helltopay1 said:
Hoop: Sandy sand Knowlton have nothing to do with each other. Sandy was clearly an affirmative action hire..Knowlton did not have Cal or West Coast ties but he was a unanimous committee choice according to one poster. We don't know if any of the candidates had Cal or West coast ties; but, if they did, Knowlton was still regarded as thge superior choice. He clearly was not an affirmative action choice.
Female AD's have a very high hurdle to cross at the outset. Football and Mens basketball have been traditionally viewed as thge exclusive province of males for reasons too obvious to examine.
There is a natural built-in resentment to any female seen as intruding upon areas historically seen as the exclusive province of males.
It is akin to females ( any female) leading our military forces in to hand-to-hand combat against a ruthless enemy.
Not psychologically tenable although, in theory, plausible under certain circumstances.
It is akin to a straight male being thge judge at a woman's fashion show.
99% of females would hoot at that scenario-----and rightly so..
Birgeneau clearly did not care about either football or mens basketball----he knew he would be long gone once it became clear that his affirmative action hire did not work out----
Cal has been a social lab experiment in just about all ways for the past half-century...Nothing wrong with lab experiments ..as long as they are confined to laboratories..History is full of authorities in one area casually crossing the street into other areas in which they have no known expertise..The results are usually not pretty.
Hence..tghe admonition.....Stay on your side of the street!!!!
You have zero evidence that Sandy was an affirmative action hire other than she is a woman and you have zero evidence that Knowlton was regarded as the superior choice other than he is a White male.
I can tell you right now, you would not last in any management position today. You'd be seen as a colossal liability risk. Why? Because you cannot judge the individual in front of you. You judge based on groups and the perceived performance of individuals who have nothing to do with the person in front of you.
There are plenty of straight men in the fashion industry and no one hoots. Yes, there are more women and gay men who take an interest in fashion. That does not mean that a straight man that takes an interest in fashion can't be the best. For a popular reference at least two winners of Project Runway have been straight men with families. (I know, because I, a straight male, watched every season of Project Runway. Well, until they got rid of Tim and Heidi. Eff them at that point) Believe it or not, but who a person effs is not a qualification for fashion design.
There is not a natural built resentment to women joining traditionally male fields. There is a learned resentment that unfortunately you don't seem to be able to unlearn. Young people today don't give a shyte about it. And resentment from a group of males who haven't had the decency to either get into the modern world or walk out onto the ice floe yet is not a trait that disqualifies the women. It disqualifies the men.
Frankly, if I were a university president at a normal school, and I had to pick from the parade of clowns that have been AD at Cal in my lifetime, after praying that this decision didn't impact my own career because there are no good options there, there would be zero question to me that by far the most competent is Barbour. Now, I didn't like Barbour for Cal because I thought in her understandable desire to bring some level of professionalism to Cal's athletic department, she threw out the baby with the bath water and failed to realize that some things that were uniquely Cal were not obstacles but things to take advantage of. But in terms of running the department, she did a good job and I fail to see how she goes down as an affirmative action hire compared to the complete dreck we have otherwise had at the position. I would point out that she had two major decisions with respect to men's basketball. 1. Hire Monty. 2. Don't hire Cuonzo. She was very right on both counts. Admittedly obvious on 1. On 2, she was overruled and heavily criticized for that decision and I wonder where we would be if the Chancellor had let her do her job.
As a man, I would be happy to be lead into battle or coached by a woman. No problem. The problem in the situation are the men who can't deal with it. Frankly, I have advocated that Cal strongly consider hiring a woman as their men's basketball coach. Not because of affirmative action. Because there are a few excellent women coaches out there that are not going to get a sniff at a men's head coaching job because of their gender and because of asshats like you, and Cal needs to find a coach that others don't want. I can think of no more irrelevant reason for a coach to be passed over than their gender. So if the next Coach K. happens to be a woman, Cal has every opportunity to make that hire where they will not be able to hire an equivalent or frankly far worse male coach.
