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

[AzPatsFan]

The Dolphins want to hire Harbaugh.....
Do they really need to do a manditory interview of a black coach before they can hire him?

At the end of the 2010 NFL season, there were 8 black head coaches.
Marvin Lewis, Cincinnati Bengals (eighth season).
Lovie Smith, Chicago Bears (seventh season).
Mike Tomlin, Pittsburgh Steelers (fourth season).
Mike Singletary, San Francisco 49ers (third season).
Jim Caldwell, Indianapolis Colts (second season).
Raheem Morris, Tampa Bay Buccaneers (second season).
Leslie Frazier, Minnesota Vikings (interim coach).
Eric Studesville, Denver Broncos (interim coach).

The last USA demographics I could find has the Black population
at 12.4 percent

If there were 8 black head coaches in the NFL at the end of the
season, then 25% of the head coaches were black, which is more
than double the 12.4% black population percentage.

If someone is going to spend close to a billion dollars on a football team,
I am sure they are going to hire the best coach they can find.

But not a single Asian,...or Pacific islander... Indian, ...or Basque, ...or Latin American, or... even a FEMALE!

But I agreee we need the Ronney rule for everyone else BESIDES white and black males. What utter bovine pasture patties!! As if we needed to have more official, approved, liberal, racism, in action ...

 

[ballou0254]

Guys, for the record, Mike Tomlin was not a Rooney Rule hire. Dan Rooney had already interviewed Ron Rivera (hispanic) before Tomlin, thus Rivera had satisfied the Rule before they ever interviewed Tomlin.

 

[Froob]

How do we know there aren't any black owners out there racist towards white coaches? Should we require an owner must interview one of each race? I could see if this rule was implemented in the 60's or 70's but 2003? Jeese...

 

[Ring 6]

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?

Its a bad analogy. It says minorities TODAY should get preferential treatment and get jobs more deserving non-minorities don't get because past minorities had it harder.
That is saying the right thing to do to make up for one group being unjustly penalized in the past is to unjustly penalize the other group today.

 

[Froob]

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.

I really don't think Tomlin benefited from it. Isn't Tomlin off the Dungy coaching tree? I think he was there in tampa. He had quite a bit of credibility. The rooney rule isn't that big of a deal. But if we want to get rid of racism we shouldn't characterize people as minorities. Just people. We've come a long way from racism to implement a rule like this.

 

[neuronet]

Its a bad analogy. It says minorities TODAY should get preferential treatment and get jobs more deserving non-minorities don't get because past minorities had it harder.
That is saying the right thing to do to make up for one group being unjustly penalized in the past is to unjustly penalize the other group today.

You are acting as if all of the people harmed are dead. This isn't slavery we are talking about. It's not stuff that happened in the 19th century. We are talking about implicit institutional barriers that are (arguably) still in place. At least for some living that want and previously wanted to get coaching jobs.

So, for argument let's assume I am right. Would that change your mind?

So your rebuttal (and the analogy) would hinge on the people being helped being in the same group that had the weights attached to their feet. In that case, it is ok to help them along? So should we find out who was hurt by the white old boy network, the implicit assumptions of who could be competent, the lack of consideration at all, the lack of opportunities, the lack of role models? Find out who was hurt by the implicit institutional biases, and only offer them recompense?

Do you know how freaking hard that would be? Instead, fly a brotha' out and give him an interview. You don't have to give him the job, you can laugh at his uppity-ness after if you makes you happy, and about how he is taking away a job from your super-qualified white friends.

This should go to politics soon, I can see the hysteria building. :rocker:

 

[neuronet]

Guys, for the record, Mike Tomlin was not a Rooney Rule hire. Dan Rooney had already interviewed Ron Rivera (hispanic) before Tomlin, thus Rivera had satisfied the Rule before they ever interviewed Tomlin.

Well, things are a little more complicated. They actually had a list of like 10 minorities to interview, that he was on, because they are particularly sensitive to this topic.
Tomlin proof NFL's Rooney Rule is working as intended - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

"But after a successful first season as Minnesota's defensive coordinator, Tomlin's name was one of about a dozen on a list of qualified minority candidates given Rooney at a mid-December meeting in New York. Rooney is the chairman of the NFL Committee on Workplace Diversity. "

So they became aware of him because of their initial brainstorming on who to consider, the list of a dozen or so possible minority interviewees they would consider.

It's not about preferential hiring, but offering opportunities that were not there before. If you aren't qualified, you ain't gonna get the job.

Again, the outrage here is silly, this is so trivial a rule to follow, and without any quotas or anything you can't even complain that the less qualified person is getting jobs because of skin color. I work where they do those things, and it sucks, but just giving someone an interview? Puhleeze, ya'll are acting like victims here, instead of having sympathy for the real victims.

Main point: interview opportunity is not a zero sum game. These corporations have deep pockets. YOu are complaining about something that might set them back a few hours of thought, and a few thousand bucks. That's like a dollar for normal people.

SEcond main point: The question isn't whether this rule was good: clearly it has been good. The question is what criteria should we use to know when it should be stopped. Never? On an organization-by-organization basis? (E.g., if your management has X percent of blacks, then no worries, but if you are 100% white, then fly in the blacks). What should the criterion be, if any, for this rule about interviews (again, not hiring, you oversensitive crackers). (I'm white so I can use the word cracker )

 

[Ring 6]

You are acting as if all of the people harmed are dead. This isn't slavery we are talking about. We are talking about implicit institutional barriers that are (arguably) still in place.

So, for argument let's assume I am right. Would that change your mind?

Huh? I disagree with you, but if I assume you are right would that change my mind?

So your rebuttal (and the analogy) would hinge on the people being helped being in the same group that had the weights attached to their feet. In that case, it is ok to help them along? So should we find out who was hurt by the white old boy network, the implicit assumptions of who could be competent, the lack of consideration at all, the lack of opportunities, the lack of role models? Find out who was hurt by the implicit institutional biases, and only offer them recompense?

Do you know how freaking hard that would be? Instead, fly a brotha' out and give him an interview. You don't have to give him the job, you can laugh at his uppity-ness after if you makes you happy, and about how he is taking away a job from your super-qualified white friends.

This should go to politics soon, I can see the hysteria building. :rocker:

I'm going to just not respond to this because my opinions couldnt be more opposite.

 

[neuronet]

Huh? I disagree with you, but if I assume you are right would that change my mind?

Really? That's too hard for you? Can't wrap your head around assuming a detail is different than you originally thought and considering if that would change your mind? You act as if (largely implicit) institutional racial bias is all in the past. My question was, assuming it is not all in the past, would that change your mind about this rule? They are different issues, and exploring counterfactual scenarios helps highlight the logical geography of the situation.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

I've owned a business before in my life so, yes, I've got that "real world" experience, not that business ownership is any kind of necessity to have any particular cachet regarding dealing with racism. The rest of this part of your post is poorly written, so I can't even begin to get into it.

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

Funny.... the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you, and affirmative action still exists with it's blessing. Check out Grutter v. Bollinger, for example. You can find this passage there:

"race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time." "The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

As a matter of fact, about 14 years ago, Californians passed Prop 209 (upheld by the California Supreme Court just this past summer) to deal with such issues on the state level.

You could also take it up with this lady:

http://www.seattlemedium.com/news/Article/Article.asp?NewsID=106069&sID=3&ItemSource=L

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

1.) Abiding by it is a big deal, since it's obviously a big deal to exist in the first place. Again, if this wasn't a big deal, it wouldn't be a rule.

2.) Hearken back to when the Lions wanted to hire Mariucci.

 

[lamafist]

Really? That's too hard for you? Can't wrap your head around assuming a detail is different than you originally thought and considering if that would change your mind? You act as if (largely implicit) institutional racial bias is all in the past. My question was, assuming it is not all in the past, would that change your mind about this rule? They are different issues, and exploring counterfactual scenarios helps highlight the logical geography of the situation.

You know, if people aren't able to figure out that that after 300+ years of slavery and subjugation, the residual effects haven't been totally washed away in less than half a lifetime since the country decided that black folk should be allowed to eat at the same restaurans as white folk, I think you just have to accept that it's because they don't want to.

 

[neuronet]

1.) Abiding by it is a big deal, since it's obviously a big deal to exist in the first place. Again, if this wasn't a big deal, it wouldn't be a rule.

OMG really? Let me spell it out one last time my original point which you have again misunderstood. There is an important distinction between a rule being important on one hand, and the relative ease/difficulty of following that rule. They are orthogonal issues, and that was my point. Period. Full stop.

Driving on the right hand side of the street is incredibly important, but trivial to follow. Rooney rule is fairly important, and also very easy to abide by for these huge corporations with deep pockets.

Egads no game this weekend as there are a lot of pablum threads and comments.

Hang tight folks, we'll have something real to talk about next week.

 

[Deus Irae]

OMG really? Let me spell it out one last time my original point which you have again misunderstood. There is an important distinction between a rule being important on one hand, and the relative ease/difficulty of following that rule. They are orthogonal issues, and that was my point. Period. Full stop.

I understood your point perfectly. That's why I put point #2 in my reply. You seem to have ignored that one in your answer.

 

[neuronet]

I understood your point perfectly. That's why I put point #2 in my reply. You seem to have ignored that one in your answer.

It would have been easy enough for the Lions to conform to the rule. Think they don't have enough money? Didn't seem worth responding. Someone who doesn't drive on the right hand side of the road is an idiot, too, doesn't mean it is hard to do. They were idiots. Again, interview a token, and be done with it. Too hard for a huge corporation? Do you think the owner goes and gets plane reservations personally?

 

[Koma]

I agree with this. THese coaches are more gossiping hens than the media. They hear who the owners want, and have to see their visit is just a sham. This rule was needed back in the 90's, not now.

It annoys me that it doesn't go both ways, also. Leslie Frazier and Jason Garrett are both interim coaches. Frazier can just get hired, but Garrett can't. That is BS.

The difference in the handling to the transition of the interim coaches to head coaches in Dallas and Minnesota doesn't make sense to me.

If the purpose of the Rooney rule is to provide opportunities to minority candidates, then shouldn't Minnesota also have to interview someone before they officially make Frazier the head coach? Maybe the person they talk to is really impressive and Frazier decides to hire them as the O or D coordinator, which makes them more visible for future head coaching jobs.

If the rule is going to be in place, apply it the same to all scenarios.

 

[Snake Eyes]

You know, if people aren't able to figure out that that after 300+ years of slavery and subjugation, the residual effects haven't been totally washed away in less than half a lifetime since the country decided that black folk should be allowed to eat at the same restaurans as white folk, I think you just have to accept that it's because they don't want to.

If you think this nonsense will help wipe away residual effects of slavery I have a bridge to sell you. Someone who is a racist won't hire a black anyway, and for someone who isn't racist it's unnecessary.

Yes, in an age when Obama couldnt have been elected with very popular white support it's obvious that we need rules like this.

 

[Froob]

The difference in the handling to the transition of the interim coaches to head coaches in Dallas and Minnesota doesn't make sense to me.

If the purpose of the Rooney rule is to provide opportunities to minority candidates, then shouldn't Minnesota also have to interview someone before they officially make Frazier the head coach? Maybe the person they talk to is really impressive and Frazier decides to hire them as the O or D coordinator, which makes them more visible for future head coaching jobs.

If the rule is going to be in place, apply it the same to all scenarios.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Deus Irae]

It would have been easy enough for the Lions to conform to the rule. Think they don't have enough money? Didn't seem worth responding. Someone who doesn't drive on the right hand side of the road is an idiot, too, doesn't mean it is hard to do. They were idiots. Again, interview a token, and be done with it. Too hard for a huge corporation? Do you think the owner goes and gets plane reservations personally?

The Lions couldn't get any minorities to agree to be interviewed. Exactly how do you think it would have been easy to interview minorities without having minorities to interview?

From the posted article:

The team said five minority candidates turned down interviews because it appeared inevitable Mariucci would be hired. “While certain of the difficulties that you encountered in seeking to schedule interviews with minority candidates were beyond your control, you did not take sufficient steps to satisfy the commitment that you had made,” Tagliabue wrote.

NFL fines Lions' MIllen $200,000 - didn’t interview minorities - Straight Dope Message Board

 

[neuronet]

If you think this nonsense will help wipe away residual effects of slavery I have a bridge to sell you. Someone who is a racist won't hire a black anyway, and for someone who isn't racist it's unnecessary.

Yes, in an age when Obama couldnt have been elected with very popular white support it's obvious that we need rules like this.

We shouldn't conflate this issue with reparations for slavery. It is about transforming institutional practices in the NFL.