Hopefully, with SH having worked at Wake Forest, Illinois, Mich. St., Georgetown, and Texas A&M and with her having ties to the AD at Stanford, that we can get some decent OOC basketball games (well, at least for the first few years).

An email that came from the college had this quote from Bernard Muir at Stanford: "Muir laughed when asked whether Huge had already inquired about William & Mary playing Stanford in football and basketball."Not yet, but I expect that call any time now," he said. "And I'm sure she's going to want a huge guarantee [for the Tribe to go play]. She's a very tough negotiator.""

Women in the AD position are just not extremely rare any more. As of 2015, it was 37 out of 313 D-1 schools, and if you take out the power conferences (where women ADs *are* still extremely rare), the numbers were 34 out of 248 in 2015. So, roughly 15% after Huge was hired.

If you bother to look over Huge's resume, it is clear that this was not a "PC" hire. She has earned this opportunity. I don't know enough about her yet to form an opinion, but I very much like what I've seen and read so far.

(03-15-2017 01:37 PM)zablenoise Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 01:22 PM)nj alum Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 01:06 PM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 12:46 PM)nj alum Wrote:  That didn't take long.

Are you insinuating that because SH is a female, one can't question the reason SH was hired?

Of course. As always, your straw man has fearlessly spoken truth to power and exposed the great and unfair advantages that women have as administrators in college athletics.

I think you need to stop right there. You keep going and I'm going to start to believe that this was a PC hire, which would be unfair to SH and to W&M.

So your belief on why Huge was hired is dependent on what Tribe2011 posts on the message boards?

I don't want to put words in nj's mouth, but what it appears to me that nj is saying is that 2011's point is re-inforcing a stereo type that nj does not want to believe but has seen elsewhere and is wary of and 2011's continuing to bang the drum makes nj increasingly uncomfortable that the committee may have used a metric other than projected performance. It does not appear to me that nj has yet passed a judgement on the issue and is hoping for the best.

Who didn't see this coming?

One Tribe. One Family.

You made my point from earlier when I said it was rare like female CEOs. 10-15% isn't representative of the student body or of scholarship athletes which should be around 50%. Things will eventually change and it looks like it is based on your numbers. The business world is far behind.

(03-15-2017 01:44 PM)WM Beancounter Wrote:  Women in the AD position are just not extremely rare any more. As of 2015, it was 37 out of 313 D-1 schools, and if you take out the power conferences (where women ADs *are* still extremely rare), the numbers were 34 out of 248 in 2015. So, roughly 15% after Huge was hired.

If you bother to look over Huge's resume, it is clear that this was not a "PC" hire. She has earned this opportunity. I don't know enough about her yet to form an opinion, but I very much like what I've seen and read so far.

The risk of going young with a new hire is clear but so is the upside. The youth of a hire is a valid topic of discussion.

The gender of the hire is not a valid topic of discussion. Questioning any hire because of group characteristics is inappropriate and should not occur on this board. And I can think of no other "PC consideration" involved here.

I'm trying to be polite because I have two daughters (waited several days to respond rather than fly off the handle). One's a lawyer and the other is a Captain in the Air Force. I trust there is nothing PC about their careers.

The committee said its top priority was fund-raising. Huge seems to fit this criteria extremely well "even if she is female."

If you are directing your post at me, you are totally off base and completely mis-read my posts.

If you didn't see any PC aspects to that presentation ... sorry, I don't believe that. Your entire post smacks of PC.

Furthermore, PC and gender are separate and distinct.

For example, it is wrong to not hire someone based on gender and it is wrong to hire someone based on gender.

For example, PC mandates that certain things can't be discussed anymore. PC mandates that things can't be questioned. PC demands that the scarlet letter be placed on those who question and resist. Buzz off!

Finally, I only have one daughter, so you have me there... two to one. Does your opinion carry two times the weight as mine? And those without daughters? Zero weight?

But to post "even if she is female" as you posted above ... where did that come from? Not from me, and not from others. Methinks you protest too much.

Sex

One Tribe. One Family.

(03-17-2017 08:47 PM)nj alum Wrote:  If you are directing your post at me, you are totally off base and completely mis-read my posts.

If you didn't see any PC aspects to that presentation ... sorry, I don't believe that. Your entire post smacks of PC.

Furthermore, PC and gender are separate and distinct.

For example, it is wrong to not hire someone based on gender and it is wrong to hire someone based on gender.

For example, PC mandates that certain things can't be discussed anymore. PC mandates that things can't be questioned. PC demands that the scarlet letter be placed on those who question and resist. Buzz off!

Finally, I only have one daughter, so you have me there... two to one. Does your opinion carry two times the weight as mine? And those without daughters? Zero weight?

But to post "even if she is female" as you posted above ... where did that come from? Not from me, and not from others. Methinks you protest too much.

Trump is win the White House. It might be time to retire the PC martyrdom bit. Obviously one can say any incendiary thing they want, true or not, and still achieve the highest office in the land. No, its not that folks can't speak their mind under the first amendment anymore, its more that people don't like being called out for bigoted, racist, factually inaccurate, or insensitive statements and views that were once socially acceptable. Not implying any of those apply to you NJ. I'm just discussing you in the same post, purely coincidental, like you mentioning PCness and our new AD hire in the same post. I hope you don't draw any incorrect conclusions by my combining the two.

PS - Not to say political correctness is not an actual phenomenon, but the term has become so overused as to become meaningless IMO.

(03-17-2017 09:59 PM)Tribal Wrote:  Sex

One Tribe. One Family.

I like sex. A lot.

Sent from my SM-N910V using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-17-2017 11:00 PM)Tribeheart Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 09:59 PM)Tribal Wrote:  Sex

One Tribe. One Family.

I like sex. A lot.

Sent from my SM-N910V using CSNbbs mobile app

TH, you and I think too much alike. I was thinking that post needed it's own thread!

(03-17-2017 05:33 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  The risk of going young with a new hire is clear but so is the upside. The youth of a hire is a valid topic of discussion.

The gender of the hire is not a valid topic of discussion. Questioning any hire because of group characteristics is inappropriate and should not occur on this board. And I can think of no other "PC consideration" involved here.

I'm trying to be polite because I have two daughters (waited several days to respond rather than fly off the handle). One's a lawyer and the other is a Captain in the Air Force. I trust there is nothing PC about their careers.

The committee said its top priority was fund-raising. Huge seems to fit this criteria extremely well "even if she is female."

This post is just ridiculous. In this case, there is no evidence (that I can see) that our hire is not qualified. There is abundant anecdotal evidence that she was the best of the pool of candidates. However, if that were not the case, your post would suggest posters on this board should not question the wisdom of the hire, or the motives underlying the hire.

(03-20-2017 03:41 PM)ttgwm02 Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 05:33 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  The risk of going young with a new hire is clear but so is the upside. The youth of a hire is a valid topic of discussion.

The gender of the hire is not a valid topic of discussion. Questioning any hire because of group characteristics is inappropriate and should not occur on this board. And I can think of no other "PC consideration" involved here.

I'm trying to be polite because I have two daughters (waited several days to respond rather than fly off the handle). One's a lawyer and the other is a Captain in the Air Force. I trust there is nothing PC about their careers.

The committee said its top priority was fund-raising. Huge seems to fit this criteria extremely well "even if she is female."

This post is just ridiculous. In this case, there is no evidence (that I can see) that our hire is not qualified. There is abundant anecdotal evidence that she was the best of the pool of candidates. However, if that were not the case, your post would suggest posters on this board should not question the wisdom of the hire, or the motives underlying the hire.

I guess I am just going to be that obnoxious poster without a sense of humor. I did NOT say that we should not criticize any new hire. I said we should not criticize a new hire because they are a member of a group. That is what I understood by the comment made about "PC considerations." I have not heard what else that comment could have meant but I did hear a lot of support for sex.

My comment was obviously a wasted effort and I apologize for wasting the message board's time.

(03-20-2017 03:41 PM)ttgwm02 Wrote:  The youth of a hire is a valid topic of discussion.

The gender of the hire is not a valid topic of discussion.

...and this is why I don't miss being the admin of these boards. You *VILL* COMPLY! Papers please!

(03-20-2017 05:24 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 03:41 PM)ttgwm02 Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 05:33 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  The risk of going young with a new hire is clear but so is the upside. The youth of a hire is a valid topic of discussion.

The gender of the hire is not a valid topic of discussion. Questioning any hire because of group characteristics is inappropriate and should not occur on this board. And I can think of no other "PC consideration" involved here.

I'm trying to be polite because I have two daughters (waited several days to respond rather than fly off the handle). One's a lawyer and the other is a Captain in the Air Force. I trust there is nothing PC about their careers.

The committee said its top priority was fund-raising. Huge seems to fit this criteria extremely well "even if she is female."

This post is just ridiculous. In this case, there is no evidence (that I can see) that our hire is not qualified. There is abundant anecdotal evidence that she was the best of the pool of candidates. However, if that were not the case, your post would suggest posters on this board should not question the wisdom of the hire, or the motives underlying the hire.

I guess I am just going to be that obnoxious poster without a sense of humor. I did NOT say that we should not criticize any new hire. I said we should not criticize a new hire because they are a member of a group. That is what I understood by the comment made about "PC considerations." I have not heard what else that comment could have meant but I did hear a lot of support for sex.

My comment was obviously a wasted effort and I apologize for wasting the message board's time.

My response was a little strong. I have personal experience in a case where an institution I support hired a candidate who checked a "box", but was otherwise far below other candidates in terms of experience, maturity, and skills. The results were predictable. The hire was over his/her head, and the institution was back on the market two years later. It was not a good outcome for anyone. The candidate lost the chance to take a more junior position that would have ultimately prepared him/her for a brighter future, and got a ding on the resume. The institution lost two years of progress and countless hours of mentoring and oversight.

So I do think there are times where it is appropriate for stakeholders to question whether other motives drive a hiring decision, but only if it is apparent that the candidate in question is either unqualified, or significantly below other candidates in terms of credentials and relevant experience.

There's such thing as ageism, too, so "youth" of a hire is not valid for a topic of discussion. In fact, age discrimination in employment has been unlawful--on a federal level--since Sandy was a college freshman.

And, it's sex, not gender...I feel I have been very clear on this. :)

One Tribe. One Family.

(03-20-2017 05:24 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  I guess I am just going to be that obnoxious poster without a sense of humor. I did NOT say that we should not criticize any new hire. I said we should not criticize a new hire because they are a member of a group. That is what I understood by the comment made about "PC considerations." I have not heard what else that comment could have meant but I did hear a lot of support for sex.

My comment was obviously a wasted effort and I apologize for wasting the message board's time.

You continue to be way out of line:

(1) I did not criticize the hire because SH was a member of a group.

(2) I did not criticize the hire, period.

(3) I did not say "PC considerations".

(4) I did say "There were PC aspects to today ... ".

(5) Watch the video ... listen to what was said ... there were PC aspects to that day.

I will not be tarred and "feather"ed over this, nor branded with a scarlet letter.

If this hire turns out to be a "Reveley", SH will do more than fine.

If this hire turns out to be a "Nichol", SH will have a tough time raising money ... remember ... that is what brought down Nichol.

(03-20-2017 05:42 PM)Tribal Wrote:  There's such thing as ageism, too, so "youth" of a hire is not valid for a topic of discussion. In fact, age discrimination in employment has been unlawful--on a federal level--since Sandy was a college freshman.

And, it's sex, not gender...I feel I have been very clear on this. :)

One Tribe. One Family.

The ADEA was passed in 1967...not 1767.

I think we can all agree that we need to give our AD some time on the job before we should praise or criticize her performance. We can also agree on one very important thing...we hope she elevates Tribe Athletics on a national level.
Let's give her, and each other, a chance.



One Tribe. One Family.

(03-20-2017 05:58 PM)Tribal Wrote:  I think we can all agree that we need to give our AD some time on the job before we should praise or criticize her performance. We can also agree on one very important thing...we hope she elevates Tribe Athletics on a national level.
Let's give her, and each other, a chance.



One Tribe. One Family.

Concur.