Implicit Biases and Representation

When Mrs. Barcomb talked about the selection process of women coaches, she reminded me of the 2018 U.S. Open, when Serena Williams accused the umpire of being dishonest. While the terms she Williams used were common amongst male athletes, she was immediately charged with verbal assault. There has always been a double standard in athletics that actively works against women in the sector: Women are “emotional,” while men are “passionate.” This discussion brings us back to our first lecture with Mr. Robertson, who argued that the language we use on a daily basis is often gendered, and it reflects our biases. It would, in fact, be interesting to compare the performance reports of male and female professionals in the field of athletics, with a specific focus on the adjectives that one uses in the hiring and assessment processes.

The underrepresentation of women among coaches is an outcome of power structures, as Mrs. Barcomb outlined. Because so many of administrators on sports teams are men, it shouldn’t be a surprise that implicit biases are present in the hiring process. Like all forms of underrepresentation, it is difficult to challenge the institutional norms as individuals. Even though employers can choose to hire more female coaches, they do not have the resource or capability to change the power structure above them. In a society where women do not get a lot of job prospects by becoming coaches, they are effectively discouraged to pursue a career in the field. Then we see a vicious cycle: Even if one university chooses to look for more women coaches, they may not find a lot of female candidates. Administrators often use this as an excuse, simply because they alone cannot change the circumstance. To increase the representation of women in coaching, “hiring more women” in silence isn’t enough. There needs to be social movements that push against the male-centered athletic sector, and they need to be visible to the public in spite of backlash.