Is it time for the NFL to dump the Rooney rule?

[Deus Irae]

A policy that's racist contains at its core the doctrine that some races are superior to others. This policy doesn't state that or imply that. It's not racist. The idea that they're fighting racist with racism, therefore, can only come from someone who doesn't understand racism. They may be fighting racism (perceived or actual) with a ****amamie, unjust, ridiculous rule. That's a fair argument. But that doesn't mean it's racist just because it's ****amamie or unjust.

Thanks for demonstrating my point about your lack of knowledge on the subject. Here, let me help enlighten you a bit:

Definition of RACISM
1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
: racial prejudice or discrimination

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Take a moment to look at #2, and let's leave it at that.

 

[Ring 6]

Where did this idea come from that the Rooney rule was ever about team owners being "racists" or "bigots" who had to be forced to interview black people? The point was that there was a deep institutional imbalance in the NFL coaching & management ranks, which originated in an earlier era and was perpetuated by the nature of professional/social networking. This was very, very clear at the time the rule was implemented.

So they created an institutional "networking pipeline" to try to counteract an institutional networking imbalance. Nobody was told to hire anybody they didn't want. Nobody lost a job to a less qualified candidate. Nobody was denied a job or an interview. Pretty mild, really.

All this stuff about "the dictionary definition of racism" is silly. The "dictionary definition of discrimination" would give you plenty of leeway to find any meaning you wanted to as well. Playing with words like that demeans real prejudice and its victims.

IIRC, the Rooney rule eminated from the idea that there were so few minority assistants and coordinators that it wanted a light shed on them.
Frankly, it was attacking a problem from the front to the back, which always results in a poor plan. However, it would seem that the problem was also address from the other side as well, with a large increase in minority coaches in the league at all levels.
I think that favoring any group is wrong. "Making up" for past discrimination with reverse discrimination is two wrongs not making a right. However, in a league where something like 75% of the players are minority, its kind of short sighted to say the rule is outdated because 25% of the coaches are.

 

[Snake Eyes]

As for the topic itself, there's really nothing to be gained from getting caught up in semantics over the definition of "racism" or "minority." We all, I'm sure, understand that words have multiple, often overlapping, meanings and that linguistic sophistry only serves to distract from the important subject, which is the actual reality of the situation such as it pertains to people's lives.

To say that "you don't fight racism with racist acts" is problematic, in that it uses a lingual quirk to make something seem paradoxically foolish. The word "racism" is being used to describe related but entirely different concepts. The first 'racism' refers to the abstract institution of 'racial injustice," whereas the second use of 'racism' uses the word to mean solely 'based on race as the primary factor.'

Thus, unpacked, the argument reads "you can't fight racial injustice with acts based on race as the primary factor," which is absurd on its face. The only way to fight racial injustice is with action in which race is considered as the primary factor.

There have been African American's in the land that now makes up this country ~350 years now. For two thirds of that time, they were legally considered property. It's only been illegal to openly refuse to employ them, rent houses to them or let them eat at your restaurant for 1/10th of the time they've been in this country. It was less than 50 years ago that the last NFL franchise allowed itself to be integrated. It was as late as the 80's when the sports media openly discussed whether black athletes were too deficient mentally or in terms of character to make good quarterbacks.

And after all of that, to suggest that all of a sudden, if we all stop acknowledging race as an issue, it won't be, is, too my mind, criminally wishful thinking.

The Rooney rule isn't in place to ward against racist owners not wanting to hire black people. It's there because it takes a lot of effort to change the realities left over after three plus centuries of being considered, both in the nation's hearts and its laws, a lower class of person.

Ok, so the teams have to categorize people into racial groups, thus furthering thinking along racial lines, not because there's active discrimination by teams because you think it'll get rid of racism in society in general, ok there

 

[neuronet]

It's just an interview, it isn't like there is a quota or something. Not that big a deal, IMO. There's much bigger worries in the NFL than this rule for goodness' sake. E.g., sorting out what counts as unecessary roughness. Overtime rules. Challenge rules (i.e., what is allowed to be challenged).

 

[Snake Eyes]

The fact that we still categorize people as "black" or "white" is proof of that.

You mean like the Rooney rules does?

 

[neuronet]

If there was a footrace, and those in one demographic had a 40-pound ankle weight attached for the first half of the race, what is the most just way to remove the ankle weight? To simply remove it, or to give them a little push to make up for what happened?

I'm not trying to give an answer, but just pointing out a different perspective.

Institutional inequities have inertia, and a lot of the posts here are taking a naive approach to what it is like to overcome them even when there are no explicit written barriers in place to advancement.

 

[Kontradiction]

I was actually thinking of starting a thread on this the other day, but stopped because I wasn't sure whether or not it should go in the Political Cesspool or here. Anyway, this rule should have never gotten off the ground. It requires interviewing a minority candidate just because that candidate is a minority. Even if it's simply a formality (which is about as demeaning as it gets, especially when you know that the team is going to go elsewhere with the job). As some people have already said, that notion, in and of itself, is racist. I say abolish it. Teams other than the Steelers have shown that they'll hire a minority candidate at the drop of a hat if they feel that the candidate is the best person for the job.

 

[JPPT1974]

Well it isn't about race.No, not at all. It is about how you coach. And how you have chemistry and get along with your players. Plus, it is about winning. Winning games big or small that counts!

 

[Snake Eyes]

Where did this idea come from that the Rooney rule was ever about team owners being "racists" or "bigots" who had to be forced to interview black people? The point was that there was a deep institutional imbalance in the NFL coaching & management ranks, which originated in an earlier era and was perpetuated by the nature of professional/social networking. This was very, very clear at the time the rule was implemented.

So they created an institutional "networking pipeline" to try to counteract an institutional networking imbalance. Nobody was told to hire anybody they didn't want. Nobody lost a job to a less qualified candidate. Nobody was denied a job or an interview. Pretty mild, really.

All this stuff about "the dictionary definition of racism" is silly. The "dictionary definition of discrimination" would give you plenty of leeway to find any meaning you wanted to as well. Playing with words like that demeans real prejudice and its victims.

If it was truely about mixing things up you could easily have a group of people, not based on race, who want interviews put their names into a pool which would be selected at random and they'd get interviews. That isn't the case at all, the criteria is race, in which case they're doing a terrible job of persuing your goal.

You don't think there are plenty of very qualified non-minorities that won't get a shot because they don't know the right people?

 

[Deus Irae]

It's just an interview, it isn't like there is a quota or something. Not that big a deal, IMO. There's much bigger worries in the NFL than this rule for goodness' sake. E.g., sorting out what counts as unecessary roughness. Overtime rules. Challenge rules (i.e., what is allowed to be challenged).

If it's not a big deal, why is there a fine for not having such an interview, and why is it not something more along the lines of "The Rooney Suggestion"?

 

[ballou0254]

There absolutely should be a Rooney Rule in the NFL.

Up until 1979, there was only one minority head coach, Fritz Pollard, who did most of his coaching in the 1920s. Up until 2003, there were only seven head coaches in the NFL that were minorities. Including Pollard, the list is: Herm Edwards, Ron Flores, Art Shell, Denny Green, Ray Rhodes, and Tony Dungy. Also in 2003, 70% of the NFL's players were minorities, while only 6% of the league's head coaches were minorities. Compare these numbers to the NBA, where 75% of players are African American, and 40% of the head coaches are black. This is an extreme disparity of percentages that needed external forces (Rooney Rule) to correctly balance the numbers. Eight years later, minority head coaching percentages grew 13% to almost one-fifth of the league's teams employing minority head coaches. Like it or hate it, the facts are there to prove that the Rooney Rule has aided in job opportunities for minorities.

 

[lamafist]

Ok, so the teams have to categorize people into racial groups, thus furthering thinking along racial lines, not because there's active discrimination by teams because you think it'll get rid of racism in society in general, ok there

Whoever said anything about getting rid of racism in society? Certainly not me. I talked about taking steps to counteract the negative affects of longstanding institutional racism against a particular minority.

I'd never talk about "getting rid" of racism for the same reason I don't believe in the tooth fairy: because I'm not 7 years old any more. Racism, like poverty, crime and war, is a fact of life, a simple side-effect of human existence. It's never going away. Ever. We need to deal with it, out in the open, instead of sticking our heads in the sand.

Spouting platitudes about how people should just be fair and treat each other equally from now on is only all well and good for the people who haven't been getting the short end of the stick for generations.

 

[Fahrenhype]

All it does now is create a bunch of sham interviews for teams that had no intention of hiring the minority candidate to begin with. It is especially evident when an interim coach is doing a good job and you know the team has no reason not to hire him. Should I really be any more offended by the Cowboys going with Garrett than the Vikings going with Frazier? Everybody knew what the outcome would be. And did the Vikings have to interview an under qualified white guy first?

You can't live in a "color blind" society with stuff like this, but I wonder how long people are going to keep pretending that is what they wanted to begin with.

 

[upstater1]

Thanks for demonstrating my point about your lack of knowledge on the subject. Here, let me help enlighten you a bit:



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Take a moment to look at #2, and let's leave it at that.

Yeah, right. My lack of knowledge. if only you knew. I have actually real world experience on this subject overseeing employees. how about you? Obviously my definition that you quoted is ALL about discrimination. That's when racism happens. When an agent in power uses that power to discriminate against a race of people. The word discrimination there is not about differentiating between things, or drawing distinctions, but rather favoring/opposing someone because of their race.

 

[neuronet]

If it's not a big deal, why is there a fine for not having such an interview, and why is it not something more along the lines of "The Rooney Suggestion"?

I meant that abiding by it is no big deal. So you fly someone in and interview him. Bigger fish to fry. Pittsburgh is happy they did it I'm sure.

 

[neuronet]

All it does now is create a bunch of sham interviews for teams that had no intention of hiring the minority candidate to begin with.

Like happened with Pittsburgh.

 

[neuronet]

If I didn't know better, I'd say there's a lot of ign'ant crackas up in this joint.

 

[neuronet]

I am curious what all the naysayers think about the analogy I posted a while back...
If there was a footrace, and those in one demographic had a 40-pound ankle weight attached for the first half of the race, what should you do? Simply remove the weight, or give them a little push to make up for what happened?

What would be the right thing to do?

And why /why isn't this analogy apt to the case at hand?

 

[upstater1]

The Rooney Rule is not going anywhere, in fact I would be surprised if it is dropped in my lifetime. Once an entitlement of any kind is established, the people who benefit from it organize and reversal is nearly impossible.

Hmmmm, you mean like affirmative action? It doesn't exist anymore. But legacy admits are still around. They never go away it seems.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

They say that Mike Tomlin was a Rooney Rule interview and a longshot candidate that wowwed them in the interview and got the job.
Frazier had a couple of 'token' interviews that got him recognition.
It is a dynamic in the NFL that the coaches who get interviews but not jobs this year are at the top of the list next year.

I can't say for certain, but it really does seem like Tomlin was a guy who really benefited from the Rooney Rule. I mean he must have had awful odds, being the minority guy brought in while two of the top candidates, Grimm and Whisenhunt, were already on the Steelers staff. But he earned the job, and has shown himself to be a very good young coach with the potential to get even better. And Frazier's another good example, I hadn't thought of him.

I like the Rooney rule. I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm not saying it doesn't have flaws. But it's done more good than harm. There's actually very little downside to it. Even some of these mandatory interviews may not help the team all that much, but they're good for the coaches visibility like in the case of Frazier. At worst, they cost a team a few hours of time, hardly a huge and terrible penalty worth getting upset over.