An ethical anlysis by ethicsinbusiness.net: The Organization and the People in It of Hoop Dreams:

1.Were Marianne Stanley and George Raveling doing work of comparable value?

Yes, I do believe that Marianne and George were doing work of the same comparable value. Both coaches were coaching the same amount of games each season, and both were doing a great job.

2.Was Stanley treated unfairly or in some way discriminated against? Should USC have offered to pay her more?

I do believe that Stanley was treated unfairly or in some way discriminated. She was doing the same job, and had plenty of experience, yet she was being paid less than half of what Raveling was making. The USC should have offered her a package comparable to that of Raveling, it would have been the right thing to do.

3.Why do sports played by men tend to be more popular and generate more revenue than sports played by women? Are female athletes—and their coaches—disadvantaged? Are they discriminated against? If so, who is responsible for this discrimination, and do colleges and universities have an obligation to do something about it?

I really do not follow sports too closely, so I am not quite sure why one would generate more revenue than the other would. I understand that men watch men’s college sports more than women’s sports, but I think it might be partly due to the media attention that is given to one over the other. I know when I listen to the news, men’s sports scores are noted, but I do not recall hearing anything about women’s sports. Therefore, the teams’ PR staff needs to get better coverage and attention to the women’s games.

Disadvantaged how? I think it is a disadvantage that they do not get the attention they deserve, but steps can be taken to change this. Are they discriminated at every university? I would say no, but at some such as USC, yes they are. There is not just one person that is responsible for the discrimination, it stems back over time. While women are supposed to have “equal” rights, I do not always feel that this is the case. Some people are stuck in the past, and have this mentality in their head that men are better, which is definitely not the case. I think that this discrimination will continue until this stereotype no longer exists. Universities and colleges have been established to educate, so I think they should do just that to resolve the issues of discrimination.

4.Should universities like USC base their coaching salaries entirely on market considerations? Or should they pay the coaches of men’s and women’s sports comparable salaries based on experience, skill, and performance?

I believe that the coaches’ salary should be based on experience, skill, and performance. If the women’s team coach is doing much better than the men’s team coach, then I think there is nothing wrong with the women’s team coach being paid more. It is only fair.
5.Respond to the argument that because men are free to coach women’s teams and women to coach men’s teams, there is nothing discriminatory in the fact that one job pays more than the other.

It is only discriminatory if both teams are equally ranked, have good coaches and one coach is being paid more than double that of the other. It is fine to have one job pay more than the other is there is variables that back up the increase in salary, such as experience, skill, and performance.

6.Was Sharrona Alexander’s pregnancy likely to have adversely affected her coaching performance? If so, was Marianne Stanley wrong to ask her to resign? How should Stanley have handled the situation?

I do not believe that Alexander’s pregnancy would have had an adverse affect on her coaching performance. As the book noted, it may help her positively in her coaching career. Yes, Stanley was wrong to ask Alexander to resign. Stanley should have sat down with Alexander and ask her how she was doing with the pregnancy, how long into the pregnancy did she planned to coach, and how much of a leave would she need after the child was born. This way Stanley could plan a strategy for the season if another assistant would be needed, or maybe Alexander’s pregnancy might not affect the season at all. Resignation was not the proper way to handle this situation, and Stanley should know this after everything she has been through over the years.