http://www.knoxnews.com/story/opini...-athletic-director-needs-more-women/97357770/
Sanctimonious garbage at its finest!! She had me interested until I read the sentence, "There is an institutional problem with men...." The next three sentences are breathtakingly generalizing, accusatory, and to an important final end that should matter the most to anyone reading- untrue. Men are insensitive to this problem? Really! I have a mother, wife, and daughter. Also, importantly, I am a law abiding citizen. Am I insensitive to sexual abuse, or for that matter any other crimes involving gender just because I am a male? How ignorant...and shockingly biased! (In an article voicing its concerns over bias...Ironic, right?!) In my opinion, her very simply, craftily mentioning the dynamic of the legal entanglements of the AD/University along with the monetary implications shows this editorial for what it truly is. Opportunistism disguised as altruism. Sanctimonious rubbish. Her article is nothing short of hopeful extortion, trying to make the case that if her wishes, or the ones shared by those of her "ilk," aren't followed, then well...it might cost UT even more heartache or for that matter, more money.
Let me ask you - Why should it be 50% women, 50% men? Why not 100% people who are the most qualified and knowledgeable/accretive to our program regardless of gender or race - which in case maybe she hasn't noticed, is a total rebuilding disaster? That might include both men and women, which I believe most Tennesseans have the good sense to judge on their own...but it won't resort to some ideological box-checking that she and the PC-set continue to resort to. Simply choosing women based on gender is no different than choosing only men for just the same reason. I pray she is in no way, shape or form involved in this process.
Sanctimonious garbage at its finest!! She had me interested until I read the sentence, "There is an institutional problem with men...." The next three sentences are breathtakingly generalizing, accusatory, and to an important final end that should matter the most to anyone reading- untrue. Men are insensitive to this problem? Really! I have a mother, wife, and daughter. Also, importantly, I am a law abiding citizen. Am I insensitive to sexual abuse, or for that matter any other crimes involving gender just because I am a male? How ignorant...and shockingly biased! (In an article voicing its concerns over bias...Ironic, right?!) In my opinion, her very simply, craftily mentioning the dynamic of the legal entanglements of the AD/University along with the monetary implications shows this editorial for what it truly is. Opportunistism disguised as altruism. Sanctimonious rubbish. Her article is nothing short of hopeful extortion, trying to make the case that if her wishes, or the ones shared by those of her "ilk," aren't followed, then well...it might cost UT even more heartache or for that matter, more money.
Let me ask you - Why should it be 50% women, 50% men? Why not 100% people who are the most qualified and knowledgeable/accretive to our program regardless of gender or race - which in case maybe she hasn't noticed, is a total rebuilding disaster? That might include both men and women, which I believe most Tennesseans have the good sense to judge on their own...but it won't resort to some ideological box-checking that she and the PC-set continue to resort to. Simply choosing women based on gender is no different than choosing only men for just the same reason. I pray she is in no way, shape or form involved in this process.
