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

[Deus Irae]

You really like to sound intelligent, but most of your posts, especially anything non-football related, are the exact opposite. And what's with the repeated use of "ignorant"? Do you not know what that one means either? That word has been used, abused, and twisted so much when it comes to race. Get over it, you're wrong here, I'm sorry. Face the facts and get over your white guilt. End of argument.

You might wish to re-read the thread. Your position has been:

I'm glad this thread was started and that there are still some sane people on this forum who realize how ridiculously stupid this rule is. Especially considering how many are surely white-guilt liberals to the core.

As someone else stated, the rule is flat-out racist. Why should a team be told who they have to interview? If they want, they should be able to have an all-white or all-black team if they so desire... I mean who cares? Freedom of choice.

My very first post was

It's always time to dump a rule that should never have been there in the first place.

and was followed up by

Putting in a rule which demands racist action in order to, theoretically, end or lessen racism in hiring practices, is one of the more idiotic notions this country has ever put forth. The NFL opting to do the same thing is one of the more idiotic notions the league has ever gone with.

And I harbor neither racism nor white guilt in my heart and mind.

As for your opinion of most of my posts, I'll be sure to make a note of that.

 

[SpiderFox53]

What I have provided you with is the definition of minority. If anyone else is using a different definition to define what is or is not a minority (and I'm quite sure they aren't), they would also be incorrect.

Go back and read through the thread again. You'll no doubt notice that most of the posts are comparing population percentages. In population percentage women are not a minority. I understand that they are considered a sociological subordinate group.

 

[sbpatfan]

I should probably stop posting on this but I can't help it.

I'm not so sure this is true. In business, it seems to only matter that you make money. In football, it seems to only matter if you win. Why wouldn't you have the respect of the team if your strategies are smart enough to win?

I'm talking about respect though. I don't think a woman could command the respect of a 53+ locker room full of men. Look at what happened to the Jets locker room when a female reporter stepped in there. A bunch of coaches are former players or have been immersed in the football culture for years. Women don't really have that, and I think it would be incredibly difficult for a woman to connect with players that she has nothing in common with.

 

[Haley]

I'm talking about respect though. I don't think a woman could command the respect of a 53+ locker room full of men. Look at what happened to the Jets locker room when a female reporter stepped in there. A bunch of coaches are former players or have been immersed in the football culture for years. Women don't really have that, and I think it would be incredibly difficult for a woman to connect with players that she has nothing in common with.

What I think you are saying is that we still live in a society too full of sexism to permit this. That I can believe, and I would agree. But I would maintain that sexism is the only preventative factor to this "respect" barrier.

Go back and read through the thread again. You'll no doubt notice that most of the posts are comparing population percentages. In population percentage women are not a minority. I understand that they are considered a sociological subordinate group.

None of this changes the definition of minority. Just because some subgroups can be measured numerically does not mean they all can. Nor does it imply that anyone is using numbers as the sole definition of minority. Simply because some subgroups can be measured numerically for minority status does not imply anyone else in this thread supports your perverted definition of the word. If you need further information on this, I would recommend the wiki page for the word minority. I am done with the topic.

 

[lamafist]

One one hand, I've got no problem with it being moved, because I think it's destined to result in politically related mudslinging.

Try not to be too ridiculous. You don't eliminate racism by being racist.

I hear you, and this.... is precisely the sort of dumbass post that will lead to it.

It's your "fault" that you're ignorant enough about racism to believe that my point demonstrates that I don't know what racism is, and that you're foolish enough to make a post noting that while displaying your own ignorance of the subject.

Look, I'm not going to get into this with you, because it will ruin the thread. Just go learn something on the subject, because you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Look, I'm not trying to call you out or anything, I just want to point out that you seem to be the source of a lot of the 'mudslinging,' at least in terms of insulting people or demeaning their posts instead of responding to them.

This is a topic that you clearly have strong feelings about, and there's no need to apologize for that. So just try and remember that you might need to keep a tighter reign on the vehemence of your rhetoric than you do when the topic is 100% football.

 

[ausbacker]

Look, I'm not trying to call you out or anything, I just want to point out that you seem to be the source of a lot of the 'mudslinging,' at least in terms of insulting people or demeaning their posts instead of responding to them.

This is a topic that you clearly have strong feelings about, and there's no need to apologize for that. So just try and remember that you might need to keep a tighter reign on the vehemence of your rhetoric than you do when the topic is 100% football.

Deus Irae is very good at telling people that their opinion is wrong whilst offering nothing to support his opinions other than as you rightfully pointed out, insinuations.

 

[Deus Irae]

Look, I'm not trying to call you out or anything, I just want to point out that you seem to be the source of a lot of the 'mudslinging,' at least in terms of insulting people or demeaning their posts instead of responding to them.

This is a topic that you clearly have strong feelings about, and there's no need to apologize for that. So just try and remember that you might need to keep a tighter reign on the vehemence of your rhetoric than you do when the topic is 100% football.

1.) You are calling me out, so there's no need to pretend otherwise. I generally have no problem calling others out, so I've no call to get butt hurt just because someone does the same to me. Now, to address the specifics:

2.) One of those responses, the "It's your fault" response, was me talking to someone who's claimed I didn't even know what racism is.

3.) One of those responses, the "try not to be" response was to you, after you'd given a smartass retort to a post I'd made. You may recall posting

Yes, because, as we all know, the best way to deal with a problem that's afflicted our nation for hundreds of years is to pretend like it doesn't exist.

The "vehement" posts you pointed to were responses to people either going at me personally or making the type of silly, snide comments on a politically charged issue that could get the thread sent to another forum. I'm comfortable with having made them.

 

[upstater1]

Yeah, you do realize you simply made up your own definition of "racism" to suit your point, sorry but the textbook definition of racism is quite different.


rac·ism   /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon race.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Hilarious.

Can you give a link to the dictionary definition?

This is embarrassing for you.

You deliberately cut off the other words in the sentence.

A policy based upon race FOSTERING A DOCTRINE THAT ONE RACE IS SUPERIOR TO OTHERS.

LOL, man. Don't argue so dishonestly. It's embarrassing.

My definition fits #2 precisely!!!

 

[upstater1]

No, I'm using the word completely acccurately, a policy based on race is BY DEFINITION racist, the issue is that the definition doesnt suit your arguement.

You're the one that changed the definition as I've proven.

Any policy based on race is racist? You seriously believe that? ANY POLICY WHATSOEVER?

 

[upstater1]

It's your "fault" that you're ignorant enough about racism to believe that my point demonstrates that I don't know what racism is, and that you're foolish enough to make a post noting that while displaying your own ignorance of the subject.

Look, I'm not going to get into this with you, because it will ruin the thread. Just go learn something on the subject, because you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

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.

 

[upstater1]

I should probably stop posting on this but I can't help it.

I'm not so sure this is true. In business, it seems to only matter that you make money. In football, it seems to only matter if you win. Why wouldn't you have the respect of the team if your strategies are smart enough to win?

Sigh. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a woman coaching a football team. I bet many could do it better than Rex Ryan. That being said, the vast majority of women do not play football, and therefore do not go into coaching football. The lack of women in football is not a sign that they are being deliberately excluded from its power structure.

 

[lamafist]

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.

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

I think it is a brutal rule.

Hire the most qualified person...to lead, to teach, to inspire, whoever in the hell that is.

If I am an owner and want to hire a leader for my franchise, am i seriously not going to hire him because he is black? Seriously? It is a business decision.

An iconic man once said a man should be judged by the content of his character, which IMO totally contradicts this bogus requirement.

 

[Coach42]

I'm all for the Rooney rule because it indirectly helps correct the real disgusting disgrace of the NFL, NEPOTISM. Jim Harbaugh, Jon Harbaugh, Rex Ryan, Rob Ryan, Schottenheimer, Phillips, Mora, Shannahan, Mike Shula, Pat Schurmur and on and on and on. Most (not all) are or were in the positions they are in because of family. The Rooney Rule at least breaks up the old boy club a little bit not to say someday there won't be a Tomlin Jr., or Morris Jr.

 

[patchick]

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.

 

[patchick]

I'm all for the Rooney rule because it indirectly helps correct the real disgusting disgrace of the NFL, NEPOTISM. Jim Harbaugh, Jon Harbaugh, Rex Ryan, Rob Ryan, Schottenheimer, Phillips, Mora, Shannahan, Mike Shula, Pat Schurmur and on and on and on. Most (not all) are or were in the positions they are in because of family. The Rooney Rule at least breaks up the old boy club a little bit not to say someday there won't be a Tomlin Jr., or Morris Jr.

Oh my, yes. Did anybody else rankle at the news that Florida gave Charlie Weis's 18-year-old a job in the football program to lure daddy there? (And racial preferences in college admissions are a drop in the bucket compared to the slots devoted to lazy bums whose daddy or granddaddy happened to attend the school.)

 

[upstater1]

I think it is a brutal rule.

Hire the most qualified person...to lead, to teach, to inspire, whoever in the hell that is.

If I am an owner and want to hire a leader for my franchise, am i seriously not going to hire him because he is black? Seriously? It is a business decision.

An iconic man once said a man should be judged by the content of his character, which IMO totally contradicts this bogus requirement.

You really don't believe this happens?
It happened for awhile not only in the NFL (and they hid behind the Bell Curve arguments) but it still happens in business all the time. There have been studies that proved people don't even get interviews based on their names alone. Margaret Smith is going to get the interview ahead of Lateisha Smith 99.9% of the time.

 

[BlueString94]

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.

Great post. What people don't realize is that race is still an issue in the United States. The fact that we still categorize people as "black" or "white" is proof of that. We're talking like they're f-ucking two different species, which is ridiculous. Hell, what if they were half black? Oh wait, sorry, racial intergration is wrong!

Idiots.

 

[ligermark]

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.

The rule has positives and negatives. The increased number of black coaches is good, though what impact the rule had is impossible to know. What bothers me about the rule is that there are times when a team has their mind made up and doesn't want to interview anyone else. This is what happened when Colts hired Tony Dungy and the Chiefs hired Herm Edwards. Last year, the Redskins wanted an established head coach after failing with a first time HC in Jim Zorn. They targeted Shanahan. What minority coach at this point can match his resume? Dungy is the only one and he was not interested in coaching again. Yet, the Redskins had to conduct sham interviews then unfairly got charged with racism in an implied way by morons like Mike Florio and others.

What happened to the Lions in 2003 was a disgrace. One thing that has helped the rule from being a lot worse is the black coaches going along with dubious interviews, and Dungy to his credit has encouraged them to do so.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree; however, if one of the above coaches was hired because or in part because of this rule (i.e. gave them a chance to talk to an owner and then convinced them) then it's a good rule.

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.