Lapchick Report

For sports writing we read the 2006-2007 Racial and Gender Report Card by Richard Lapchick. An analysis of those hired in the MLB, NBA, WNBA, MLS Soccer, NFL and college football, the piece brought the statistics into perspective. At first the numbers were quite intimidating, breaking down year by year the number of male/female ratio in association with their ethnicity.

I wouldn't have been shocked to discover that a majority of the position in sports are held by white men. With my secondary area of study in the UI's gender and sexuality studies department, we often discuss how race/gender and money/power positions juxtapose. It was a pleasant surprise to see that there has statistically been some improvement in diversity in the work place of these professional sports.

With a standard scale to measure for each league, Lapchick's findings and grading scale are easily understood. When computing the numbers, for example, it can be seen that the NFLS 2004 grade of a D+ improved to a B+ in 2006, meaning that the numbers were more favorable to having "equality" in the workplace.

While I applaud the work that has been done to make the numbers "even out," I still find it difficult to say that professional work places are evenly matched when it comes to having employees from diverse backgrounds. And, at least to me, Lapchick had pretty low expectations when it came down to a grading system.

In the college world a B+ is pretty darn good. So when I saw a B+ awarded to the MLB for race, I expected to see quite a bit of diversity on staff. Truth is, I didn’t. First off, women are in their own category with 24%. Not so bad. But then you look at race and there are 85% whites with only 5% African American, 8% Latino and 2 % Asian.

I’m not impressed.

That may be an improvement over the percentages from the years prior, but I think the real question is: why does this hold true? Are greater number of minority candidates applying and being given jobs based on merit? Are the leagues trying to fill a quota for diversity in the workplace? Are the numbers so low because the jobs are not awarded, or because minorities aren’t actually trying to get the job?

These questions can’t be answered using a mathematical formula to give a grade on a standard grading scale. I feel like Lapchick should have placed a greater emphasis on trying to figure out the percentage of applicants versus the amount hired to see if there is a disparity and why. It could be reasonable that 85% of the workers are white because only a handful of minority candidates applied. Perhaps more applied, but were professionally unqualified for the position.

It’s a pretty slippery slope when you throw “diversity” requirements into the equation. I feel that while diversity in the workplace is necessary, but not at the cost of quality workmanship and professionalism. I don’t believe that the race card should be so easily thrown around and played. Why turn down a promising young business professional that happens to be white, just because you have to hire someone of another race? I think that it should be an even playing field for everyone.

Of course, I’ve not had to face many workplace problems in my brief time in the work world. I’m also a middle-class Caucasian from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I don’t have the answer how this problem should be approached and solved, but I do think more attention needs to be paid to it instead of sweeping it under the rug or simply ignoring it.