Rooney Rule

[Cajuncowboy]

Originally Posted by tyke1doe

No, it's not. Besides, who supports that definition of racism other than Internet posters ranting about political correctness? Racism is deeper than that simplistic definition.



So basically you're saying that Affirmative Action policies enacted after the Civil Rights Bill was passed were a slap in the face to black people?



So NFL owners, who had to approve the policy, don't respect themselves? They reek of the Sharpton mentality?



First, you acknowledge there is racism in the NFL and then in the same breath you say you bet it's small by comparison.

And yet, the owners and NFL felt it necessary to have a Rooney Rule. Hhhhmmm.



[View Full Quote]As has been pointed out, the Rooney Rule doesn't require teams to hire a minority, only to interview one. News flash: everyone who is interviewed doesn't get the job. Are those who don't get the job being mocked also?



With all due respect, I don't think you even know what racism is.




So tell me. Is the Rooney Rule creating animosity toward whites? Towards Hispanics? Is the Rooney Rule saying that blacks are superior to whites that's why they must be given an interview? What white person is being hurt by this? A team can interview as many people it wants even with the Rooney Rule. Adding a minority to the mix isn't denying other races the right to compete for these jobs.

No, the Rooney Rule is not racist. Well, it's not if you're following established definitions of racism and racist rather than making up your own.

When you start making rules based on race then it is racism in some form. Affirmative action was and so is this sham.

And I didn't say there was racism in the NFL, I said I wasn't saying there was. difference being I don't know.
But if your assumption that the NFL owners saw a need for it then you have to draw the conclusion that they felt they were racist. And as such needed a rule to save them from themselves.

You whole position falls on that premise alone.

And with that i am done with this cockamamie discussion. It's a ******* rule made by a bunch of *******' to appease an ever progressive mindset that blacks are incapable of accomplishing things on their own so they have to have "extra" help.

I believe blacks are just as capable as whites and that people are fools if they overlook a candidate because of their race.

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by Cajuncowboy

When you start making rules based on race then it is racism in some form. Affirmative action was and so is this sham.

According to whom? You?

I've already given you the definition of racism. Racism is not and cannot be merely acknowledging race and a need for racial diversity. That's done in many segments of employment, especially if there's a particular target market one is trying to reach.

Furthermore, Affirmative Action was necessary to combat legitimate forms of racism that infested America's workforce at all levels, including in the government and in the private sector. Why do you think we have to finally write laws prohibiting racial discrimination? The presence of such laws suggests that racial preferences were historically part of employment practices.

The difference between those racially discriminatory practices and Affirmative Actions policies is that the former were based on a belief that minorities weren't competent or smart enough to do certain jobs. That's racism.

However, Affirmative Actions policies and laws were based on a desire to integrate blacks into the workforce because they historically had been discriminated against. AA has nothing to do with giving blacks and other minorities preferential treatment because they are superior to whites. Hence, not racism.

Again, you can't ignore race. God made the races so, obviously, He felt racial distinctions were necessary in that they illustrated the diversity within His creation.

The problem is because we as a society and civilization have engaged in racial discrimination we have to overcompensate in either acting as it shouldn't matter or instituting policies that correct racial prejudice of the past.

And I didn't say there was racism in the NFL, I said I wasn't saying there was. difference being I don't know.
But if your assumption that the NFL owners saw a need for it then you have to draw the conclusion that they felt they were racist. And as such needed a rule to save them from themselves.

You whole position falls on that premise alone.

No, my assumption does not hinge on the fact NFL owners were racist. They may have been truly blind to this issue. People can have racial prejudices without necessarily being racist. However, they acknowledged that maybe they aren't as aggressive in recognizing and promoting black coaching talent in the NFL. Hence, the Rooney Rule.

And with that i am done with this cockamamie discussion. It's a ******* rule made by a bunch of *******' to appease an ever progressive mindset that blacks are incapable of accomplishing things on their own so they have to have "extra" help.

I wish blacks didn't need the extra help either. Unfortunately, history proves that's generally the case when people because of their own blinders don't always look at blacks in the same way they do whites.

I believe blacks are just as capable as whites and that people are fools if they overlook a candidate because of their race.

I agree.

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by Star Guard_31

I'm not kidding at all.

As I stated in my first post on this topic, I do not believe that merely playing in the NFL qualifies someone to become a head coach. I also accept it's possible for someone who has never played football at even the high school level to become a head coach, see Todd Haley.

Todd Haley would be an exception in that he may not have played (I don't know if he did or not) but not an exception in that he likely spent as much time around the game as someone who did play. He probably spent more when you consider his father was working as the Director of Player Personnel for the Steelers since Todd was 3-4 years old and did so until Todd was in his 20s.

I'm not sure Haley helps your argument that people who don't play can become coaches. I suppose if we were to hang to the technicality of it it would but when you actually look at the practical nature of growing up with a father who works for an NFL organization all your life. The guy was raised in the NFL.

If that's the extent of people who don't play but turn out to be coaches, it really doesn't change anything because those situations are so rare that they might as well not be considered at all.

[NIBGoldenchild]

I haven't read this whole thread, so forgive me if this was already mentioned, but I wonder why the Rooney Rule was only instituted towards Head Coaches and not General Managers. The only minority GM I can ever recall is Ozzie Newsome, and he's done an awesome job for the Ravens. I'm shocked their haven't been more.

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by Cajuncowboy

And with that i am done with this cockamamie discussion. It's a ******* rule made by a bunch of *******' to appease an ever progressive mindset that blacks are incapable of accomplishing things on their own so they have to have "extra" help.

You are missing the point entirely.

It isn't because people think black coaches are incapable, it's because they are acknowledging that that without such structures it would take years and years for enough black coaches to finally trickle up into head coaching positions that is representative of the industry. When racism was identified as something that would no longer be tolerated in society it's not like that changed things overnight.

Here's two things that didn't happen:

A) People ceased racial hiring practices all together. You aren't changing lifelong prejudices based on social sentiment. People may have moved away from the overt acts and announcing their biases but there was nothing to stop someone from acting in a racist manner through hiring practices or other acts of favoritism.

B) Black candidates were suddenly endowed with the years of experience that was previously denied to them.


What that means is, racist hiring practices were assuredly still going on simply because people don't back off their positions easily. On top of that for those who weren't hiring based on race, they're still hiring the more qualified candidates, which after years of racist hiring practices is undoubtedly the white coaches and thus, unintentionally propagating the very problem.

It's a form of Institutional Racism which is not the same as traditional overt racism. One difference is that overt racism is almost always intentional while Institutional Racism can be intentional or unintentional. In this case, it really doesn't matter if people intend to keep black coaches out of coaching positions or not because the structures that had evolved pretty much assured that it would happen anyway. If the number of qualified black coaches as it pertains to experience and success is almost nonexistent, people will not hire black coaches. Once you are at this point race itself is irrelevant even in a non-racist world because the problem isn't a belief in an inherent inability. The problem is no longer about race but about qualifications and in a situation in which candidates from one group haven't been given the opportunity to acquire these qualifications, the practical application of hiring practices is almost identical to that of believing in the inherent inability. They both result in no black coaches being hired, albeit for different "given" reasons. In the overt racism perspective, black coaches aren't hired because they are black. In the Institutional Racism perspective, black coaches aren't hired because there are no black coaches who are qualified on par with their white counterparts.

Intentional overtly racist acts created unintentional Institutionally Racist acts.

The evolution process is relatively simple.

Time 1: Overt racism dictating hiring practices. People refuse to hire black candidates (or probably even interview them for that matter), likely at all levels and to some extent at all positions along the coach tree. As a result no black coaches are coming up in the ranks or acquiring the experience necessary to make them "qualified" candidates.

Time 2: Overt racism no longer tolerated yet personal bias and prejudice still in play. More impacting is the lack of qualified black coaches. As a result, owners may continue racist hiring practices under the guise of hiring the "most qualified candidate" and owners who may be beyond racism are still hiring the most qualified candidates, resulting in no black coaches.

But if your assumption that the NFL owners saw a need for it then you have to draw the conclusion that they felt they were racist. And as such needed a rule to save them from themselves.

You whole position falls on that premise alone.

This is one interpretation of their motives, albeit a rather shallow and nonsensical one. The owners felt they were racist so they acted in a manner that is meant to diminish racism? Doesn't make any sense at all and you wouldn't need something written into stone to change it. If owners were wanting to move away from any sense of racial guilt, they could have done so on their own accord without the Rooney Rule. That in itself should tell you it's more than a sense of personable responsibility that drove them.

Another interpretation is that they were addressing the fact that a history of racist hiring practices had created a situation in which black coaches were severely underrepresented and allowing only the "most qualified candidate" to be an acceptable basis for interviews would only permit the problem to continue because there simply were no black candidates who were given the opportunity to acquire these qualifications in years past.

Even if we pretend that there was a single moment when overt racism and prejudice beliefs ceased to exist, how can anyone expect the composition of HC positions to change? If there's nothing inherently advantageous in terms of being a coach for either race, how do you get from a point when all coaches are white to a point where the breakdown between races is representative of the industry? You have a pool of candidates for coaching positions around the league and a history of racist hiring practices has made that pool predominately white. What changes this if teams will hire the most qualified candidate when the absolute most qualified candidates based solely on previous head coaching experience or coordinator experience are nearly all white.

The only thing would be a slow upward trickle from player to coach because that's pretty much the lowest common denominator on the job spectrum for all races. After you're done being a player you probably move to some position on a coaching staff if you want to stay in football. How many job titles are in between player and head coach for those who are fortunate enough to land in the NFL after playing? Assistant of some kind, positional coach, coordinator. Those are a few. Even the fast tracked Jason Garrett was a QB coach before being a coordinator and then eventually a head coach. What's the normal time frame? What's the time frame for a guy who starts at the college ranks? Jim Harbaugh coached for 16 or 17 years at the college level before getting a shot in the NFL and he's one of the guys who's considered to be a good coach with a bright future in the NFL.

Combine that with the fact that many of the coaches who fail out of head coaching after getting there in the first place are still in the league for years and years on end. Wade Phillips, Dom Capers, Mike Tice and upward mobility is limited. While it's limited for all the lower level coaches of any race, it essentially slows down the entire process and extends the time it would take for a representative trickel up to occur. The list goes on of guys who aren't good enough as head coaches but are good in some capacity and take lesser positions as coordinators or positional coaches. Bill Callahan was a head coach at one time, now he's a few notches below as a positional coach. Wade Phillips moving to DC for Houston while Jason moves to HC for Dallas essentially results in a zero influx of coaches from below the coordinating level. There are only so many OC/DC/HC positions and swapping two guys doesn't speed up the career path for any prospective coach. It's just reshuffling of the guys who already have jobs, most of whom are some of the more qualified guys out there, some of whom acquired these qualifications at a time when teams would not give black candidates a chance at all.

So not only are black candidates severe underrepresented, the net turnover is almost so low that that simply allowing things to play out as they may (As in waiting for enough black players to take enough low level jobs that they have an equal footing at the next rung in the coaching ladder and so on and so forth) would likely take decades. How many decades did it take to get to where we are now with only a handful of black coaches?

The real reason for the Rooney Rule isn't because the owners felt any sort of guilt. It's because the knew damn well that the representation of head coaches was disproportionate to the breakdown of the rest of the league. Had they not tried to do something the Institutional aspect would have perpetuated a majority of white coaches from here until who knows when. At some point along the way someone would have asked (Just as it has been asked and will be asked again) why there were so few black coaches in a league dominated by black players. When that point comes, if they don't have any answers they're going to be roasted for not trying to correct the discrepancy that was created by those before them and with a discrepancy this obvious they then assume of the guilt of inaction.

They're being proactive because that's what successful enterprises do when it comes to reasonably foreseeable problems. In this case, there's more to it than being successful because they have a responsibility to avoid propagating racially based standards. They're making an attempt to correct for the currently unintentional yet widely prevalent consequences of racism from years ago.

Similar to the safety emphasis. Different motive but same principle. They know at some point someone will ask why they weren't more proactive in making the game safer. When that day comes, not only will they be blasted for it but they'll be paying for it. Again here they're making an attempt but in this case it's for previous neglect.

If neither of these attempts where made, at some point in the future they'd be crucified for both and would take giant hits in the financial (safety) and integrity (safety and race) departments.

But, if there is any guilt on behalf of the owners, I would wager it's because they didn't recognize the environment that was created before them any earlier and enact the Rooney Rule long before they did.

I believe blacks are just as capable as whites and that people are fools if they overlook a candidate because of their race.

The argument that the Rooney Rule (and things like it) endorses the idea that minorities are less capable is ridiculous. I'm not even sure who such an argument is against. Who even thinks that other than admittedly overt racists? If not for the white supremacists, who does this argument even apply to? I think it's likely that individual interpretation of the rule is indicative of a subconscious, or maybe even conscious, personal predisposition. If you can't follow a simple timeline of events and understand how past hiring practices implicates the present, I'm not sure there's another explanation. Ignorance would explain it, I suppose.



Additionally, I think the argument that the Rooney Rule itself is racist is equally ridiculous. From a practical standpoint, no white coach has ever been denied an interview because of how the Rooney Rule is written. It doesn't give teams a set number of interviews, one of which must be a minority. It just says that a minority must be interviewed meaning that teams could interview as many other candidates of any race as they want.

But even if we assume it is racist at it's core, ideologically the argument is even more ridiculous because it would leave us with 2 options.

1. Accept that the Rooney Rule is racist (to whatever degree you choose) by requiring a minority interview in order to balance the inherent inequalities that were established decades ago and permeate all through our current state.

2. Accept Institutional Racism and proceed with only interviewing the "most qualified" candidates knowing full well that the vast majority of these candidates are white, thereby propagating the inequalities that were established via overt racism.

Willful acceptance of Institutional Racism isn't much different than overt racism, IMO, because you're knowingly intending on keeping a racially-established status quo in effect. The only real difference is likely in sense of responsibility in that you can point to those before you for creating the problem. All the while however, you yourself are ignoring the problem and letting it fester assuming the guilt of inaction.



What's the better option?

Accepting a minimally racist rule in order to correct an imbalance created by extreme overt racism of years past? Essentially accepting a minimal compromise in principles in an attempt to correct a larger injustice.

Or

Refusing to accept a racist rule on principle knowing full well that it will perpetuate ideas and practices that are entirely built upon the very thing that you will not tolerate? Essentially refusing to compromise on personal principles knowing full well that a larger injustice will remain on a societal scale.




Nobody in their right mind would willfully choose to ignore a problem knowing full well that the consequences of that problem are far greater than those that would present themselves if the problem was resolved. The Rooney Rule is an attempt to correct inequalities that are based on previous hiring standards that were overtly racist. Simple as that. Ignoring that overtly racist hiring practices created an environment where Institutional Racism was prevalent is accepting ignorance and being flat out dishonest.

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by NIBGoldenchild

I haven't read this whole thread, so forgive me if this was already mentioned, but I wonder why the Rooney Rule was only instituted towards Head Coaches and not General Managers. The only minority GM I can ever recall is Ozzie Newsome, and he's done an awesome job for the Ravens. I'm shocked their haven't been more.

I would guess that GM positions aren't regarded to be on the same career path.

Being the GM takes lesser knowledge of X's & Os' regarding the game of football whereas coaching takes a more intimate and in depth understanding of football, something that is probably assumed to be gained through experience playing and coaching.

In that sense, it's reasonable to expect coaching positions to mirror the breakdown of the players but possibly not reasonable to expect front office positions to do the same because it's unlikely a player could jump right into a front office position that wouldn't start them on the low run and require years of service before reaching GM. Provided a player would even want to. I can't imagine a low level job like scout pays anywhere close to minimum for rookies even. In that case, given the chance to play I would guess most guys go for that over a low level scouting job.

I'm not sure about all but I know Jeff Ireland came up through the scouting and front office on the way to his GM position. Even Newsome spent 10 years in the front office before getting his GM spot.

How many former professional players are GMs as it is? There appears to be very little crossover so it could be career path choice from the outset. From the player's perspective, there's a much greater chance of being 1 of 52 for 1 of 32 teams than there is of being 1 of X (however many low level front office positions might be available) for 1 of 32 teams. Rosters are constantly churning......scouting departments not so much.

[NIBGoldenchild]

Originally Posted by Hoofbite

I would guess that GM positions aren't regarded to be on the same career path.

Being the GM takes lesser knowledge of X's & Os' regarding the game of football whereas coaching takes a more intimate and in depth understanding of football, something that is probably assumed to be gained through experience playing and coaching.

In that sense, it's reasonable to expect coaching positions to mirror the breakdown of the players but possibly not reasonable to expect front office positions to do the same because it's unlikely a player could jump right into a front office position that wouldn't start them on the low run and require years of service before reaching GM. Provided a player would even want to. I can't imagine a low level job like scout pays anywhere close to minimum for rookies even. In that case, given the chance to play I would guess most guys go for that over a low level scouting job.

[View Full Quote]I'm not sure about all but I know Jeff Ireland came up through the scouting and front office on the way to his GM position. Even Newsome spent 10 years in the front office before getting his GM spot.

How many former professional players are GMs as it is? There appears to be very little crossover so it could be career path choice from the outset. From the player's perspective, there's a much greater chance of being 1 of 52 for 1 of 32 teams than there is of being 1 of X (however many low level front office positions might be available) for 1 of 32 teams. Rosters are constantly churning......scouting departments not so much.

I agree, it's definitely a less glamorous and financially satisfying position to start off as a scout compared to a position coach.

Sidenote: I just remembered former Redskin Martin Mayhew is the GM of the Detroit Lions. So that's two. I've gotta give the NFL their props in that regard, I believe they may be the only minority GMs in all of American Sports.

[Galian Beast]

I'd really like to thank YR and Hoofbite for laying down some knowledge on people in this board.

I've noticed a lot of trends and general lack of understanding when it comes to race related issues on this board, and it's great to see people who can break things down easily for others.

Something that many should read:

http://www.lasentinel.net/index.php?...106&Itemid=196

[Galian Beast]

Originally Posted by Cajuncowboy

When you start making rules based on race then it is racism in some form. Affirmative action was and so is this sham.

And I didn't say there was racism in the NFL, I said I wasn't saying there was. difference being I don't know.
But if your assumption that the NFL owners saw a need for it then you have to draw the conclusion that they felt they were racist. And as such needed a rule to save them from themselves.

You whole position falls on that premise alone.

And with that i am done with this cockamamie discussion. It's a ******* rule made by a bunch of *******' to appease an ever progressive mindset that blacks are incapable of accomplishing things on their own so they have to have "extra" help.

I believe blacks are just as capable as whites and that people are fools if they overlook a candidate because of their race.

I think you have an issue where you don't understand what racism is.

Here is a dictionary definition for you:

Racism : 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

Not only do you not understand what racism is, you also don't realize that structural racism exists.

[DFWJC]

They both followed the rule.