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: