… This time of something its authors call, confusingly, “access discrimination.” The article (described here), “Access Discrimination in Intercollegiate Athletics,” is by George B. Cunningham and Michael Sagas, two assistant professors of sport management at Texas A&M University’s Laboratory for Diversity in Sport.
The authors surveyed 191 men’s basketball programs in Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, or about 60 percent of all programs. Their research found that black coaches were significantly underrepresented on the staffs of white head coaches, where they accounted for 30 percent of the assistants. Under black head coaches, black assistant coaches made up 45 percent of the staffs.
By what criteria, you may wonder (I know I did), do the sport management profs conclude that 30 percent black assistant coaches on the staffs of white head coaches represents significant underrepresentation?
Hold your hats, for here it is:
The proportion of black assistant coaches over all (33 percent) was significantly less than what it could be, based on the proportion of players who are black (48 percent), the authors say.
Well, yes. Anything could happen. But why assume that the percentage of black assistant coaches should mirror the percentage of black players? In fact, since blacks make up about 12% of the population why not assume that at 30% of the assistants of white coaches — and especially at 45% of the assistants of black coaches — blacks are significantly overrepresented on these staffs?
One might say, well, because blacks are “overrepresented” in the pool of those with experience playing college football basketball. Yes, one could reasonably say that — but that reasonably point, it seems to me, is not available to those who believe that the “overrepresentation” of whites and especially of Asians in the pool of those who have high math and science grades and who score high on various math tests justifies their “overrepresentation” among students accepted into math, science, medical, and technical programs.
It gets sillier….
Those disparities could be evidence of “access discrimination,” or limits on the opportunities for black athletes to be hired as coaches, the writers say. They add, however, that they “do not know if coaching is a viable career path for black student-athletes.” Earlier research has suggested that fewer black athletes wish to become coaches than do white athletes, they note, probably because black athletes view becoming a coach as a limited career path.
Again, they could be anything. But where and what is the evidence of discrimination, “access” (whatever that may mean) or otherwise? It could mean nothing more than that blacks got better offers elsewhere.
… and even sillier.
The low representation of black assistant coaches on white head coaches’ staffs supports anecdotal evidence that black coaches are hired for token purposes, the authors say, or because head coaches believe that the presence of black assistant coaches makes it easier to recruit black players.
Does this mean that if the white head coaches hired solely on merit (however defined), there would be even fewer black assistant coaches? Or maybe, instead, that the white head coaches are so racist that if there weren’t some marginal (non-coaching) benefit provided, such as serving as a “token” or helping with recruitment, that they wouln’t hire any black assistants, preferring presumably to lose rather than hire the best assistants they could? Who knows what it means. I surely don’t.
Seems to me that these authors published when they should have punted.
You problem John is that you are bad in PC math. Let me try to explain. If there is a lower percentage of minorities in a profession than their percentage in the general population that is prima facia evidence of discrimination. I am sure that you understand that. Now let us get to the next point. If a particular profession has an
Richard,
That would be funny, if it weren’t true. In fact, it’s downright scary.
“It means whatever I say it means!”
–White Queen, ‘Alice in Wonderland’
It seems pretty simple to me. Liberal guilt can be leveraged into huge financial advancement for any group that can produce proper evidence of past discrimination. Liberal guilt can be leveraged into expanding the definition of “proper evidence”. Once the line between common sense and assininity has been crossed (see SCOTUS AA decisions) there really is no limit left on the evidence-producers except palpable disgust. Cobra understands this better than any other commenter on this blog. He is normally silent on the posts that are this blatant in their assininity. Help us out here, Cobra.
Since the overrepresented assistants are probably hired for their social skills in recruiting black athletes instead of overall coaching skills, they probably will be underrepresented in being hired for head coaching jobs – creating another “bias” scandal to be exploited to keep the gravy train rolling.
You started out talking about basketball and then switched to football. Apples and oranges?
“Liberal guilt can be leveraged into expanding the definition of “proper evidence”. ”
Liberal guilt has been used to reverse the burden of proof; in the UK companies are now assumed guilty until proven innocent in accusations of racism. I’m not talking just PC-ness here: the UK literally changed the laws. Norway either has or is thinking of doing so as well.
Kevin – You’re right. It was my mistake to type “football” late in the post rather than “basketball.” Will correct.
Why don