Womens championship game

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

So your, and Nevada's, issue is that black and women officials "cried" to get more opportunities and assignments, particularly for games involving majority black and female participants respectively, and where they were typically underrepresented AND now you feel (or are crying) they are overrepresented at the expense of qualified non black female officials? And you're somewhat angry about it?

I can understand that perspective but IMHO it's short sighted and misplaced.

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.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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.

At the cost of what?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

At the cost of what?

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

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by deecee

At the cost of what?

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

[deecee]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

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

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.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by deecee

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

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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

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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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?

You question looks similar to my statement:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

"Get equality then overcompensate" 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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You question looks similar to my statement:

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.

[rockyroad]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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 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.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

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.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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?

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