school or not), what your background is and yes, what your race is. Even if the Supreme Court rules against the University of Michigan on the Affirmative Action case, I wonder how many in the opposition is going to court over the Michigan residents that get consideration over non-residents? I wonder if you will be outraged at the extra points the folks in the "Upper Peninsula" get for just living in that part of Michigan? I wonder will you be outraged of my legacy status if I apply to the University of Michigan Law school (Mother, sister and brother all attended the University of Michigan)? So just because my family members attended the University of Michigan, I get extra points or consideration because of that fact alone. I am also sure since my Mother recieved her Ph.D at that University, it might help if she know someone on the Committee of Law Admissions. Now let us say I graduate from the University of Michigan Law School, ya think it might not have an affect how many Big Ten games I do if I ever earn the opportunity to go D1? I don't know, let us put an official that was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan, attended the University of Michigan (Family too now) and put him on the Michigan-Illinois game that will decide the conference title (probably will not happen for a few years, considering Michigan is on probation and all ) compared to an Official that lives in Hammond, IN and attended Florida Atlantic and grew up in St. Petersburg, Florida? I think the choice is a little easier. It may never happen that exact way, but I guess the Big Ten PR machine is not going like the first choice if anything goes wrong in favor of Michigan in this hypothetical game.

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Well merit is a fallacy. Just try to apply to college an not indicate where you live, who your parents are (did they attend that school or not), what your background is and yes, what your race is. Even if the Supreme Court rules against the University of Michigan on the Affirmative Action case, I wonder how many in the opposition is going to court over the Michigan residents that get consideration over non-residents? I wonder if you will be outraged at the extra points the folks in the "Upper Peninsula" get for just living in that part of Michigan? I wonder will you be outraged of my legacy status if I apply to the University of Michigan Law school (Mother, sister and brother all attended the University of Michigan)?

I'm not a lawyer but I believe the case hinges on race based preference simply because the constitution explicitely outlaws race as a means of discrimination - ie it says nothing about "legacy", where you live, etc.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by BBall_Junkie
I took the comment "Those are the people playing the game. Those should be the people reffing the game" to mean that only women should ref womens games and that games that involve mostly minorities, minorities should ref those games.

Ok, I see a little better what was eating at you. I interpreted it similarly, only without the "only" that I underlined in the above quote. I thought he was saying since women play the games, women ought not to be underrepresented in the officiating ranks. And I would agree with that. Likewise, if a given league is made up of 95% black athletes, I would think that the officiating roster ought not to be 95% white officials. I would also agree with what you wrote in your last post.

I think we're on the same page.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Official Hommie
Have you ever heard of an old boy network? I did not realize that was based on merit.

It's not. And nobody said it was. Your initial post was a good one and thought-provoking. Try not to let yourself get side-tracked by muddying the discussion with something that has no bearing on the issue. Just my two cents.

[fletch_irwin_m]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

I'm not a lawyer but I believe the case hinges on race based preference simply because the constitution explicitely outlaws race as a means of discrimination - ie it says nothing about "legacy", where you live, etc.

You are correct. Lawyers were able to argue that UM's admission policy was unconstitutional because it was a race based discrimination, which is unconstitutional. Discrimination based on legacy, geography and financial situation are perfectly legal. What would be interesting would be if a "Private" college, say Hope College for you Michiganders or Wheaton for you Illini, had the same type of point system for admissions that UM did. Now THAT would be a can of worms!

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Dan_ref


I'm not a lawyer but I believe the case hinges on race based preference simply because the constitution explicitely outlaws race as a means of discrimination - ie it says nothing about "legacy", where you live, etc.

I understand what the case is about, but my point is that people get so outraged over a factor like race, but you do not get upset over another preference which involves race. There are not many "Upper Peninsula" people that look much like me. I would also bet that the majority of legacies are not African-American either. Espcially when there was a time that African-Americans were not allowed in Michigan or any of the other major Universities in this country. Do not say (I am not saying you specifically, for the record ) that merit should be your only factor for considering "qualifications," but you consider factors of previledge which have undertones of race involved.

BTW, my Mother who recieved her Ph.D from Michigan, recieved her undergrad at Florida A&M University, was not allowed to attend the University of Florida in Grad School, because of segregation or because of her race. She was given money (by the State of Florida) to go out of state, but not allowed to attend Universities in her home State of Florida. She went on to attend the University Of Wisconsin at Madison for her Masters and went on the Michigan for her Piled, high and Deep. And this example is just one of many of why people are for the University of Michigan and other universities that have racial considerations for admissions.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by fletch_irwin_m


You are correct. Lawyers were able to argue that UM's admission policy was unconstitutional because it was a race based discrimination, which is unconstitutional. Discrimination based on legacy, geography and financial situation are perfectly legal. What would be interesting would be if a "Private" college, say Hope College for you Michiganders or Wheaton for you Illini, had the same type of point system for admissions that UM did. Now THAT would be a can of worms!

And Lawyers for the UM said that it was not unconstitutional and a way to achieve diversity, just like the other many factors in the point system. And this to many is not unconstitutional. You know it is not like the court has not said that Affirmative Action was legal or right in past cases.

Peace

[fletch_irwin_m]

Three basic problem's with your argument.
The first is assuming that what is right is legal and what is legal is right. These often can be polar opposites.
The second is that the UM lawyers lost their argument. The court ruled that you can not give points based on race. Just as you can not give points based on religion or gender. Constitutionally you ARE allowed to give points for being from the UP or for being left handed if you want to.
Finally, the courts have never ruled SPECIFICALLY on Affirmative Action.
The bottom line is, in line with this thread, officiating, as with any other job starts with who you know. If you are friends with a supervisor, you are probably going to get looks that you may not get if you are not "networked". A great addage I have found to be fairly accurate "WHO you knows can get you a job, but WHAT you know can keep your job."

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Official Hommie
Just wanted to state that there are other factors outside merit that get us hired. I do not consider that being side tracked.

Fair enough. I don't think anybody will disagree with you, either. It sounded to me like you were trying to say that NCAA women's officials are chosen through the "old boys network". I misunderstood. My bad. Keep posting, and I'll try to read better.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by fletch_irwin_m
Three basic problem's with your argument.
The first is assuming that what is right is legal and what is legal is right. These often can be polar opposites.
The second is that the UM lawyers lost their argument. The court ruled that you can not give points based on race. Just as you can not give points based on religion or gender. Constitutionally you ARE allowed to give points for being from the UP or for being left handed if you want to.
Finally, the courts have never ruled SPECIFICALLY on Affirmative Action.
The bottom line is, in line with this thread, officiating, as with any other job starts with who you know. If you are friends with a supervisor, you are probably going to get looks that you may not get if you are not "networked". A great addage I have found to be fairly accurate "WHO you knows can get you a job, but WHAT you know can keep your job."

I really do not want to debate all the merits of Affirmative Action or not, mainly because I do not have all the necessary facts in front of me. But the Backey vs Cal-Berkeley was a case about Affirmative Acton. There was also another one dealing with the University of Texas, which are cited as decisions against "Affirmative Action." So there have been cases besides this one in considering "Affirmative Action" practices.

Actually I am with Official Hommie on this one, I just think there are other factors where race/gender play a factor, but we look the other way. Race, just like what region you are from makes a difference in whether you get hired or not. If you live in Chicago, you are much more likely to get hired as a D1 Officials (different sports too) than if you live in Colchester, Illinois. Mainly because the official that lives in Colchester is not near a major airport and the official in the Chicago area is. I only want to say that merit seems to be a small part in making a decision, if it is based on merit at all. And when you talk about merit, who is making the decision on what is valued as an official and what is not? And if I am the assignor, I can use any criteria that I choose as long as the officials are doing the job. That might not be the same thing that everyone can come to an agreement on but if I am making the decisions, everyone's opinion is not an issue. Which happen in our region with many D1 Officials when a new assignor came into the conferences that they worked. Many were not asked back.

Peace