There are people who think women might not be as qualified as men to coach certain male sports.If a female is more qualified to coach a sport, gender should not be a factor in hiring at all.
Yes, men might respond better to a male coach than a female coach, but we’re in the 19th century where women have roles of authority over men both in the government and in the business world.
To say a qualified candidate should not be hired because the person is a woman is an archaic idea.
However, athletic departments should not be obligated to hire female coaches. Only if the woman is the best candidate should she be hired. Women do not need special concessions in the work world when it comes to getting jobs. Women, under law, are obviously seen as equal to men and should have the same opportunities. Why should women get special treatment that men do not get?
Women do not need pity hiring, and most certainly do not need a special clause in Title IX – the law requiring equal opportunities for women in college athletics – which allows such actions.
Though Title IX has downsides and has resulted in several men’s athletic programs getting cut, Title IX is good for female athletes and protects female programs.
However, Title IX should not dictate whom colleges choose to employ. To do that would further control the future path of college athletics and perhaps alter them permanently.
There are those who might argue that a female coach would probably relate better to women, and this might be true, but the goal of college athletics is to perform at a high level and succeed both in sports and in the classroom.
If a female coach is more qualified, then hire her and watch your athletics programs improve, but do not do it because you feel obligated.
Janelle Stecklein for the Editorial Board.