|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 9, 2019 14:33:21 GMT -5
Imagine a volleyball game where one team starts with 10 points already on the board. Then the two teams play to see who gets to 25 points first.
Now imagine someone comes in and says, "that's not fair -- we should give the second team a better chance to score in order to compensate for the headstart the first team has". But people on the first team then whine about how "we don't see scoreboard" and "we should just let the best team win each point, so the cream will rise to the top".
|
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Jun 9, 2019 15:27:00 GMT -5
Imagine a volleyball game where one team starts with 10 points already on the board. Then the two teams play to see who gets to 25 points first. Now imagine someone comes in and says, "that's not fair -- we should give the second team a better chance to score in order to compensate for the headstart the first team has". But people on the first team then whine about how "we don't see scoreboard" and "we should just let the best team win each point, so the cream will rise to the top". Is this referring to the 90-10 lead of women HC vs men HC in volleyball many years ago? Or maybe the 55-45 lead of men HC now? Or the evolution from one to another? Perhaps something else? |
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Jun 9, 2019 19:15:25 GMT -5
Is this referring to the 90-10 lead of women HC vs men HC in volleyball many years ago? Or maybe the 55-45 lead of men HC now? Or the evolution from one to another? Perhaps something else? You could either open it up to all college coaches (22.2% female), or restrict it to what we are actually talking about here, which is high level D1 volleyball where in by far the top 2 conferences the number is 19% (5 of 26). After that, consider these direct quotes from the Acosta/Carpenter study: 57.1% of women’s teams are coaches by males, a decrease of 0.5% since 2012. 97% to 98% of men’s teams are coached by males. 1 out of 4.5 head coaches of all NCAA teams (M&F) is a female. (22.2%) When the athletics director is a male, fewer female coaches are likely. 22.3% of athletics directors are females, up from 20.3% in 2012. 63.8% of athletics administrative jobs are held by males, down from 64.2% in 2012. 99.3% of schools have an SID. 12.1% of SIDs are females, up from 9.8% in 2012. Division 1 has the smallest percentage of female SIDs at 7.7%. However, the 7.7% is up from 3.1% in 2012. 1. I was quoting and asking Mike - your views are quite clear, his was not. 2. Who is the imaginary "we" that were discussing 26 teams? First time I've seen that in the thread. The OP and most of discussion was about 86 selected, good to great teams, with some notes on other levels of volleyball. 3. Beyond my curiosity of item #2 I have no interest in more cherry picked stats not on topic. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 9, 2019 19:22:03 GMT -5
You could either open it up to all college coaches (22.2% female), or restrict it to what we are actually talking about here, which is high level D1 volleyball where in by far the top 2 conferences the number is 19% (5 of 26). After that, consider these direct quotes from the Acosta/Carpenter study: 57.1% of women’s teams are coaches by males, a decrease of 0.5% since 2012. 97% to 98% of men’s teams are coached by males. 1 out of 4.5 head coaches of all NCAA teams (M&F) is a female. (22.2%) When the athletics director is a male, fewer female coaches are likely. 22.3% of athletics directors are females, up from 20.3% in 2012. 63.8% of athletics administrative jobs are held by males, down from 64.2% in 2012. 99.3% of schools have an SID. 12.1% of SIDs are females, up from 9.8% in 2012. Division 1 has the smallest percentage of female SIDs at 7.7%. However, the 7.7% is up from 3.1% in 2012. 1. I was quoting and asking Mike - your views are quite clear, his was not. 2. Who is the imaginary "we" that were discussing 26 teams? First time I've seen that in the thread. The OP and most of discussion was about 86 selected, good to great teams, with some notes on other levels of volleyball. 3. Beyond my curiosity of item #2 I have no interest in more cherry picked stats not on topic. It's an analogy to illustrate the significance or importance of "a level playing field" or the lack thereof. Not really that complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 9, 2019 21:23:39 GMT -5
It's essentially an argument to maintain the status quo, or undermine the efforts to change the situation, by minimizing the problem or the solution--"Just do the right thing, and everything will be all-right." This is exactly what you are doing. It is also exactly what Rick Butler's supporters have done--"If the parents know and allow their kids to be in his club, what's the problem?" Of course, you should not take that to mean that I am suggesting that you support Rick Butler; I'm suggesting that you are using similar arguments. Nope, not at all. I've never once argued to maintain the status quo. I'm not suggesting that efforts to change the situation should be squelched. I'm not suggesting where cases of gender or racial discrimination exists that something shouldn't be done about it. What I have argued is that it is hypocritical to discriminate against any race or gender while arguing to stop discrimination. And yes, by definition, just do the right thing and everything will be all-right. As to the Rick Butler comparison, that's akin to Godwin's Law if you ask me. The numbers don't lie. They show very clearly that people aren't necessarily doing the right thing. But I understand that you're okay with that. As far as Godwin's Law, if the swastika fits .... |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 9, 2019 23:13:40 GMT -5
]The numbers don't lie. They show very clearly that people aren't necessarily doing the right thing. But I understand that you're okay with that. Whatever. Doesn't matter how slowly I type or how many times I say it, you are going to read (hear) what you want to hear. You keep going on justifying in your mind instances where racial and gender discrimination are not only acceptable, but warranted, all while casting stones. We're not covering any new ground here. Discrimination on the basis of race and gender is illegal, and has been since the 1960's, and further mandated by Title IX in 1972, and there's still evident discrimination. Recipients of Federal funds--which includes every Division I university, and most other universities as well--are required to establish and promote non-discriminatory hiring practices and to adopt statistical measures to track whether they discriminate, and to take affirmative measures to ensure that they don't discriminate. This latter point has been tested (with arguments that are much more cogent than yours) and have been affirmed through the legal system and the Courts. If you're unfamiliar with these practices or realities, or have never had to enforce them, or have never hired a coach or an athletic director, whether you type slow or fast doesn't make much difference, does it? |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 10, 2019 0:42:31 GMT -5
We'll see what this Supreme Court has to say about it. Drifting further into politics, I suppose, but I don't consider the current Supreme Court to be legitimate. The blatently partisan refusal to even bring Garland's nomination to a hearing essentially negated the legitimacy of Gorsuch. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 10, 2019 0:47:38 GMT -5
We'll see what this Supreme Court has to say about it. Drifting further into politics, I suppose, but I don't consider the current Supreme Court to be legitimate. The blatently partisan refusal to even bring Garland's nomination to a hearing essentially negated the legitimacy of Gorsuch. Kavanaugh sided with the four "liberal" justices on a couple of cases recently, and he has been a strong proponent of hiring female law clerks on the Supreme Court, as noted by Justice Ginsberg, so he may surprise us. |
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Jun 10, 2019 1:55:05 GMT -5
I view people's behavior like a steady state response:  Initially, when doing something new for the first time, e.g., a guy like Kavanaugh taking a new job, they're not quite sure what they're doing (or he knows what he's doing but all eyes are on him so he's nervous) so there's some overshoot -- some overcompensation. Initial efforts are sloppy, false, undisciplined, hurried, or sometimes, overcautious. But as time goes by, they get better at it. It's like target practice at a shooting gallery. But in this transient state or period of adjustment, they're still not their "true" self yet. That comes with time. It's much more complicated than this but this is a simple base model from which I've derived all my theories on the behavior of people. Whack jobs are more like the graph below where something that looks like the standard steady state response repeats over time because, you know, they're whack jobs and therefore, unstable. For a time, there's sloppy unbridled response to things, followed by a steady calmness and then another fit of sloppy unbridledness followed by a calm, and so forth. Like a heart beat monitor. Meds either lengthen these periods of calmness or reduce the magnitude of the overshoots.  |
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Jun 10, 2019 6:57:27 GMT -5
It is always funny to watch a large group of like-minded White liberal stereotypes prattle on about diversity.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 10, 2019 12:24:08 GMT -5
Drifting further into politics, I suppose, but I don't consider the current Supreme Court to be legitimate. The blatently partisan refusal to even bring Garland's nomination to a hearing essentially negated the legitimacy of Gorsuch. You don't have to consider the current SCOTUS to be legitimate, but the decisions they make will be. I wasn't intending to get political. I was merely referencing the article in response to volleyguy's statement about the courts historical affirmation of such practices not being discriminatory. He also stated that the arguments presented were much more cogent than mine. While, I'm certain many of them likely were I particularly liked: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice Roberts. Oftentimes less is more. Discrimination isn't necessarily illegal. In fact, most of it is entirely legal, and it is [was] the default position, legally and constitutionally (The existence of slavery is proof of that.) You can belong to a private club. You can have only white friends. You can hire only your family for your private business. Illegal discrimination is entirely legislated and applies to the government and to places the government regulates (like inter-state commerce). We know that legislation has not ended discrimination on the basis of race. The idea that you can end discrimination by ending remedies to instances of proven discrimination is an illusion, and a crock. To do nothing is to solve nothing and to eliminate consequences is to encourage it to continue--and again, I understand that is exactly the point. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 10, 2019 12:58:27 GMT -5
To do nothing is to solve nothing and to eliminate consequences is to encourage it to continue-- On this, I wholeheartedly agree. From www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/supreme-court-racial-preferences-affirmative-action/:There is no doubt that there are despicable aspects of our history when it comes to race. But the constitutional solution to correcting our past is not to perpetuate it under the guise of helping those once harmed. After all, as Justice Thomas has noted, the Constitution protects individual, not group rights. Just because a particular racial group once suffered discrimination does not entitle an individual who has not actually suffered discrimination to claim a benefit based on race.As usual, Justice Thomas is flat wrong. The Bill of Rights can be interpreted as protecting individual rights, but it's inherent purpose is to protect the minority (a group) from the tyranny of the majority. |
|
|
|
Post by VT Five-0 on Jun 10, 2019 18:06:28 GMT -5
Quit discussing politics on this thread or I'll lock it down and move it. I know how it got here but leave politics out of future discussions. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Jun 10, 2019 18:13:32 GMT -5
that volley...such a troublemaker.
|
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Jun 10, 2019 19:35:37 GMT -5
The existence of bias is so well established that it beggars belief that people dispute it. And it's not simply a leftover residue of our dark past, like some dirty heirloom left to us by our ancestors. It happens now. I do it, everyone does it. There is an extensive and robust literature on it, and how exactly to rectify biases in evaluation of candidates. Some fields have done pretty well, others still rate the same resumes with male and female names markedly differently. In a few fields, the bias can actually go the other way. And it doesn't matter if the rater is male or female. Both sexes have tended to absorb the assumptions of the larger culture.
Another thing. People always paint this issue as "why raise these inferiors above these superiors," as if it was a matter of charity required of some more effective class. But that is a complete misreading of the situation. It's about failure to evaluate talent or skill because of bias. We lose talent because of it. We lose it at the stage of hiring, and we lose it thereafter because many (not all!) individuals of certain conspicuous classes don't see themselves in those roles and presume they should not pursue them. We are depleted in options as a result. How many right now would like to have a Pat Summitt of USWNT volleyball as opposed to Karch?
This goes beyond really blatant and open bigotry, and historical/cultural power structures, which are certainly real and morally repugnant in the context of the modern world (or should be to anyone who follows women's sports). Humans as a group tend to generalize status and effectiveness from easily observed external signals. And we tend to be risk averse - especially if our job is on the line. We will tend to pick the "safest" choice quickly given what we can see, and, because we are human, we tend to focus on the things about people that make us feel comfortable. It's hard-wired into us, and in the distant past it may have served us well as individuals in a truly dangerous world.
But now it just hurts us as a society. It makes us stupid. I bet it makes US women's volleyball a lot worse, although I doubt that will ever be provable. It certainly gives the young women fewer options. Talking about it, calling people and institutions out is the least we can do to make people aware of the cost.
|
|
