Strib Editorial: Next AD at the University of Minnesota: Why not a women?

Donate To GopherHole

Miss Trixie said:
Yep, and that is in part due to Minnesota's so-called 'left-wing' culture, i.e. highly educated, progressive, good schools and so forth. Let the flames begin.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

+1
 

Miss Trixie said:
If you had read the very last paragraph you would have seen this:

'The University of Minnesota should hire the best possible candidate to run its athletic department. If the school ends up joining that new era by choosing a highly qualified woman, it will have taken a key step in dismantling the old-boys’ network that’s run the show for too long.'

Re-read that first sentence please. The author clearly states the U should hire the best possible candidate.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

...and then promptly adds an obvious "BUT..." inferring that if they do NOT hire a woman, they will be perpetuating an 'old-boys' network that has run the show for far too long."

This clearly infers that hiring a woman automatically moves to dismantle the 'old-boys network', whereas hiring a man may mean perpetuating the status quo which is clearly not necessarily true and is gender stereotyping: it is certainly possible for a woman to get the job and do little to change the status quo, and it is also possible for a man to get the job and change the status quo. I.E. The strib is gender stereo-typing.

EDITED for clarity.
 

tato2001 said:
...and then promptly adds an obvious "BUT..." inferring that if they do NOT hire a woman, they will be perpetuating an 'old-boys' network that has run the show for far too long."

This clearly infers that only a woman can dismantle the 'old-boys network, which is clearly not true and is gender stereotyping.
Click to expand...
Re-read that paragraph, not one single 'but' in the entire paragraph. Not one single statement in the entire article that, to use your words, 'infers that only a woman can dismantle the old-boys network.' By the way, you are the one who is inferring. The word you probably meant to use was imply, not infer. You may infer that was what the article was implying. I happen to disagree with you.

I will infer from your post, however, that you do agree there is an old-boys network.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 

Miss Trixie said:
Re-read that paragraph, not one single 'but' in the entire paragraph. Not one single statement in the entire article that, to use your words, 'infers that only a woman can dismantle the old-boys network.' By the way, you are the one who is inferring. The word you probably meant to use was imply, not infer. You may infer that was what the article was implying. I happen to disagree with you.

I will infer from your post, however, that you do agree there is an old-boys network.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I will infer that since you have resorted to correcting internet grammar, you are unable to find any more meaningful error in my logic.

You are correct on two points: there may be an old boys' network, and there is no 'but' in that quote.

In fact, the Strib goes even further: they state (not implying, but unconditionally) that by "hiring a well qualified woman it (the U) WILL have taken a key step in dismantling the old boy's network." Will. Not 'might', or 'may', but WILL.

Again, there is no guaranteed certainty (as the Strib suggests) that a 'well-qualified woman' will do anything. She could come in, rest on her track record and sit around do nothing and collect a paycheck until fired. Female gender does not preclude poor performance or certainty to act in any manner (unless you make sweeping generalizations about women, as I infer the Strib is doing). Likewise, there is no reason to believe a man does not exist that can dismantle the old-boys network.
 


tato2001 said:
I will infer that since you have resorted to correcting internet grammar, you are unable to find any more meaningful error in my logic.

You are correct on two points: there may be an old boys' network, and there is no 'but' in that quote.

In fact, the Strib goes even further: they state (not implying, but unconditionally) that by "hiring a well qualified woman it (the U) WILL have taken a key step in dismantling the old boy's network." Will. Not 'might', or 'may', but WILL.

Again, there is no guaranteed certainty (as the Strib suggests) that a 'well-qualified woman' will do anything. She could come in, rest on her track record and sit around do nothing and collect a paycheck until fired. Female gender does not preclude poor performance or certainty to act in any manner (unless you make sweeping generalizations about women, as I infer the Strib is doing). Likewise, there is no reason to believe a man does not exist that can dismantle the old-boys network.
Click to expand...
I apologize for correcting your grammar. I generally avoid doing that because I know it's rude, and everyone makes mistakes. I know I do regularly, perhaps even in this post. But the difference in meaning between infer and imply can often lead to misunderstanding so I felt compelled to point that out. I was wrong to do that.

Back to your response: of course female gender doesn't preclude poor performance. Neither does male gender, but you guys keep getting hired anyway. Good thing, huh? And in fact people of the male gender have been 100% of the ADs throughout the history of the U, unless you count our current interim AD and the women who held the position of Women's AD. And I don't really see you guys in danger of becoming a minority in the AD job position any time soon.

Answer this question. Do you believe there is no woman who can do this job? If your answer is no, that there probably are qualified women, then the Strib is right, those women should be considered. Do you know for a fact that none of the women mentioned by the editorial are qualified? By the way, I don't know if any of the women mentioned are qualified either, but at least they are offering names of women who actually are ADs.

Or do you believe no woman is qualified?

By the way, the Strib is right. If they do hire a qualified woman they will be sending a message that they know women are capable of doing the job, and that most certainly is a good step in dismantling the old-boys network.

By the way, you won't see me complaining if a well-qualified man gets the job. Like most everyone who posts on this board, I want the best for the U of M. Unfortunately the Teague hire proves we may not really know if the person hired is good until we see him or her on the job.


Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 

I believe women can do anything, including stealing my computer as I sit here and try to type a response.
 

Miss Trixie said:
Back to your response: of course female gender doesn't preclude poor performance. Neither does male gender, but you guys keep getting hired anyway. Good thing, huh? And in fact people of the male gender have been 100% of the ADs throughout the history of the U, unless you count our current interim AD and the women who held the position of Women's AD. And I don't really see you guys in danger of becoming a minority in the AD job position any time soon.

Answer this question. Do you believe there is no woman who can do this job? If your answer is no, that there probably are qualified women, then the Strib is right, those women should be considered. Do you know for a fact that none of the women mentioned by the editorial are qualified? By the way, I don't know if any of the women mentioned are qualified either, but at least they are offering names of women who actually are ADs.

Or do you believe no woman is qualified?
Click to expand...

I guess you posed it as a question, but this comes close to a straw man. I don't think I suggested no woman is qualified nor suggested that no woman should be considered. Knowing absolutely nothing about the candidate pool, I believe Beth Goetz should get serious consideration for no other reason than someone filling the role successfully, even on an interim basis, should get a chance to keep it. (I'm assuming she will perform her duties successfully in the coming months)

Miss Trixie said:
By the way, the Strib is right. If they do hire a qualified woman they will be sending a message that they know women are capable of doing the job, and that most certainly is a good step in dismantling the old-boys network.
Click to expand...

...well, maybe in some narrower definition where 'old-boys network' refers only to circles disproportionately represented by men. I personally think it carries a broader definition, however, with negative connotations regarding tolerance of bad behavior and nepotism in addition to showing favoritism to those with similar backgrounds and views (translated: 'hiring men whose history of sexual harassment gets overlooked', if you'd like). It would not surprise me in the least that the field of sports administration exhibits many of those general characteristics. Likewise, I'm sure there are organizations predominately male that are no more old boys networks than an organization predominately female is necessarily an old girls network.

...or to put it more directly, I've worked in organizations that I think most would call old boys clubs where there are multiple women in leadership positions that are very much a part of the old club as I defined it with the negative aspects. And that's what really prompted my response. There are certainly 'clubby' women, just as there are 'clubby' men. So for the Strib to claim hiring a woman WILL change that type of environment, I claim, is bestowing upon women in general qualities exhibited by some women and certainly not exhibited by other women. I.E. gender stereotyping.
 

If Beth Goetz performed admirably during her interim tenure which may extend until next Spring, then she should be seriously considered.

Why spend money on a search firm that served us Teague when we may already have an excellent qualified person under our noses?
 



Any woman with a penis should get serious consideration for the job.
 

tato2001 said:
So for the Strib to claim hiring a woman WILL change that type of environment, I claim, is bestowing upon women in general qualities exhibited by some women and certainly not exhibited by other women. I.E. gender stereotyping.
Click to expand...

And I obviously believe you missed the point the Star Tribune was trying to make. I think there has been a knee jerk reaction from some people on this thread (and in the online comments on the Strib website) about this editorial that is way out of proportion to the opinions stated in the editorial. In some cases I suspect it is partially because of a bias from some (usually conservatives) against the Star Tribune. Why is it so contentious to propose that a woman might be qualified for this job and that qualified women should be considered? Why does that automatically become a trigger for claims of gender bias against men. Are some of you guys really that insecure?

In your specific case tato, I don't know anything about you so I won't question your motives, but I do think your assertion of gender stereotyping is ridiculous.
 

hungan1 said:
If Beth Goetz performed admirably during her interim tenure which may extend until next Spring, then she should be seriously considered.

Why spend money on a search firm that served us Teague when we may already have an excellent qualified person under our noses?
Click to expand...

+1
 

Miss Trixie said:
Why is it so contentious to propose that a woman might be qualified for this job and that qualified women should be considered? Why does that automatically become a trigger for claims of gender bias against men. Are some of you guys really that insecure?
Click to expand...

Yes, we are reading it differently. There may be some (even many) that feel that way, but the the sense I get is that most here have said they have no issue with giving female candidates serious consideration, but that giving any additional credence (beyond qualifications that can be evaluated), like the notion that hiring a woman will automatically bring certain benefits (changing the 'atmosphere') simply because she is a woman is bothersome.

And no, I don't think my assertion of gender stereotyping is ridiculous. If we aren't supposed to care if the new hire is male or female, the article should go no further than say women should be considered. But they go further. It's double speak to say, "we don't care if the new hire is a man or a woman, but wouldn't it great if it were a woman?" If you can't see how that is showing a pre-determined preference, I don't know what to say. If there are two equally qualified candidates, male and female, and gender is actually NO issue, then the gender neutral response would be something like, let's draw the name out of a hat. Not, gee it sure would be great to hire a woman. It's fine if you think that way, but don't try and pretend it isn't showing a gender bias.

...to get back to the question of Beth Goetz, I agree with the folks above. If she were to come in and do a few things to improve game-day atmosphere, and we started to hear stories that she has a great rapport with donors and alum, I think that would be about all it takes for me to say sign her up. It's definitely in the realm of possibility. Unfortunately, she might not be given a whole lot of freedom to move as an interim.
 




tato2001 said:
... If there are two equally qualified candidates, male and female, and gender is actually NO issue, then the gender neutral response would be something like, let's draw the name out of a hat. Not, gee it sure would be great to hire a woman. It's fine if you think that way, but don't try and pretend it isn't showing a gender bias.
Click to expand...

Ah, but the editorial clearly stated "The University of Minnesota should hire the best possible candidate to run its athletic department. If the school ends up joining that new era by choosing a highly qualified woman, it will have taken a key step in dismantling the old-boys’ network that’s run the show for too long."

Note it didn't say if two equally qualified people are available pick the woman. The quote above is not ambiguous. That has been my point all along, that the Strib has not stated either the U must hire a woman or must hire a woman over a more or equally qualified man.

The statement about a step in dismantling the old-boys network, which you agree exists, is not a claim that a woman is most qualified to do the dismantling. Key words in the sentence "a step". In other words a first step, a beginning. In other words a symbolic and literal statement that the U hires the best qualified for the job regardless of gender.

There is one person quoted who does imply a woman might be uniquely qualified to fix things. Here is the paragraph that includes the quote from Patti Phillips, chief executive of the National Association of Collegiate Women Athletics Administrators (NACWAA):
It’s also worth noting that two of Minnesota’s Big Ten peers, Penn State and Rutgers, recently turned to women to lead their athletic departments in the wake of scandals. “I do think women have a way over time of coming in and fixing things — in all parts of our culture,” Phillips said.
Click to expand...
This is quoting one woman's opinion, not a claim by the Star Tribune that a woman would be the most qualified.

tato2001 said:
...to get back to the question of Beth Goetz, I agree with the folks above. If she were to come in and do a few things to improve game-day atmosphere, and we started to hear stories that she has a great rapport with donors and alum, I think that would be about all it takes for me to say sign her up. It's definitely in the realm of possibility..
Click to expand...

Good, glad to hear that. I agree with that as well.
 

It would be refreshing to read a single Strib article related to sports that doesn't have incorrect information, a typo, or a grammatical error. "A women?" Really?
 

underground629 said:
It would be refreshing to read a single Strib article related to sports that doesn't have incorrect information, a typo, or a grammatical error. "A women?" Really?
Click to expand...

The person making the grammatical error was the one who posted this thread, not the Star Tribune. Read the actual editorial.
 

Because "a women" doesn't make any contextual sense.
 



I wish that were true. I read the article on the Strib website not long after it was posted. I assume the person who posted the article just copied and pasted the title.

Miss Trixie said:
The person making the grammatical error was the one who posted this thread, not the Star Tribune. Read the actual editorial.
Click to expand...
 

underground629 said:
I wish that were true. I read the article on the Strib website not long after it was posted. I assume the person who posted the article just copied and pasted the title.
Click to expand...
If you go to the posted link the title has correct grammar. Did you actually see incorrect grammar when you read the original editorial, or are you seeing it in this post and blaming it on the Star Tribune? It's entirely possible it could have been incorrect when originally published, then corrected later when they caught their own error, it happens. I'm sure you also make grammar errors from time to time.

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom