P5 Athletic Directors and Ethnicity
When the rumor mill was swirling around hiring Warde Manuel, I was thinking about the fact that he would be the first edit: second (forgot about Tom Goss) minority athletic director Michigan has ever had leading the department. Then I started trying to think of any other schools with minority athletic directors, and aside from Gene Smith and Kevin Anderson from the Big10, I couldn't really think of any. I was curious just how unusual having a minority AD was, particularly considering the overall representation of minorities in college athletics.
So, I looked up the ADs for every P5 school - here's the results of this census. Just how unusual is it? Here's a chart:
Number | Percentage | USA Overall | |
---|---|---|---|
White | 54 | 83.1% | 63.7% |
Black | 9 | 13.8% | 12.2% |
Hispanic | 2 | 3.1% | 16.3% |
Other | 0 | 0.0% | 7.7% |
Total | 65 |
D1 Athletes | NCAA Coaches | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall | ADs | UMich UGs | Male | Female | Football | Basketball | Baseball |
White | 83.1% | 65.9% | 61.2% | 69.5% | 87.3% | 80.3% | 93.8% |
Black | 13.8% | 4.6% | 22.0% | 12.6% | 11.3% | 18.7% | 1.1% |
Hispanic | 3.1% | 4.9% | 4.1% | 4.1% | 0.5% | 0.6% | 1.9% |
Other | 0.0% | 24.5% | 12.2% | 13.8% | 0.5% | 0.3% | 1.9% |
The numbers track similarly with coaches, but do not line up well with the participation rates by athletes, a well-known phenomenon. Michigan's undergraduate population also looks quite different than the general athlete population - the linked Harper, et al. report notes that black men represent 58.1% of the football and basketball teams at UM, for a closer comparison on this point.
Another question is if there are any differences by conference. How does that break down?
Overall | ACC | Big10 | Big12 | Pac12 | SEC | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
White | 83.1% | 86.7% | 71.4% | 100.0% | 66.7% | 92.9% |
Black | 13.8% | 13.3% | 21.4% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 7.1% |
Hispanic | 3.1% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 0.0% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
Other | 0.0% | 7.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
With Warde Manuel on board, the Big 10 now appears much better - much closer to the breakdown of the athletes they manage, as does the Pac 12. The Big 12 and SEC both have decidely more monochromatic palettes.
My takeaway from this was that while minorities are better represented among the managers of athletic departments than I had expected, many still look decidedly different from the people in their departments. But this is yet another reason to be happy about being in the Big 10 and to have pulled some awesome people into our department.
January 27th, 2016 at 3:44 PM ^
He's not our first minority AD. There was Tom Goss from 1997-2000.
January 27th, 2016 at 3:48 PM ^
Ugh, forgot about him. Thanks, updated.
January 27th, 2016 at 4:34 PM ^
Tom Goss was pretty forgettable.
#HaloDeficitsAmnesia
January 27th, 2016 at 4:13 PM ^
Big Ten Ticket interview with Tom Goss from 1997.
January 27th, 2016 at 3:47 PM ^
Tom Goss?
Edit- jmblue beat me to it. Kudos
January 27th, 2016 at 3:54 PM ^
One other comment - do you have the breakdown of "Other" athletes by ethnicity? Does it include international students?
January 27th, 2016 at 4:06 PM ^
I linked to the report that I drew the NCAA stats from, but the links are a bad color in the table. They provided some additional breakdown in the report:
That report includes a lot of other stuff about ethnicity in college athletics, as well as within the NCAA itself.
January 27th, 2016 at 11:46 PM ^
now I'm curious as to which school(s) are led by the .4% native American population
January 27th, 2016 at 4:00 PM ^
in regards to our new AD. That always goes well.
/hire the most qualified person should be the first and only criteria for any job.
January 27th, 2016 at 4:11 PM ^
We consider it as part of our criteria for admission to the University, so I think its relevant when considering who we hire to lead it, as well.
January 27th, 2016 at 4:19 PM ^
It's always uncomfortable discussing race in connection with a specific candidate for a specific job. But if we want to enable more minorities to have access to those positions, it's a discussion we need to have.
January 27th, 2016 at 10:14 PM ^
Endeavoring to hire more people of color is not racism. Racism is the systematic reproduction of white privilege to the detriment of others. So by expanding employment opportunities nonwhites, you are countering that privilege.
Certainly we must hire job candidates based on merit, not skin color, and I don't believe anyone is suggesting that didn't happen with Manuel. But we also need to make sure we are building toward a situation in which minority candidates will have fair and equal access to these kinds of positions. We don't do that by pretending race isn't an issue and suppressing discussion of it.
January 28th, 2016 at 1:52 PM ^
This is not the definition of racism.
Full Definition of racism
- a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
- racial prejudice or discrimination
White privilege =/= racism. It would be equally racist to not hire a white candidate simply because he/she is white as it would be to not hire a black candidate simply because he/she is black.
January 29th, 2016 at 7:47 PM ^
Sure. Merriam-Webster's definition accurately reflects how the term "racism" is most commonly used in popular conversation, and I would not say that definition is incorrect. But it's not complete. Scholars generally view racism as much more systematic, structual issue and I embrace that view as well. Certainly Merriam-Webster is not the high authority on what racism fully entails. Is the refusal to hire an African-American candidate because of skin color "racist?" Certainly. But so is the distribution of lead-laden water to Flint households, even though the impetus for that decision may have been solely driven by financial considerations.
This idea of "not hir[ing] a white candidate simply because he/she is white" is not, and has never really been, an issue. In the abstract, woudl I agree that is a racist policy? Again, sure. But that isn't really what we are talking about here. Rather, the goal is to dismantle structures that have maintained white privilege such that more minority candidates gain access to high-profile jobs. The flip side of that is, of course, that fewer whites have access to those posiitons--and to those who lose out in the bargain, it's going to feel like oppression. "You didn't hire me because of my race!" Well, that's not really what happened. We took away an arbitrary privilege that would have enabled you to get the job previously,but without which you do not appear to be the most qualified candidate.
January 28th, 2016 at 8:43 PM ^
Just because some special snowflake similiar to you tried to redefine what racism means and your carry the torch like the special little flake you are does not mean the rest of the population that lives in reality are going to buy in it.
Your just another obnoxious terd trying to blame everything on racism and claiming only white ppl can be racist.
January 29th, 2016 at 7:21 PM ^
Well, when your position is so eminently sophisticated, and so eloquently stated, how can I not be convinced?
As for my views on racism, I am not sure what you are insinuating with your "snowfake" comment but I assure you my views are informed primarily by my own observations and experiences and by extensive reading I have done on the subject. I don't "blame everything on racism," but I do acknowledge its persistent and insidious presence in our society and work to eradicate it. If that makes you uncomfortable, then that's your problem, not mine.
January 30th, 2016 at 6:14 AM ^
Well, this comment doesn't make any sense.
January 27th, 2016 at 4:44 PM ^
We consider it as part of our criteria for admission to the University,
Isn't this no longer the case? I thought the referendum a few years back outlawed this.
Anyway, while I don't have an issue discussing race in athletics, I feel like this is not really the best area of society to focus on. African Americans are underrepresented in many different fields, but it seems like we only really care when it's sports, despite the fact that lucrative sports jobs are few and far between. There are 65 Power 5 athletic director jobs out there, so even if every single one were occupied by a black person, that's a drop in the bucket from a societal standpoint.
January 27th, 2016 at 4:51 PM ^
I had thought that the law had changed the way it was included, but was still part of the "points," but could not be the deciding factor - or something like that. I'm pretty removed from that part now so you may be correct.
I mean, you're right, of course, but those are 65 pretty powerful positions, as we, Texas and Rutgers have gotten a lot of very public experience with lately.
January 27th, 2016 at 5:33 PM ^
First there was a Supreme Court decision that reduced (but did not eliminate) the use of affirmative action. Then there was a statewide referendum a few years later that outlawed it.
To my other point . . . a decade ago I student-taught at a predominantly black high school, teaching a 9th-grade class. At the beginning of the term every kid filled out a questionnaire including some career goals. About half of the black male students wrote that their goal was to play professional basketball or football. (A couple wrote things like, "I know if I work hard I can achieve my dream.") None of them was a LeBron-style prodigy; they were just average players, and some had even gotten cut from their freshman teams. But incredibly, they legitimately believed that it was possible for them to improve enough to make varsity, earn a college scholarship and go on to play professionally. I thought they were kidding around when they said that; they were not.
I only had those kids for one term, and I'm not sure what's become of them (they are now 24-25 years old), but needless to say, none of them are in the NBA or NFL, and I don't know of any that played college football or basketball. I hope they ended up in college.
I just feel that sports already occupies too prominent a place in African-American society, if anything, and we really should be trying to highlight other, more stable and realistic, fields in which to boost their representation. If eight of the 65 ADs are black, great, that matches their share of the population, but that doesn't do much for the community as a whole.
January 27th, 2016 at 7:07 PM ^
Youre talking about the bollinger decisions..
Points systems were declared unconstitutional. This was the undergrad system.
Whats used today is a diversity statement, which was the law school system and even the state law has not affected last time i dealt with admissions. as recently as a few yrs ago, its pretty standard at most law schools for applications.
Ps thx for the most priviliged white guy take on african american society that i have read in awhile. If youd written it on a piece of paper, at least it would be useful for something before i goto work in the morning.
January 27th, 2016 at 4:21 PM ^
Race is a part of his identity, I'm sure, and I feel it would disrespectful to him to completely ignore a large portion of his identity. And this seems like a positive discussion!
January 27th, 2016 at 4:24 PM ^
Nobody is saying, or even hinting, that race should be a part of the hiring decision. And there's no evidence that it was. Manuel is a Michigan alum, played under Bo, and has been a highly successful AD at two other schools.
But it's equally stupid to close your eyes to the fact that minorities are underrepresented in a lot of leadership positions. Having data like this helps us have an intelligent conversation about this fact, rather than just pretending that isn't the case.
January 30th, 2016 at 6:19 AM ^
Well, I think what some people are saying is that race should be a consideration in the process, not a "criterion," that automatically qualifies or disqualifies a person. This can be implemented in a lot of different ways.
January 27th, 2016 at 4:18 PM ^
Can we please not do this? This is what the craiglist rants section is for.
January 27th, 2016 at 4:21 PM ^
If you think of an Athletic Director as, essentially, an executive, it makes sense that there would be some slight underrepresentation. After all, an AD is most likely going to be a person from age 45-60 who has had a good education and excellent career opportunities, and even 20-30 years ago a lot of those pathways were closed, or at least restricted, to minorities. It's good to know we're moving in the right direction.
Although the numbers aren't yet reflective of the population as a whole, as you point out, it still seems like the overall pool of ADs is more diverse than most groups of middle-aged executives.
January 27th, 2016 at 4:42 PM ^
I'm more concerned with the fact that the University of Michigan student body is only 4.6% black now.
Affirmative action may not have been the answer, but not having anything certainly isn't helping the numbers when it comes to representation.
Perhaps something like Texas 10% law would be an effective compromise.
January 27th, 2016 at 5:35 PM ^
So I'll throw it out there, if we're concerned about underrepresentation of black and hispanic students, are we also concerned that asians (including Indians) are overrepresented?
January 27th, 2016 at 6:17 PM ^
Asians have superb stats and will do fine at many high level institutions beyond just Michigan. Same goes for white people with similar stats.
Regardless, Affirmative Action is a bandaid on a festering wound that nobody wants to acknowledge: the failing K-12 public (in particular) education systems in US cities.
If the nation as a whole won't fix the systemic issues surrounding the underrepresentation issues seen in fields beyond higher education, then bandaids like the Texas' 10% Law or AA are needed in conjunction with an effort to increase trade school popularity.
January 27th, 2016 at 8:28 PM ^
As a man of color it's my opinion that welfare and other big government programs have broken up the black family. Black families used to be very strong, now it's around 90% wedlock births.
These kids are behind before they get started. It all starts at home.
BTW - I would consider Manuel part black and part white.
January 27th, 2016 at 10:17 PM ^
Michigan ensuring all their demographics are at X% does nothing to address the underlying reasons why the student population doesn't match the national. I don't really think universities can solve the issues, these are things that have been issues for this young men and women from birth up to college. Just admitting more people only glosses over several underlying issues
January 27th, 2016 at 6:00 PM ^
That sounds...unwise.
Besides the inherent unfairness of the idea it also does nothing to address a significant contributing factor to why the student body is less than 5% African-American--the poor state of predominately black and hispanic schools. Kids coming from these schools are receiving insufficient and in some cases downright poor educations. That makes them ill-prepared for the rigors of universities like UM.
I am all for helping people, but we have to do so in a way that gives them the best chance of success. Just admitting them without addressing the underlining problems is foolish and counterproductive.You are setting them up to fail.
This is not a problem that can be fixed easily.
January 27th, 2016 at 6:18 PM ^
I'm for bandaid solutions if the nation's leaders don't acknowledge the actual problems creating scenarios necessitating said bandaids.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/24/us/affirmative-action-ban…
It's not like Michigan had outstanding black representation prior to AA's removal. The referendum against AA seems more like a scapegoat for individual failure (similar to the moronic Abigail Fisher case).
Obviously the effects of different referendums in different states have had mixed results according to that NYT article, but it makes me question the authenticity of anti-AA advocates when you have places like Berkeley finally meet demographic percentages only for black enrollment to plummet to 2% after AA removal.
Until systemic education issues in this country are addressed, there will be a constant awkward walking of the line when it comes to balancing merit vs racial representation.
This goes without addressing the devaluation of trade schools, a major error in my opinion given the expensiveness of colleges pricing out many families of all ethnicities.
January 27th, 2016 at 6:44 PM ^
is whether those kids can handle the rigors of a Michigan education. Are they prepared well enough for them to succeed?
It's not enough to admit them. You need to make sure that they have the skills to succeed as well.
January 27th, 2016 at 7:11 PM ^
You act as if the mismatch theory is set in stone. There are various research studies that support and debunk it. Acting like people benefiting from AA may be in over their head is insulting when we all know 4.0 kids from competitive high schools barely make it through college themselves.
That being said, the college's administration should know what to do with the students they accept. If they know there are under-qualified students in their schools, then they should provide the resources to help said students. I don't see how mismatching is a society issue. The colleges should support the laws they vouch for with proper resources.
January 27th, 2016 at 7:58 PM ^
What I specifically said was that they may be ill-prepared. That is a perfectly reasonable concern considering the poor state of the schools they attended.
Your point about kids from competitive is understood,but in my opinion there is more cause to be concerned about kids from poorer backgrounds(regardless of race) because of the generally inferior education they receive.
January 29th, 2016 at 9:35 AM ^
Wait a minute, why should a school assume there are under-qualified people attending? They have an admissions process for a reason. And if diversity considerations are truly - and purposely - admitting under-qualified students, then that's an incredibly self-serving and destructive thing for the school to do. That would be just using under-qualified minorities as an excuse to wave a diversity flag.
January 29th, 2016 at 8:59 PM ^
Then why is SQ even bringing up the "under-qualification" angle if what you said is true?
As I said before, colleges should know who they're admitting.
Research would suggest that you stated is not true. There are under-qualified people admitted every year. This is not surprising given the lack of equality when it comes to high school education in this country.
Let's not pretend like the DPSs and Andovers of the world are remotely equal in terms of quality.
January 27th, 2016 at 6:42 PM ^
I do have to agree that if we're really concerned about under privileged youths in America making it to and through college, then establishing a quota system at the collegiate level in no way addresses the causes at the heart of the matter. If we want to improve these numbers and the lives of these students, then they need to be reached, mentored, and encouraged 4-10 years sooner.
January 27th, 2016 at 6:05 PM ^
thatsracist.gif
January 28th, 2016 at 7:52 AM ^
to the Big 12 and SEC for being so diverse. /s
January 28th, 2016 at 12:05 PM ^
Wait, Warde Manuel is black?
January 28th, 2016 at 12:11 PM ^
This is excellent info. Thank you!
Comments