Track Lawsuit at Iowa

It's not a union position so the administration isn't bound to hiring the most senior applicant. It happens very day that companies hire outside of the organization to get the person they want. That's capitalism. That's the system that we all signed on for.

Doesn't have anything to do with resume inflation. It has to do with an administration that mandated that a female be hired. They went so far as to change the area of specialization for the coaching position from field events to distance running (which they already had coaches for) after the original job listing returned only male applicants.

http://qctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/complaint-alleges-gender-bias-in-u-iowa-track-job/article_3c807fba-6b2e-5832-8aa7-434f55f220c0.html

It's hardly surprising that something like this would happen at Iowa. The administrators are so out of touch with reality it's not even funny. Sadly, that's probably true at a lot of schools today.

---

He Hate Me wrote:

It's hardly surprising that something like this would happen at Iowa. The administrators are so out of touch with reality it's not even funny. Sadly, that's probably true at a lot of schools today.

---

I dont get it either. He got passed over the first time by a more qualified male candidate. That candidate turned down the position so he got to coach on an interim basis (no gender discrimination there). When the job was posted again they hired a more qualified female coach. Unless he can show that she was substantially less qualified or he was promised a non interim position, I dont think he has a case. I'm sure the female attorney he hired will be happy to take his $900 expense +hourly fees to look into it.

I dont get it either. He got passed over the first time by a more qualified male candidate. That candidate turned down the position so he got to coach on an interim basis (no gender discrimination there). When the job was posted again they hired a more qualified female coach. Unless he can show that she was substantially less qualified or he was promised a non interim position, I dont think he has a case. I'm sure the female attorney he hired will be happy to take his $900 expense +hourly fees to look into it.

Meeting quotas for equity is not a new concept and is steadily pushing the limits of common sense. The problem could have been the unprofessional comment made by a head coach that tipped the scale for the rejected applicant that inspired him to pursue litigation. That being said, it's possible there are other reasons for overlooking someone who was already in the program for a couple years. He had a chance to prove himself but I suspect that in a place like Iowa with a female associate AD in an incredibly liberal university town rife with lawyers, he's right but won't be able to pull it off legally. The cards are stacked against him no matter how qualified he is. As for the coaching staff, nice people but they should never have anything to say about something they have no control over. Their recommendations are only considered but not necessarily heavily weighed like they might be with a more successful program that brings positive attention to the institution. Winning is their bargaining chip which they don't have. Besides, football and basketball with wrestling close behind are the only sports that matter at Iowa.

Besides, they should have a female coach for a combined program. Again, common sense. 5-1 still seems a little out of balance. Maybe more female athletes should be encouraged to pursue coaching as a career.

Yep, im sure the state atty will point out the alleged comments were by non decision maker. That said, the supreme court in Fisher v. UT was in favor of affirmative action policy in college admissions.

---

Princess Ellen wrote:

---

He Hate Me wrote:

It's hardly surprising that something like this would happen at Iowa. The administrators are so out of touch with reality it's not even funny. Sadly, that's probably true at a lot of schools today.

---

Care to elaborate? Pretty brash claim without any evidence.

---

I think the "smoking gun" here is that after they couldn't/didn't get a qualified female candidate the first time they posted the position, they changed the area of specialization for the hire, even though they already had qualified distance coaches. This clearly shows intent to discriminate, and I don't see how an attorney can argue otherwise.

Isn't the ex female vol coach from FSU now the XC/distane coach at North Texas?

This happens all over the place. These schools do keep track of how many females and minorities that are hired. I was at a school where they hired a black female strength coach over some great candidates and I was told by the head strength coach that he had no say in the matter. They killed two birds with one stone. Black and female.

That's not a smoking gun, that's just some mud in the water. If they were not doing well with an all male staff for a combined program, what's wrong with hiring a qualified candidate who happens to be female if that's what they want to do? This coach sounds like a cry baby boo hoo a girl beat him. He has no damages, he has a coaching job at one of the thousands of schools that prefers white male candidates. He should have been more qualified, like that man they hired the first go round. He should have volunteered with a winning program like the woman they hired in the other round. If the job description favored male candidates and was discriminatory towards women, was precluding them from hire, they have every right to abide by EEO law and change it.

obtuse - I don't think you have this correct. It is difficult to discern without looking at the entire record whether the school discriminated on the basis of gender. If they did, and it can be proven, then the school violated the law. EEO law doesn't permit discrimination based on gender. It does require institutions not to discriminate, and meet diversity goals in hiring.

And I don't understand the notion you raise about the job description favoring men. Maybe it did, or maybe it didn't. But you don't know what it stated. Moreover, merely having a surplus of men apply does not automatically mean that the description was discriminatory.

From an optical standpoint, the school seems to have done this poorly. If they appear as if they going to select and select until they obtained the right gender, well, operating towards an unstated quota will not help them. But they have a chance to defend their position in court, so we will see.

The OP brought up a good point that no one is discussing. The female coach Iowa hired - is she really qualified?

We all know she did not "coach" Olympians and champions, etc.

So the administrative people that reviewed her resume - did they base their decision to hire her on her false resume?

I think that is the real question. I have no problem with any team hiring a female candidate. But would another female have been "more" qualified if not for the resume falsification?

Based on what I've heard from athletes at Iowa and on their results in both track and xc, they should just clean house and dismiss the entire staff and then they can even out the male:female ratio. That athletic program is just a mess between their terrible track/xc and their football program. I imagine it filters down into a lot of other sports too.

This kind of thing is not new... track programs in every division are "asked" to hire women for certain positions.

---

I see it differently wrote:

The OP brought up a good point that no one is discussing. The female coach Iowa hired - is she really qualified?

We all know she did not "coach" Olympians and champions, etc.

So the administrative people that reviewed her resume - did they base their decision to hire her on her false resume?

I think that is the real question. I have no problem with any team hiring a female candidate. But would another female have been "more" qualified if not for the resume falsification?

---