MN Daily column: Hiring Goetz would be a Gophers victory

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,811
Reaction score
16,259
Points
113
per Martha Pietruszewski:

As I’m not a college athlete, I can’t speak to Goetz’s skills as well as others can. However, I think she’s done a great job stepping into a position that was under a lot of scrutiny before she filled it. Unfortunately, a search committee might replace her.

There would be several benefits to keeping Goetz as athletics director. She has been with the Gophers since 2013, and we needed her leadership expertise during a time when the men’s basketball team has come under fire for the role some of its members played in an illicit video.

Unless Goetz has some skeletons hidden deep in her closet, I don’t see why the University should waste money and time to lead a national search for a new athletics director. A fine candidate is already sitting in the position.

Another reason why Goetz makes the most sense for the job is because she’s a woman. It’s always a good thing to have more women in executive leadership. Women are capable, thoughtful leaders, and female athletes could use a strong role model.

http://www.mndaily.com/opinion/columns/2016/03/30/hiring-goetz-would-be-gophers-victory

Go Gophers!!
 


station19 said:
Gee, was this written by a male or a female?

What a miserable fail.
Click to expand...

What is a "miserable fail"? Do you disagree with the idea that there should be more qualified women in executive or leadership positions? Or that women are not able to be effective leaders?

It is a different argument that perhaps a national search will reveal a candidate that is more able and qualified than Goetz.
 

citywok said:
What is a "miserable fail"? Do you disagree with the idea that there should be more qualified women in executive or leadership positions? Or that women are not able to be effective leaders?

It is a different argument that perhaps a national search will reveal a candidate that is more able and qualified than Goetz.
Click to expand...

Because of this statement? Another reason why Goetz makes the most sense for the job is because she’s a woman.

Hiring the most qualified makes sense. Hiring her because she's a woman does not make sense. Pretty straightforward.
 

I really don't know any of the proposed candidates well enough to know how they'd do. I am wary of the hire folks because they're minnesotan or have connections to the university hires if only because this isn't a job you do because you're local or popular, it is a pretty tough job.

I wouldn't hire Beth because she's a woman, I doubt she'd want that too, I'm guessing she thinks she's a good candidate because she'd be good at the job.
 


station19 said:
Gee, was this written by a male or a female?

What a miserable fail.
Click to expand...

What part of "opinion" did you not understand?

You have every right to say you don't agree with the opinion - but opinions are not facts - they cannot be measured on some simple true/false or right/wrong scale.

What if the writer had said: "after the performance of the last AD, there's no way a woman could be any worse, and could potentially be a lot better."
 

I agree that hiring an immensely qualified, motivated person is the most important thing to do, regardless of gender or any other demographic.

It is strange to me that some people are really knee-jerk set off by statements like "another reason is because she is a woman". Nobody is demanding she be hired strictly because of her gender. That doesn't mean it can't be a contributing factor, all other qualifications similar or equal. Just like I would rather hire a qualified Minnesotan.

Were I the one doing the hiring, and Goetz was as qualified as anyone else in the running, I would hire her because I would be confident that it would work out well and also land on the right side of history. People are going to look back on this era as one where women still got disproportionately $#*% on, despite how enlightened we are supposed to be. Sort of like how we now look back on that baffling and dark era of Jim Crow Laws, or to tie it in with this subject, pre-integration college athetics. The sun will shine brightly on those who were shown to take chances and chip away at that wall.
 

citywok said:
I agree that hiring an immensely qualified, motivated person is the most important thing to do, regardless of gender or any other demographic.

It is strange to me that some people are really knee-jerk set off by statements like "another reason is because she is a woman". Nobody is demanding she be hired strictly because of her gender. That doesn't mean it can't be a contributing factor, all other qualifications similar or equal. Just like I would rather hire a qualified Minnesotan.

Were I the one doing the hiring, and Goetz was as qualified as anyone else in the running, I would hire her because I would be confident that it would work out well and also land on the right side of history. People are going to look back on this era as one where women still got disproportionately $#*% on, despite how enlightened we are supposed to be. Sort of like how we now look back on that baffling and dark era of Jim Crow Laws, or to tie it in with this subject, pre-integration college athetics. The sun will shine brightly on those who were shown to take chances and chip away at that wall.
Click to expand...

in what way is it a contributing factor? how does her being a woman positively impact her job performance and that of the department as a whole. I'm open to hearing an argument, but "she's a woman" is not an argument. "We need women in executive positions" is not an argument. "women need role models" is not an argument for why someone should be the AD at the U. We aren't performing a public service by hiring an AD, we're hiring someone to make our athletics program successful.

And this line says "you should stop reading here"
"As I’m not a college athlete, I can’t speak to Goetz’s skills as well as others"
 

Is the University suddenly short on females in leadership positions? Is their a quota we are missing currently?

Because arguing that she is a good hire based on her gender is like saying "I won't vote for Trump because he has small hands".
 



Otis said:
Is the University suddenly short on females in leadership positions? Is their a quota we are missing currently?

Because arguing that she is a good hire based on her gender is like saying "I won't vote for Trump because he has small hands".
Click to expand...

Well you know what that implies, so.......
 


Otis said:
Is the University suddenly short on females in leadership positions? Is their a quota we are missing currently?
Click to expand...

12 of the 15 people listed under administration for sports are men, so probably yes.
 

I've never met Beth Goetz. From what I can tell, she seems to be an intelligent, serious and popular candidate. Having said that, I doubt she is happy about the way this article was presented.
 




I can't say it enough - just hire her and be done with this and the BS search committee.
 


Section2 said:
in what way is it a contributing factor? how does her being a woman positively impact her job performance and that of the department as a whole. I'm open to hearing an argument, but "she's a woman" is not an argument. "We need women in executive positions" is not an argument. "women need role models" is not an argument for why someone should be the AD at the U. We aren't performing a public service by hiring an AD, we're hiring someone to make our athletics program successful.

And this line says "you should stop reading here"
"As I’m not a college athlete, I can’t speak to Goetz’s skills as well as others"
Click to expand...

Out of the 65 Power 5 schools, only 3 employ women as their athletic directors (as of last September). Do you really think that is because the male hires are always just that much more qualified to be in the top leadership position? If they decide that Goetz is qualified, chipping at that glass ceiling is very important and overall really good for our athletic department (especially considering our past track record). And you calling it a "public service" is pretty demeaning. I am sure you are the type that would fire back with stuff like how her "tone" will "alienate boosters" or something.
 

zman said:
50/50. Surely there's a transgender somewhere.
Click to expand...

Jenner! Gold medal winner and his/her line of cosmetics. You are a genius. The PC police at the U would be besides themselves with joy.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
What part of "opinion" did you not understand?

You have every right to say you don't agree with the opinion - but opinions are not facts - they cannot be measured on some simple true/false or right/wrong scale.

What if the writer had said: "after the performance of the last AD, there's no way a woman could be any worse, and could potentially be a lot better."
Click to expand...

Oh quit being so naive.

Intelligent people don't hire(or refuse to hire) someone in a administrative position based on their sex.
 

station19 said:
Gee, was this written by a male or a female?

What a miserable fail.
Click to expand...

+1,000,000

Sounds like it was written as a remedial assignment for a Carlson School course on Writing Letters of Recommendation.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 


citywok said:
Out of the 65 Power 5 schools, only 3 employ women as their athletic directors (as of last September). Do you really think that is because the male hires are always just that much more qualified to be in the top leadership position? If they decide that Goetz is qualified, chipping at that glass ceiling is very important and overall really good for our athletic department (especially considering our past track record). And you calling it a "public service" is pretty demeaning. I am sure you are the type that would fire back with stuff like how her "tone" will "alienate boosters" or something.
Click to expand...

you must be really outraged at the lack of women coaching football.
I would bet that a lot fewer women want to be ADs than men. that explains a lot of the disparity. I don't really know though. What I do know is that we should hire the best person for the job and gender should not be a consideration She should earn the job on merit not because of her gender. To me it's demeaning to get the job for any other reason.
You are saying its demeaning to call it a public service but also tout that it will break the glass ceiling. Make up your mind.

I don't know enough one way or the other on her. I would support her if hired. I just want the decision made for the right reasons.
 

citywok said:
I agree that hiring an immensely qualified, motivated person is the most important thing to do, regardless of gender or any other demographic.

It is strange to me that some people are really knee-jerk set off by statements like "another reason is because she is a woman". Nobody is demanding she be hired strictly because of her gender. That doesn't mean it can't be a contributing factor, all other qualifications similar or equal. Just like I would rather hire a qualified Minnesotan.

Were I the one doing the hiring, and Goetz was as qualified as anyone else in the running, I would hire her because I would be confident that it would work out well and also land on the right side of history. People are going to look back on this era as one where women still got disproportionately $#*% on, despite how enlightened we are supposed to be. Sort of like how we now look back on that baffling and dark era of Jim Crow Laws, or to tie it in with this subject, pre-integration college athetics. The sun will shine brightly on those who were shown to take chances and chip away at that wall.
Click to expand...
Wait... Are you really comparing woman in the workplace to Jim Crow law? I mean, really? If there was ever an era we are proactive on equaility, you're living it. Is it perfect? No, but compare it to even the 80's, it's a HUGE change. In my book it's a good change, but people like to take topics to the extreme... Aka reconsider your arguments.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
 

Matt_Buschena said:
Wait... Are you really comparing woman in the workplace to Jim Crow law? I mean, really? If there was ever an era we are proactive on equaility, you're living it. Is it perfect? No, but compare it to even the 80's, it's a HUGE change. In my book it's a good change, but people like to take topics to the extreme... Aka reconsider your arguments.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The point I was making is that people are going to look back on 2016 and wonder why we were still struggling with this. Thanks for your reply. Go Gophers.
 

citywok said:
The point I was making is that people are going to look back on 2016 and wonder why we were still struggling with this. Thanks for your reply. Go Gophers.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing people with gopherhole poststers. One doesn't represent the other.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
 

Matt_Buschena said:
I think you are confusing people with gopherhole poststers. One doesn't represent the other.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

3 posts in and you already get it. You must be some kind of genius or something..?
 

bottlebass said:
3 posts in and you already get it. You must be some kind of genius or something..?
Click to expand...
No, I've lurked long enough to call bull**** when I see it.. And I've had a few cocktails... Go on with your 'better than thou script though'... Cause that's an always lacking on the hole.... Haha.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
 

Matt_Buschena said:
No, I've lurked long enough to call bull**** when I see it.. And I've had a few cocktails... Go on with your 'better than thou script though'... Cause that's an always lacking on the hole.... Haha.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

only a few cocktails? better step your game up some. :drink:
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom