National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Letter to the Editor - Hiring fix not as easy as CEO claims
The NCAA News
|
The NCAA News
Kathryn Martin, the chancellor at the University of Minnesota Duluth, wrote forcefully about bridging the gender gap in The NCAA News (April 23). She says, “I believe college and university chancellors and presidents must weigh heavily our responsibility to look at these issues and attempt to find women coaches for women’s sports.” Fair enough. Programs like the Coaching Enhancement Grants for women to gain experience so that they can compete with men are necessary and timely. Preferential hiring of inexperienced women assistant coaches makes sense, too.
But many of her broad assertions are not supported by evidence other than anecdotes and hearsay. In rebuttal I would like to make the following points:
Martin says that the “consultation pool is primarily male.” That is probably true. But I would guess that the “good old boy network” is less frequent and lacks the power it used to wield. There are too many checks in place for athletics directors and hiring committees to do whatever they want to do. As well, Title IX has brought much scrutiny to the hiring process.
Using ice hockey as her primary example is a poor illustration since the sport has been dominated by male athletes and coaches and is still in its infant stages with women.
She says “we do not have a perfect record of hiring women to coach women’s sports, but we are working hard to change that landscape.” That implies that women should always be hired to coach women regardless of their qualifications. If we need more female professors do we hire them with B.A.’s rather than doctorates? How much do hiring committees compromise? Is merit dead in the academy? I have seen and heard of many instances where women not yet 25 have become head coaches when they were not ready for the responsibilities. They usually fail. That hurts the young women athletes they coach by not providing them with the most qualified person for the position. Certainly providing the optimum athletics experience for young women athletes trumps hiring a single female coach.
Martin says, “I continuously hear we must find the ‘best person’ for a coaching position. If we want a woman to be the best person, we can search, recruit and find one.” To skip over all male candidates without consideration is blatant sexism and discrimination. It also can sow discord with male coaches. I believe it also would foster an attitude of entitlement with young women coaches. A job needs to be earned, the candidate judged on the balance of their attributes — not handed to someone because of their gender or race. The catalyst for transformation is most effective when carried out patiently and justly.
Concluding, I have my own politically incorrect hypothesis, based on many years as a college head coach of women and men: Men are simply more interested in the coaching profession than women.
(While writing this, four of my players and an ex-player have dropped by my office to chat or greet me. I am a man coaching women. I serve them well.)
Rick Burns
Women’s soccer coach
Central College (Iowa)
But many of her broad assertions are not supported by evidence other than anecdotes and hearsay. In rebuttal I would like to make the following points:
Martin says that the “consultation pool is primarily male.” That is probably true. But I would guess that the “good old boy network” is less frequent and lacks the power it used to wield. There are too many checks in place for athletics directors and hiring committees to do whatever they want to do. As well, Title IX has brought much scrutiny to the hiring process.
Using ice hockey as her primary example is a poor illustration since the sport has been dominated by male athletes and coaches and is still in its infant stages with women.
She says “we do not have a perfect record of hiring women to coach women’s sports, but we are working hard to change that landscape.” That implies that women should always be hired to coach women regardless of their qualifications. If we need more female professors do we hire them with B.A.’s rather than doctorates? How much do hiring committees compromise? Is merit dead in the academy? I have seen and heard of many instances where women not yet 25 have become head coaches when they were not ready for the responsibilities. They usually fail. That hurts the young women athletes they coach by not providing them with the most qualified person for the position. Certainly providing the optimum athletics experience for young women athletes trumps hiring a single female coach.
Martin says, “I continuously hear we must find the ‘best person’ for a coaching position. If we want a woman to be the best person, we can search, recruit and find one.” To skip over all male candidates without consideration is blatant sexism and discrimination. It also can sow discord with male coaches. I believe it also would foster an attitude of entitlement with young women coaches. A job needs to be earned, the candidate judged on the balance of their attributes — not handed to someone because of their gender or race. The catalyst for transformation is most effective when carried out patiently and justly.
Concluding, I have my own politically incorrect hypothesis, based on many years as a college head coach of women and men: Men are simply more interested in the coaching profession than women.
(While writing this, four of my players and an ex-player have dropped by my office to chat or greet me. I am a man coaching women. I serve them well.)
Rick Burns
Women’s soccer coach
Central College (Iowa)
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy