deecee's point is right on the money.

Any group that has complains about discrimination and lack of equality and fairness and is able to achieve and equal opportunity that then expects to receive preference and even is given preference is guilty of the same misdeeds that were put upon them in the past. If it is wrong in one direction, it can only be wrong when the roles are reversed. Equality is just that, it isn't revenge.

No one said a thing about overcompensating. Just saying I find no problem with 3 women official working a Final Four Championship or all African-Americans working a similar contest, when it is common place to see 3 white males work games most of the time. But when racial and gender minorities have that dynamic then it is outrageous?

Sorry, you lose me there.

Peace

"Get equality then overcompensate" :confused: I don't even know what that means.

I just find it funny when it's the minority (gay/black/female/etc), they are crying for equality. But if somehow the scales get overtilted in their favor, then the group that used to be in the majority (or in power) are now just merely pointing out injustices and just want everything done on merit. :rolleyes:

Guess my point is being missed by many. The idea of equality is a great one, the execution of it is a myth.

Whenever it's 3 white males no one bats an eye. But if it's 3 women or 3 minorities or 3 gays then something must be askew in the system and things need to be fixed now. :rolleyes:

Nothing needs to be fixed. And I do bat many eyes when I see some crews working some games. Old, overweight, old rule knowledge, etc.. But is picking a crew to make a point (this is speculation for arguments sake) that women have made it (3 women on the game) then that's absurd. And I can tell you that women are moved up much faster and are given more opportunity because of their gender. Some are even rushed way ahead of schedule to "balance" things out.

All I want is a system (in anything not just officiating) that is more objective and less subjective. That's my pipe dream.

Jeff, he's saying if you happen the get three black guys or three women on a crew due solely to merit, so be it. But don't go out of the way to make it happen.

I've seen many officials moved up faster than other more deserving officials: somebody's son or daughter; in the right fraternity; went to the same school as someone; being a Freemason; being a realtor when the assignor is a mortgage broker; working in the shipyard; having access to a contract for a rec league; being white; being black.

Women are shut out from the men's side. I can live with the Women's game wanting more female officials. At least it's pretty much in the open on the Women's side and not done in backrooms and in the dark like the above examples.

One would expect that the number of selected officials would, over a small period of time, tend to reflect the makeup of the population of officials within the relative group.

If the number of capable officials were split 50/50 among two demographic sets, you'd expect to see a, over a few years, a roughly 50/50 split among those demographic groups of those actually selected. It may not be exactly 50/50 but anything that skews far from that suggests preferential treatment (aka discrimination). The more it deviates from the expected averages, the more it looks like discrimination. Said more directly, if one gender/race makes up 20% of the group of officials, you'd expect that about 20% of the playoff assignments might be filled by that gender/race.

And it doesn't really matter what the makeup of the players are, they're not competing for the assignments. It is apples and oranges. There may be other reasons to make certain decisions along those lines, but that is a different matter. And if you want to open up that door, you could argue that the players don't reflect the makeup of the overall population so the players should be rebalanced to actually represent the population .

The problem is that when it happens it is automatically questioned by many as being a function of some type of affirmative action. And that thought process is no more just that someone looking at all white male crews and saying "they're only there b/c of the good ole boy system".

On the money in your opinion, misguided in mine.

It's not about getting revenge. It's about giving people, who have historically been denied it, opportunities.

As BNR points out people have ALWAYS advanced on things other than merit. And part of it is human nature to assign/hire people who look like you and you are comfortable with for whatever reason.

So in order to grow the qualified pool of people sometimes the powers that be must take "affirmative action" to begin selecting people who have been, in large part, shut out.

Would that be a big contract or a little one :p

PS. I just used women as an example, please don't infer that I think that's the only group that may get special "equal" treatment.

PPS. I didn't say that the group (women's final crew) was heinous, I started by defending Nevada's sentiment is all. Because in general it's one that I share (in most facets of life that is not just officiating).

At the cost of what?

+1000

The cost is no steeper than the cost of the current system/process (whatever system/process that may be) trying to be adjusted .

At the cost of some people's ideal and self-driven sense of equality.

So you would then agree that equality is just a myth?

So as long as it is your self-driven sense of equality that is being followed, it is ok.

Someone else is just "crying" if their self-driven sense of equality is not being followed and they point that out?

It's not a myth. I say by-and-large it is attainable. The myth is that all factors are created equal. In some places "who you know"/gender/race might get you in the door, but nothing else. In other places it might be what breaks the tie. In some other place it might not be a factor at all.

You question looks similar to my statement:

I think it is a myth to think that you can go from rampant, overt, covert, and systemic marginalization of certain groups of people from having opportunities to do certain things then expect to snap societies fingers and say, "ok from here on out it's even steven for everybody."

I think it's a myth to not realize that the effects of rampant, overt, covert, and systemic marginalization does not have lasting consequences and ramifications that effect generations of people.

I think it's a myth to think that we don't ALL have certain prejudices and biases based on personal identity, life experiences, etc. and that those things will not be factors in a number of decisions that we make.

I DON'T think it's a myth that one day society will move to the point where the masses and vast majority of people who make decisions and set policy do so in a way that creates an environment that is conducive to a relatively level playing field for all.

But I do think it's a myth to think that we are there yet or that we can get there without many of the considerations being mentioned in this thread.

Officials A, B and C are all equally skilled and qualified for an opening on a D-I Women's staff.

I have absolutely no issue with the supervisor telling me that they will be offering the contract to the other two officials over me simply because one is a female and one is a minority. I totally understand that.

Official A is clearly a better official, and the supervisor and several of the top members of the current staff tellofficial A that this is abundantly clear. But the supervisor is going to hire B and C because one is female and one is a minority. This I have a problem with, and is the situation that I was in. No, I am not crying or whining...just stating what happened. As I said before, that supervisor no longer is a supervisor because she promoted officials who were not ready for that level.

I think it is similar...I get that there are factors that need to be considered. I think it is counterproductive to throw words like "whining" and "crying" into a conversation like this when someone's opinion differs from mine or yours.

I agree with you that I wouldn't be happy. But I'm sure you realize there are folks out there who will say the exact same thing happened to them multiple times based on a certain demographic quality, but it wasn't out in the open. Those are the folks, who while they agree you were wronged, they are not up in arms about it b/c it has been a fact of life to them for years or decades.

That's a legit gripe and at least in your example, it worked itself out.

I also think that unfortunately this is an example of the "cost" that deecee asked about. And from many's perspective it is a cost that they have a particularly problem with.

But as BNR pointed out that cost is no steeper than that of the current or former status quo. And IMO it is a necessary cost to balance out the effects.

I used "crying" in quoting someone else so I'm not really the one you should be asking that question.

So person A discriminates against person B. Then, that, after 30 years (or 50 or 100), makes it right for someone that resembles person B but has no connection with person B to discriminate against someone that resembles person A but has no connection with person A. You believe there is anything at all that is right about that? Really? It would be one thing if it were actually person B that was chosen over person A to make up for the wrong but you're penalizing someone he didn't even have anything to do with the wrong of the past.

While I disagree that it is a "necessary" cost, I freely admit that it is a cost. And it is why I have never really been that bent out of shape about it. I honestly believe it worked out better for me personally - gave me more time at home and allowed me to get back into coaching football.

The fact that someone else was not treated fairly should not allow me to treat someone unfairly today. In a perfect world, anyway.

It's not about person A or person B.

It's about when you systemically and categorically deny group B certain opportunities then the result is that you have a disproportionately large number from group B who lack the experience necessary to ever legitimately compete against individuals from group A.

So in order to create those opportunities you have you make have to give special consideration to people from group B if they are otherwise qualified.

Thats the affirmative action I support and there is 50 years of U.S. policy that says it works in many regards. It's not perfect but it moves us closer to equality.

I do not, and have never, supported unqualified people getting opportunities they shouldn't get and cannot take advantage of. But that has happened throughout history for a number of reasons and will continue to do so.

But that's not what affirmative action, by and large, is about. Sorry but again, balancing the playing field does not happen with the snap of society's fingers. You have to begin to give people opportunities and the ability to rise to the level where they have equitable representation among decision makers. In too many instances that has not just happened on it's own.

I agree.

But I think you have to separate the effects of things on individuals vs the cumulative and socio-economic groups. That's not an easy thing to do when you are the individual being effected.

I had a situation last month where I worked a girls state semi-final and a female official got the boys state-semi immediately before mine. Now I did not see all of their game but what I did see, and the overwhelming discussion, among other officials was that.....well there was some problems in the game with consistency and overall officiating.

It would be easy for me to say that she only got the game b/c someone wanted to make a point of putting a female on that game and she also happened to be a close friend of someone with A LOT of power in selecting state officials. And those things may or may not be true.

But I take a step back and look at the bigger picture and say it's not a bad thing that a female official, when they do not get very many boys games at all, received an opportunity to get a game at that level. Even if it may have been at my expense of getting the boys game that I would have preferred.

And going full circle to post #3 in this thread, I think it's really short-sighted to complain about the process that results in 3 qualified female officials working the NCAA Women's natl chamiponship game.

ETA- I will say that I appreciate the convo to this point and the perspectives of those whose opinions may differ from mine. When discussing these things it's very easy for folks to get defensive and accusatory, which takes the convo downhill quickly. IMO both sides have contributed reasonable and thoughtful discussion in this thread.

The difference is in making sure the disadvantaged group get the opportunities that they should get, even if it means giving chances when they may nore may not be entirely ready versus giving opportunities only to that group....or giving disproportionate opportunities. It should be about making things equal and fair, not shutting out (or nearly shutting shutting out) a group because there predecessors were unfair. Doing things that way will never work. They will not bring people together. It only provides more ammunition to split them apart.

In my state....
 

Each State Finals weekend there are 12 officials picked. There was not on African-American or woman picked for the 1A-2A Finals. And both classes had 2 schools that were entirely African-American in nature. Also, look what happened in the 2A title game and all the controversy. No one said a word about fairness when that happened.

Take it to the following weekend and there were 3 African-Americans and there was a big question if those 3 were qualified out of the 12. And multiple teams did not have a single white person on either team. Three teams were from Chicago. Two teams were from the southern part of the state and you could not get more than 3 African-Americans?

My point is we overanalyze the 3 and not the 9 that likely never see these kinds of teams or that type of ball on a regular basis, but the 3 were not qualified and we have to check the system?

Peace

Exactly what does the racial makeup or gender of a team have to do with who are the best officials? I have yet to see a single real point that supports how that matters. Get the best officials, whoever they are. If the teams have a problem with that, who is really the problem? Yes, there are certain games where having diverse representation can help, but that is really only become necessary when the teams have issues.

If it does matter and you want everything to match, you should also be suggesting that the state restrict the teams that are allowed to participate in the tourney and advance based on the population's demographic breakdown. To do otherwise is counter to representing true fairness for everyone. I don't for one moment believe that should be the case, but that is essentially what you're arguing for. If you're going to pick a reference point for drawing some sort of quota, it should be relative to the overall population.

From recent census data, Illinois is 63% While, 16% Hispanic, 15% Black, 5% Asian, plus a few smaller groups. If a fair and equal world where you accept that all people are created equal and each person gets a fair chance based on their own abilities, of the 12 finals slots you mentioned, you'd expect an average of about 8 Whites, 2 Blacks, 2 Hispanics, and an Asian every other year or so.

Hmmm. Since you're for equality, can I assume out there promoting the idea of ensuring there are 2 Hispanics working the finals every year and 1 less Black than there was???

I don't care if one school has X number of a certain ethnic group therefor the officials have to mirror that ratio. I also don't care who is getting the game. I care when "equality " is tired around to advance an agenda that when achieved forgets their primary tenet. I also don't think its right that for passed missed opportunities we need to over compensate to make up.

I'd rather hear , "so and so got this assignment because she's a female (or he is black)" whatever. I am perfectly fine with that level of honesty. And I wish that we the car. I don't care about hypothetical scenarios and what has happened in the past. I just want
Perception and reality to intersect once in a while.

For the record I think most of you have valid arguments to a degree.

Why is it any different than the people in the majority frequently getting opportunities they are not ready for or did not earn? Why is it only a concern when a minority gets an opportunity they may not have earned?

Like I said earlier:

This I agree with. But I don't think that is the case, at least not in my experience in the officiating I've witnessed around me. And I still see plenty of white men officiating at all levels of basketball.

And a related, but separate argument, is having officials who more closely reflect the makeup of the participants. I have no problem with the desire to assign more female officials to women's games.

Just as I have no problem with the lack of black officials in sports such as hockey or lacrosse, for example, where the overwhelming majority of participants are white.

No disagreement there, at least on the men's side. It seems to me that, at least at the NCAA and NBA levels, white men and black men are treated fairly. Good officials move up regardless. There might be individual or localized problems but there doesn't seem to be any overall problems with discrimination. The women might very well have a complaint there, but that is a different discussion.

However, if you were to see WNBA or NCAAW championship games, year after year, with 3 women when there are plenty of qualified and capable men who also want that assignment (and that is not unlikely), that really would reek of discrimination. It would be no different that if you saw the NBA finals and NCAAM finals always worked by white men year after year with no other race represented. They might be qualified, but it would scream discrimination and would be a travesty.

I think the real representation should be more a reflection of the number of people desiring to be officials in each area....as is the case with hockey/lacrosse. You just don't see than many non-whites that are interested there. So, you wouldn't expect many non-white officials either.

Also, desiring a makeup of officials that reflect that of the participants somewhat assumes that the makeup of officials as a whole reflects that of the participants. It doesn't, for whatever reason. Those that choose to get into officiating do so for different reasons and the those numbers more closely reflect the general population than the mix of players.

When those two groups (players and officials) are similarly composed, to expect them to resemble each other as the levels go up would not be unreasonable. However, when they are not similarly composed, expecting them to match doesn't make sense. That would mean someone is just getting left behind because of race. And I think we can all agree that is not right.

It might be a good idea to have a diverse crew on a diverse game but it wouldn't make sense to have an all black crew with all black teams just for the sake of having everyone of the same race any more than it would to have an all white crew on all white games because they match.

I agree with Camron here, and would add that recruiting new officials might be an area where we could expand. I don't even know what recruiting efforts are done, frankly. I was asked by a friend if I wanted to work some middle school games way back when I was about 19. That's when I got the bug, even if it took me about 10 years to really get into it after that.

It's Not Easy Being Green ...
 

Bingo. Pick a prize from the top shelf.

(Note: I'm not about to be sarcastic, I just need a generic example.)

If somebody, or some group, decides that we don't have enough qualified Martian officials, then I have no problem with recruiting the hell out of the Martian population. Contact the local Martian community leaders. Have existing officials reach out to their Martian friends, and co-workers. Contact the athletic director, and the basketball coaches, at the local historically Martian university. Put up posters at the observatory, planetarium, health club, nail salon, Starbucks, barber shop, tanning parlor, casino, library, church, etc., wherever Martians like to hang out. Contact the leader of the local Martian American Club, and the NAAGP. Put an ad in the local Martian language newspaper.

Once they've been recruited, then let them train, and move up the ladder like any other official. Of course, it's important to make sure that the Martian movement up the ladder is not hindered in any way by any discrimination. No Martian should be denied movement up the ladder simply because they're Martian, and it's just as important that no Martian receive preferential treatment just because they're Martian. Recruit enough Martian officials, and eventually, it may take a few years, on a perfect Earth, you'll have Martian officials working state championship games.

Also, it's important that Martians of all three sexes be recruited, avoiding any discrimination based on gender.

It's been 115 years since Martians attacked the Earth. It's about time that we stop discriminating against them. Many of us drive Japanese cars, and Pearl Harbor was only about seventy years ago.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.45882...78228&pid=15.1

It has a lot to do with it if you are not used to working a certain kind of ball. The teams that ended up winning the two biggest classes came out of the City of Chicago. You know who works that ball most of the time? You guessed it, African-American officials mostly. Basketball in the city at the top level is often above the rim, very quick and can have an edge to the players you do not see anywhere else.

I also did not say that race should be the only factor. There are white officials from the city that are used to that style of ball as opposed to those that work in rural areas and suburban areas where the teams are never above the rim and not nearly as quick.

And most of all the players act, behave differently in different areas and coaches act and behave differently as well. It is often a "shock" to officials that have never been in the city (even the Catholic schools) in the way they will overreact to situations without having experience to squelch issues.

This is why I pointed to the 2A Finals in this state. Those three officials came from a part of the state where I doubt seriously that they on a regular basis had two teams play each other that were different racially by fans and players. I have had that kind of situation or experience in this season several times. It is no big deal for me and one of the reasons is my race because I am put into those situations by assignors with a racially mixed crew. And that does not mean African-American treat me better. It just means I often will be the guy they come to about stuff, but when I do not do what they want they act up. But that would be a shock to many officials who have never been in those situations.

Race can play as big of a factor as knowing where someone lives, seeing how big someone is and how athletic they are to keep up or what your years of experience is. Some people have fewer years of experience and have dealt with things than someone with more years. And it appears that many supervisors in my experience feel that way. I know coaches have complained that they did not have more diversity in a staff. And no, was not always Black coaches that complained. It was other coaches that felt it mattered when they coached an all-Black team.

Peace

Misty Water Color Memories ...
 

.. of the way we were.

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.45901...21933&pid=15.1

We're movin' on up. Of course, our skin color wasn't an issue, and half of us already had a penis. All we had to do was lose our brogue, and stop going to mass every Sunday. That's what my great grandfather did, and then he got to work for the railroad, all the livelong day.

And that is an entirely different question than what race those officials were. That was simply a matter of the officials not being qualified for that game.

We see the game thing here...officials from outside of Portland can be suprised by the level of ball they encounter when they get deep into the tourney...and they are the same race as the other officials and players.

I believe qualifications can include race when situations of the participants and their reaction to things are a factor. Just like someone in business is going to hire or send people in their company to deal with certain groups because they know they can handle those situation. I would not expect in a sport like soccer to send all English speaking people into certain places if all the players speak Spanish. Let us not act like only a certain group is "qualified" in the first place. And what does "qualified" even mean? And for some reason we never see outcries for qualification of officials when they are all white males. That is a fact you still have yet to address, but we seem to wonder why women and African-Americans are in games when the players look more like them are somehow not "qualified." I find that fact very interesting.

Peace

If 10% of the officials are of a certain demographic, I'd expect that over a longer period of time that demographic would receive pretty near that percentage of total slots.

Sound like a fair statement?

In all fairness Jeff, I would say a number of these officials that only work CPS games fall through the cracks and fail to receive post season assignments because the coaches in the CPS do a poor job of sending in ratings, which limits the ability of those officials to move through playoffs. Also a number city officials dont do the stuff necessary to get promoted (many are still x or r) or go to camps, both of which also have negative impact on their power ratings and playoff assignments.

There are a lot of officials that work more than CPS and see teams all over the place. I was not referring to only officials that see CPS. The is CPL, there are south suburbs and there are places in the suburbs that have some of the top teams in the area. And Power Rating could not have meant that much this past season. They found people to use I know that did not have power rating numbers. And we know they use people regionally. So someone from a suburban region is not necessarily competing with someone in the city limits.

Watching thr ufc season finale. The female fight referee is, you guessed it, a female. Found that interesting after reading this thread. First female ufc ref I have seen.

The UFC is not involved with assigning referees. And that referee has also worked other PPV events, with males fighting, so it's nothing new for her.

I agree with this, I was just saying there are alot of officials in the Chicago area that do not take the necessary steps to make themselves available for the playoffs. Even using guys without high power ratings, they are never going to advance guys that are only r past first round of playoffs, and guys that are x will most likely never get a playoff at all in chicagoland area.

For those of us not in the Chicago area, what are R and X?

Must be some NE Illinois code or something.

If my memory is accurate, the letters refer to 2 of the 3 levels of official ratings for the state. They are 1) registered, 2) certified, 3) ??. Just don't ask me the order of them. How'd I do, teach?? :D

I've Got A Secret ...
 

Isn't there a "code word" for the northeastern corner of Illinois?

When you first become an official in IL, you are an X. After a few years, you can be promoted to R by going through a process of getting some reference letters, taking another test and a few other things. When you have been an R for a few years you can be promoted to a C, the highest level we have here in IL. Again, there are a few things you have to do, but it isnt that hard. Once you are a C you have the ability to rate other officials on IHSA website. Also, in Chicagoland area, there are very few officials that are R that get playoffs, none that are X. Probably more than 95% are at C level. It isnt that hard to move up, mostly just put in a little time to do the stuff. Unfortunately, there are a good number of officials that dont take the time to go through the process and thus make themselves ineligible for playoff assignments.

Say The Secret Word ...
 

The secret code has been deciphered.