Agree. Ms. McGraw is the head coach and it is her absolute discretion to decide whom she wants as assistants. She is assuming the risk and she is the one who will be fired if she doesn't hire quality assistants who can help make her team successful. While I would argue that it's best to get the best possible people, male or female, I understand her reasoning.
I agree with this. But, then, I've never really been one to automatically think that discrimination is, in any and all circumstances, an evil thing.
The word carries a connotation that conjures up bad memories of such things as the Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro and Rosa Parks. But it actually has a much broader meaning. After all, basketball coaches (and GMs) at all levels pretty much universally discriminate against short people -- the average height of players in college and pro basketball is much taller than the average height of the general population. And so what? They've figured out that taller people tend to make better basketball players.
If Muffet wants to discriminate against male assistants (whatever her reasoning), more power to her. I think she should be able to do that.
But I would also say, as an employer myself, that hiring practices which discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. are almost always a bad idea -- questions of legality aside. Why put self-imposed limitations on your pool of available talent? And, yes, I'd say the same thing to men's head coaches.
Just anecdotally for myself, and keeping with sports, the single best golf teacher I ever had was a woman. I got way more out of her lessons than I did from any of the male teachers I've had. If I had a policy of saying that I'd only take lessons from male teachers, then I'd have never had the benefit of her teaching. And how would that serve my specific interest of being a better golfer?