Former Blazers Coach Terry Stotts Candidate for Kings Job

[Kingster]

1. Why are your questions framed in such a way as to suggest that you think that merit and diversity are antithetical to each other, when they're not?
2. There are very few jobs in which there is such a thing as "most" qualified candidate. And NBA head coach, IMO, is not one of them. When you have multiple equally qualified candidates, how do you decide which one gets the job?

Maybe I should rephrase the question for you: Has anyone ever asked Vivek if he willing to compromise merit on the basis of diversity?

 

[kb02]

Since we're all skirting around the issue, what is the #1 criterion for personnel decisions on the Kings' team? Is it merit? Is it diversity? Or are there some other criteria involved? Do you know? I don't. Based on the crappy personnel I see involved in announcing and in coaching, and based on the highly political remarks made by Vivek over the past couple of years, I do have to wonder whether merit is really the #1 criterion. Has Vivek ever been asked that question? If so, I missed it (too much other stuff going on) and would really like to be informed on the matter.

I offered three potential new hires based on different reasons. Two seem to be okay though they have warts, but one seems to not be okay because I said her champion would be Matina, who is the longest tenured Kings front office personnel and is widely acknowledged as Vivek’s right hand person. The second, most powerful person in any organization tends to have some influence over all company decisions. But instead of looking at that as a compliment, like wow, a woman is getting considered for a head coaching job in the NBA, it’s seen as a sexist remark, because I said her champion would be Matina.

 

[kb02]

With respect to possible coaching candidates, my hope is that the assistants on the Miami Heat are included in the pool. During the Heat game in which Reynolds was the analyst he mentioned that the Heat (and I'm giving rough numbers here) had taken over 100 charges so far during the season, whereas the next highest team was in the mid 50s. As of today, the Heat have taken 110 charges, with the 2nd best the Houston Rockets at 64. That is an insane differential. I was hoping that there would be more discussion of that stat, but unfortunately there was not. It certainly raises the question: How is it that Miami takes almost TWICE the charges of the next highest team in the league? Can we really believe that the Miami Heat players are soooo athletically gifted relative to the rest of the league that they can get twice the charging calls of the next highest team? I find that very difficult to believe. I think it has more to do with players being willing to take those charges than the capability of being able to take them. And to my mind, that has to do with coaching, and yes, "culture."

Check out the NBA Advanced Stat page on Hustle Leaders: https://www.nba.com/stats/players/hustle-leaders/

In all the categories of "hustle" I couldn't find one Kings player in the top 10. (In fairness, if you click on the "team" page you can find that the Kings did come in 10th in one of the categories - contested shots). Do you know the player that is 6th in charges taken per 36 minutes? Dwayne Dedmon of the Miami Heat! (LOL!) Our beloved Dwayne is among the league leaders in this "hustle" and toughness category. Now if that isn't an endorsement of Miami Heat culture, I don't know what is. Talk about turning a lump of coal into a diamond. Holy moly.

Anyway, whatever the Heat are drinking, I want the Kings to start drinking. And I definitely want McNair to those Miami Heat assistants a look for the future HC of the Kings.

I agree. I think Sporlstra is the best coach in the league.

 

[Kingster]

I agree. I think Sporlstra is the best coach in the league.

And maybe their organization is the best overall.

 

[Kingster]

I offered three potential new hires based on different reasons. Two seem to be okay though they have warts, but one seems to not be okay because I said her champion would be Matina, who is the longest tenured Kings front office personnel and is widely acknowledged as Vivek’s right hand person. The second, most powerful person in any organization tends to have some influence over all company decisions. But instead of looking at that as a compliment, like wow, a woman is getting considered for a head coaching job in the NBA, it’s seen as a sexist remark, because I said her champion would be Matina.

Personally, unless it's literally in someone's words (e.g. saying, "I hate women" or "I don't like brown people") I find it both insulting and presumptuous that a person would through their extraordinary deductive powers say a poster's comments were sexist or racist.

 

[kb02]

And maybe their organization is the best overall.

They’re in my top 3 for sure.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Maybe I should rephrase the question for you: Has anyone ever asked Vivek if he willing to compromise merit on the basis of diversity?

I don't understand why you think that this is a worthwhile question to ask, in the first place? And, if you are asking, it would then lead me to ask the follow-up question: which hires have been made during the tenure of Ranadivé's governance of the Kings that lead you to believe that he has a tangible track record of "compromising merit on the basis of diversity," or are you of the opinion that increasing diversity without compromising merit simply cannot be done?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Personally, unless it's literally in someone's words (e.g. saying, "I hate women" or "I don't like brown people") I find it both insulting and presumptuous that a person would through their extraordinary deductive powers say a poster's comments were sexist or racist.

I think that this statement indicates a very superficial and surface-level understanding of both racism and sexism.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The crazy thing with Hammon is she has the merit and its the perception that it would be a diversity hire that is actually the biggest barrier. Jodi Allen was very open about wanting to "trailblaze". But it's also clear Portland was a total loss situation and the next coach was walking into Eric Musselman's shoes.

It's why it has always made sense for Hammon to ascend when Pop steps down. Maybe that option is still on the table 2-3 years from now and everybody knew this when she took her new job. It makes zero sense for her to come into an org with no history where some in the media will criticize from day one and others will gleefully drive the narrative to get her fired and then turn on the team the minute they do for not giving the first woman a fair shake.

NONE of that would happen if/when she takes the Spurs gig. ok, on reflection I am sure some of it would but she'll get a fair shake.

 

[kb02]

I think that this statement indicates a very superficial and surface-level understanding of both racism and sexism.

What’s the difference between a surface-level understanding and whatever else is not surface-level?

 

[steelevt]

I don't understand why you think that this is a worthwhile question to ask, in the first place? And, if you are asking, it would then lead me to ask the follow-up question: which hires have been made during the tenure of Ranadivé's governance of the Kings that lead you to believe that he has a tangible track record of "compromising merit on the basis of diversity," or are you of the opinion that increasing diversity without compromising merit simply cannot be done?

I’ll bite on this one. I think he’s of the opinion that choosing based on merit should already include diversity or doesn’t exclude anyone based on diversity (because the best should be the best whatever color/gender/religion etc). But if your best choices didn’t include some diversity, in today’s world of social justice, then some might expect the pool of candidates to be broadened to include more diversity to at least show the resemblance of a “fair” search.

 

[ESP47]

I’ll bite on this one. I think he’s of the opinion that choosing based on merit should already include diversity or doesn’t exclude anyone based on diversity (because the best should be the best whatever color/gender/religion etc). But if your best choices didn’t include some diversity, in today’s world of social justice, then some might expect the pool of candidates to be broadened to include more diversity to at least show the resemblance of a “fair” search.

The NFL is a perfect example of what happens when you aren't allowed to just pick the best person for the job. You know who you want but you're forced to interview people you aren't interested in. If you tell the guy you want to hire that you plan on hiring him but you haven't interviewed the other guys that the league is forcing you to interview, then lawsuits start getting filed. But if you don't tell him you plan on hiring him, he might go and get hired by another team before you're done with the diversity interviewing process and you lose out on the guy you want and have to hire what you perceive as an inferior candidate.

The hypocrisy is also remarkable considering it applies to coaching but not players.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

What’s the difference between a surface-level understanding and whatever else is not surface-level?

A surface-level understanding is one which does not acknowledge nuance, context, microaggressions, etc. It's the level of understanding that we teach to second-graders, because they aren't sophisticated enough to conceptualize those things.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I’ll bite on this one. I think he’s of the opinion that choosing based on merit should already include diversity or doesn’t exclude anyone based on diversity (because the best should be the best whatever color/gender/religion etc).

I will stipulate that that is how it should work. And, in a vacuum, that is how it would work. But, in actual real-world application, that's not how it does work.

But if your best choices didn’t include some diversity, in today’s world of social justice, then some might expect the pool of candidates to be broadened to include more diversity to at least show the resemblance of a “fair” search.

I will push back on the notion that "social justice" has anything to do with it. That's just a convenient way of abrogating the responsibility of conducting a fair and thorough hiring process. If your process does not include interviewing from as diverse a pool as possible, then you cannot reasonably claim to have hired the "best" candidate, in good faith.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

The NFL is a perfect example of what happens when you aren't allowed to just pick the best person for the job. You know who you want but you're forced to interview people you aren't interested in...

If you only interview one candidate, you might get the person you want, but you can't reasonably say that you got the best person.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

NFL system is definitely imperfect. Odds are teams are going to hire the guy they are fixated on, but at least doors are opened and they are forced to consider people they may otherwise have looked over and they at least get the chance. MAYBE - the team sticks to their guns and makes the #1 hire, gets it totally wrong, but says damn we should have hired the other guy and he gets the job a few years later?

I don't know. Seems doing something is better than doing nothing in this case?

 

[kb02]

A surface-level understanding is one which does not acknowledge nuance, context, microaggressions, etc. It's the level of understanding that we teach to second-graders, because they aren't sophisticated enough to conceptualize those things.

Thanks for your definition of surface-level. My question is what’s the difference between a surface-level understanding of sexism or racism and a deeper-level understanding of sexism or racism?

And to be clear, I’m assuming the bolded above is in reference to second graders and not to posters on this board.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Thanks for your definition of surface-level. My question is what’s the difference between a surface-level understanding of sexism or racism and a deeper-level understanding of sexism or racism?

And to be clear, I’m assuming the bolded above is in reference to second graders and not to posters on this board.

The answer to your question is in the part of my post that you did not bold. The difference is that somebody who had a deeper understanding of sexism would not say something like, "You can't call somebody sexist, unless you catch them on wax literally saying, 'I hate women,'" because somebody who had a deeper understanding of what sexism is, how insidious it is, and how deeply it's woven into the fabric of our society, would understand that that's not the standard for is someone a sexist, or not. That's pretty much only the standard for, is somebody openly, aggressively and unapologetically sexist?

 

[ESP47]

If you only interview one candidate, you might get the person you want, but you can't reasonably say that you got the best person.

Any point to this other than just being pedantic?

The person conducting the interview thinks the person they selected is the best person for the job of the people that are available.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Any point to this other than just being pedantic?

The person conducting the interview thinks the person they selected is the best person for the job of the people that are available.

You mean, besides the fact that they don't actually know your second sentence to be true, because they didn't do their due diligence?

 

[kb02]

The answer to your question is in the part of my post that you did not bold. The difference is that somebody who had a deeper understanding of sexism would not say something like, "You can't call somebody sexist, unless you catch them on wax literally saying, 'I hate women,'" because somebody who had a deeper understanding of what sexism is, how insidious it is, and how deeply it's woven into the fabric of our society, would understand that that's not the standard for is someone a sexist, or not. That's pretty much only the standard for, is somebody openly, aggressively and unapologetically sexist?

Can you direct me to the definition for the bolded above?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Can you direct me to the definition for the bolded above?

You may find this resource helpful.

 

[kb02]

You may find this resource helpful.

So there is no universal standard.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

So there is no universal standard.

You're almost there... you're thisclose.

 

[ESP47]

You mean, besides the fact that they don't actually know your second sentence to be true, because they didn't do their due diligence?

And you don't know if the latter half of your sentence is true either because you don't know what type of research they did pre interview on potential candidates.

Either way, yawn. This is just arguing to be arguing, which is the norm when conversing with you. I'm out.

 

[kb02]

You're almost there... you're thisclose.

I guess I’ll just have to rely on my life experiences to define what may or may not be sexist or racist.

I don’t know what the threshold for sexism is, but by your definition that things don’t have to be stated for sexism to exist, this all women’s firm that I once worked at could be accused of being sexist. I was their first male hire, ever, and since I left, everyone that they’ve hired has been a women. Was there for four years and though their hiring history shows a gender bias, I don’t consider the org to be sexist.

I don’t know what the threshold for racism is, but by your definition that things don’t have to be stated for racism to exist, this all white firm that I once worked at could be accused of being racist. I’m Asian American and was the only minority amongst 30 people in the firm. Was there for five years and was the only minority during my entire tenure there. I don’t consider the org to be racist, but they might’ve considered me to be so, when I turned down their offer to throw a going away party.

I don’t know what the threshold for racism or classism is, but by your definition that things don’t have to be stated for the ism to exist, one of my mentors could be guilty of both isms when he suggested that I go to business school, because unlike him, I would need it to thrive in our niche within the i-banking industry that we occupied. He is white, went to prep schools, and was Ivy educated. He, however, did not and does not have a graduate degree. I do consider him to be privileged and needle him about it whenever we link up, but I don’t consider him to be racist or elitist, but rather someone who was being honest and gifted me with a kick in the ass to get ahead.

There are other experiences that I go to when trying to define what is or is not sexists or racist. My experiences may not lead me to the same definitions as yours, but they’re certainly just as valid.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And you don't know if the latter half of your sentence is true either because you don't know what type of research they did pre interview on potential candidates.

Except I do know it to be true, if they didn't actually interview all of the people who were available. If they don't actually interview the candidates, all they have to do is claim that they did their research, and then count on you to take their word for it.

 

[SLAB]

I hope Monte hires Frank Vogel without interviewing a single other person.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I hope you stub your toe on the corner of the bed.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I guess I’ll just have to rely on my life experiences to define what may or may not be sexist or racist.

I don’t know what the threshold for sexism is, but by your definition that things don’t have to be stated for sexism to exist...

That... is a very disingenuous interpretation of what I said.

However...

-Isms are not binary, but rather exist on a spectrum. And one of the reasons why they'll never go away is because too many people are hardwired to give the benefit of the doubt. And if your threshold for "Is this bigotry?" is that someone has to literally say, to your face, "I hate you because you are X," and nothing that falls short of that is bigotry to you, then you may be complicit in allowing a lot of "soft" bigotry to happen. With respect to the anecdotes you cited, you didn't provide enough information to say whether there was any sexism/racism happening there, or not. All you said was that you didn't personally experience it, based on what you understand to be sexism/racism, which is only but so useful. For example, at the firm you worked at where you were the only POC:

1. What percentage of firms that do similar work in your city are all of the partners/managing partners white?
2. What percentage of those firms have non-white hires, relative to the number of qualified applicants?
3. What percentage of the firms in your city have non-white people doing the equivalent of your job, relative to the number of qualified applicants, and what do the demographics of their managing partners look like?

The answers to those questions don't necessarily indicate racism... but they could, and you're probably not going to be able to find any examples of a hiring manager telling a candidate to their face, "We're not hiring you because you're not white." Only an incredibly obnoxious or incredibly stupid person would be that overt.