Carson Will Hold Parcells' Feet To The Fire

[Rack]

No doubt everyone should be treated equally.


But no one should be forced to treat everyone equally.

 

[5Stars]

Who exactly is feeling entitled here? The only entitlement I see is the feeling minority coaches should be entitled to have the same opportunities as White coaches which they clearly did not have even 10 years ago. And frankly, these guys are entitled to being treated equally.

I concerning to see people blame the victims of discrimination for not "behaving" right. You really need to think about the implications of what you are saying.

No, I agree with you...

What I'm saying is that no matter who you are, where you came from, what color your skin is, what your goals are, then you find your own path...it's really that simple if you think about it.

I'm not black or white, and I have lived a very successful life just because I refused the norm, or the "why not me" stuff. I made my own road and I'm glad I did because I have more self respect for it...

As for the Rooney Rule? I'm glad it's there, I just don't know why it has to be there if you as a person can show why you are the best and still cannot succeed, that's all I'm saying.

I don't need help to travel the road that I have become...I did it all by myself!! Take that, Sucker!!

 

[mr.jameswoods]

no. i just hate having to play games that have no effect on end results really. i think the best players play the position because the owners want to win. same for front office. i don't think they'll hire a "white" guy to win but rather someone they think will win.

i don't see us as a culture ever getting past racism as long as we have divided ourselves up racially and expect things accordingly upon that. if you have one race saying "give me this because i'm xyz" then the other races may resent that.

yes blacks are in a minority in the front office. so are chinese, russians, indians, and emperior penguins.

where are their committees to promote their own advancement in the league?

in my own humble opinion, you hire the best person for the job regardless of race, gender, pizza preferences, and so forth.

I thought the same thing you did when this rule first came out. I made the same arguments you did. But I think the rule has been good. Even front office and GM's admitted that they wouldn't have interviewed guys like Lovie Smith or Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin had it not been for the rule. The NFL was becoming an old boys club where coaches were just getting passed onto other teams despite not deserving their new positions. And yes, I'll say it. I think there is a stigma about black coaches just like there was a stigma about black QB's 20 years ago. This rule helps to eliminate that because people are forced to interviewing coaches they would have presumed were unqualified only to be suprised upon interviewing. Sure, most people will use the rule as a token gesture and that's fine but many will uncover some great candidates.

 

[5Stars]

No doubt everyone should be treated equally.


But no one should be forced to treat everyone equally.

You know, Rack...there is alot of truth in that statement.

 

[5Stars]

I thought the same thing you did when this rule first came out. I made the same arguments you did. But I think the rule has been good. Even front office and GM's admitted that they wouldn't have interviewed guys like Lovie Smith or Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin had it not been for the rule. The NFL was becoming an old boys club where coaches were just getting passed onto other teams despite not deserving their new positions. And yes, I'll say it. I think there is a stigma about black coaches just like there was a stigma about black QB's 20 years ago. This rule helps to eliminate that because people are forced to interviewing coaches they would have presumed were unqualified only to be suprised upon interviewing. Sure, most people will use the rule as a token gesture and that's fine but many will uncover some great candidates.

Oh, man! And you were doing so good until that...


:bang2:

 

[mr.jameswoods]

No, I agree with you...

What I'm saying is that no matter who you are, where you came from, what color your skin is, what your goals are, then you find your own path...it's really that simple if you think about it.

It's not that simple. Life does not work like sports. In sports, if you can run a 4.2, people will draft you in the first round regardless of your color. The problem is in life, there are a lot of people that have similar qualifications and backgrounds so that people can't judge based solely on numbers so they discriminate based on other factors such as appearance, race, religion etc. And unfortunately, many people are racist or have preferences for one group over another.

 

[AbeBeta]

No doubt everyone should be treated equally.


But no one should be forced to treat everyone equally.

We shouldn't HAVE to force people to treat everyone equally.

But they don't. And if equality is what we value, we need to make it mandatory.

That's exactly what the NFL is saying. The league admits there was a problem with minority hiring and is taking steps to level the playing field. Should we have to force owners to do that? No, ideally they would do so on their own accord. But they didn't and it showed in the hiring practices. They had the chance to treat people equally and failed.

 

[iceberg]

Ah, yes. The response of an adult, and one who can spell at that. I would like to see your buttchecks. I'm sure they probably bounce too. :laugh2:
Saying you don't agree is one thing. Using an incongruous analogy is another.

Well, it's what you think vs. what men who manage and play the game think. I'll take their knowledge over yours any day.

Second, the reason why you find it "odd" is the same reason why many people who think like you feel it's okay for blacks to be employees but may have a problem if - when they don't see themselves reflected in the ranks of management - they express themselves in such a way that they ensure they're considered for management positions.

I'll let you digest the difference.

That presumes, of course, that all things are equal. And they're not. That's why you don't see. You live under the illusion that all things are equal and that black candidates are going to get their shot at these positions, even though the reality is that that's not always the case historically. And because this has been a problem for the NFL, the Rooney Rule was established.

Moreover, whenever a coach like Norv Turner is hired after repeated failures, it hurts the chances of other candidates, including minority candidates, who never get the chance.

What do you mean by take it offline? Do you mean discuss in via email? Or are you challenging me to a fist-a-cuff?

no. i'm saying don't come at me in a challening manner as if i'm the king of the stupid. we all know i lost a close election there, but that doesn't change i didn't win. if you want to "jab jab" verbally, do it in a PM as i don't wanna drag the whole forum into YOUR MOTHER contest.

as for my "adult" behavior, you get what you give.

as for my spelling, deal with it. "adults" i know tend to just realize people typo and move on.

as for anything else, forget it. you don't understand me and i doubt you ever will.

 

[iceberg]

You don't understand the difference between physical competition and talent vs. coaching talent don't you?

It's easy to determine who is faster, who is stronger, who is more instinctive as a player, and that's because the NFL has become more open to giving all players a chance to prove themselves on the field (lest I remind you it wasn't always that way).

So to, in order to discover who's talented and has the capacity to lead a team, blacks and other minorities have to get their shot as coaches and managers.

and since blacks dominate the game, you're not saying the black man is the better athlete are you? just checking before making assumptions here.

 

[iceberg]

Sorry, but that's the legacy your people left behind. Therefore, you have to deal with the consequences.

um...YOUR people? if we really want to get pickey, didn't the white man buy blacks from a black man?

please don't answer that. if your racially motivated as you now seem to be, i have no interest in having a non-racist discussion with you.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I don't know what the head scratching is for. Whites in America perpetuated the system of racial discrimination. That's not to say that all whites today discriminate against blacks or that other nations don't discriminate. But within context, remedies such as the Rooney Rule are design to address those historic injustices. So because whites (in the NFL) are now implementing remedies to reverse the hidden or overt nature of that system shouldn't be puzzling.

What reversal?

You're perpetuating the very system you claim to abhor. You can't undo institutionalized racial discrimanation by creating policies that are inherently discriminatory, that use race as a determining factor. If racial discrimination is wrong (and I believe it is), it's wrong regardless of the race against which it occurs.

Past injustices do not excuse future injustices.

 

[Rack]

We shouldn't HAVE to force people to treat everyone equally.

But they don't. And if equality is what we value, we need to make it mandatory.

That's exactly what the NFL is saying. The league admits there was a problem with minority hiring and is taking steps to level the playing field. Should we have to force owners to do that? No, ideally they would do so on their own accord. But they didn't and it showed in the hiring practices. They had the chance to treat people equally and failed.

Well when you start forcing people to do things, then it gets political. And last I checked we live in a democracy here in the good ole' USofA. We aren't a communist government.


In the USA we have certain freedoms that exist regardless, not just when they adhere to a certain person's perception of what is good.


Now, I agree ALL people should be considered equaly, based on their WORK background only. But in no way do I think anyone should be forced to hire anyone they don't like (even if it's for a MORONIC reason) because goes against our constitution, and I happen to be a firm supporter of our constitution.


If we are to grow as a people - really as human beings - it should come from within each individual's self realization, not through force.

 

[Rack]

What reversal?

You're perpetuating the very system you claim to abhor. You can't undo institutionalized racial discrimanation by creating policies that are inherently discriminatory, that use race as a determining factor. If racial discrimination is wrong (and I believe it is), it's wrong regardless of the race against which it occurs.

Past injustices do not excuse future injustices.

 

[tyke1doe]

no. i'm saying don't come at me in a challening manner as if i'm the king of the stupid. we all know i lost a close election there, but that doesn't change i didn't win. if you want to "jab jab" verbally, do it in a PM as i don't wanna drag the whole forum into YOUR MOTHER contest.

as for my "adult" behavior, you get what you give.

as for my spelling, deal with it. "adults" i know tend to just realize people typo and move on.

as for anything else, forget it. you don't understand me and i doubt you ever will.

Let me apologize if I came off a bit condescending. It seem as if that wasn't your intent so forgive me.

 

[tyke1doe]

What reversal?

You're perpetuating the very system you claim to abhor. You can't undo institutionalized racial discrimanation by creating policies that are inherently discriminatory, that use race as a determining factor. If racial discrimination is wrong (and I believe it is), it's wrong regardless of the race against which it occurs.

Past injustices do not excuse future injustices.

Again, that presumes that it's never a factor in hiring and firing, and we know that's not true.

You approach the situation as if it is never a factor. If that were true, then your claims would have merit. But that's not reality.

Second, I don't know if you'll eliminate racial discrimination by creating such policies. But you sure won't eliminate it if you have no such policies. If that were the case, we wouldn't have the Voting Rights Act, we wouldn't have had Brown vs. Board of Education. We wouldn't have had the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. We would have just let white people decide for themselves when they were ready to let blacks gain equal footing in society. And your guess is about as good as mine when that would have happened.

No, as Frederick Douglas (IIRC) said, and I paraphrase, "Power gives up nothing willingly. It always must be forced to do so."

 

[tyke1doe]

No doubt everyone should be treated equally.


But no one should be forced to treat everyone equally.

The Voting Rights Act, the Emancipation Proclamation, and Brown vs. Board of Education say hello.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Again, that presumes that it's never a factor in hiring and firing, and we know that's not true.

You approach the situation as if it is never a factor. If that were true, then your claims would have merit. But that's not reality.

I make no presumptions nor did I claim that race was "never a factor" in hiring. I only stated the reality of this situation: You won't end racial discriminate by creating and implenting policies that promote racial discrinimation, such as racial quotas.

Racial discrimation is wrong regardless of whom it affects.

Second, I don't know if you'll eliminate racial discrimination by creating such policies. But you sure won't eliminate it if you have no such policies.

And you certainly won't elimiate it through policies that require employers to hire a certain number of a particular race or ethnicity.

If that were the case, we wouldn't have the Voting Rights Act, we wouldn't have had Brown vs. Board of Education. We wouldn't have had the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. We would have just let white people decide for themselves when they were ready to let blacks gain equal footing in society. And your guess is about as good as mine when that would have happened.

The Voting Rights Act and Brown vs. Board of Education had nothing to do with altering personal perceptions or changing the way businesses such as the NFL operated.

The Voting Rights Act and Brown vs. Board of Education changed the manner in which federal, state, and local institutions could conduct themselves and regulate accessibility to themselves. Essentially, it was the government policing government institutions.

And for all intents and purposes, "white people" did decide for themselves. This was the brilliance of Martin Luther King. He was a great visionary, and doesn't receive nearly enough credict for his genius as a tactician.

He knew precisely what would occur when he and his fellow activists went to Selma, Alabama. They understood just how violently certain people within Selma would react, and King and his followers willingly subjected themselves to that violence knowing the media would come and broadcast their oppression to the nation. By having the beatings, the hosings, and the dog maulings - the true face of racism - shown on TV, King generated symphathy for his cause among whites all over America.

King achieved Civil Rights by convincing white America of the validity of his cause, the ugliness of racism, and the need for racial equality.

 

[Rack]

The Voting Rights Act, the Emancipation Proclamation, and Brown vs. Board of Education say hello.

How does the voting rights act force people to hire people they don't want to hire?

Or are you jsut being a jerk trying to throw a bigger blanket over the discussion?


And incase you have a problem with reading comprehension, I'll change the wording for you...

PEOPLE SHOULD BE HIRED BASED ON MERIT, NOT SKIN COLOR. BUT NO ONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO DO SO IN THE USA.

This is a free country. Even if some dumb white hood wearing moron wants to hate people cuz of their skin color or nationality he/she should be free to do so. Even if some idiotic black panther member wants to hate every white person in america, he/she should be free to do so.

Getting those people to get through their ignorances should come in a way OTHER then force.



Tell me this, would it annoy you if some organization started a "White Miss America Pageant"?

I know there's a double standard where it's "ok" for there to be a Black Miss America pageant (which I think is BS, but it's america and people are free to conduct these kind of racist events), but if someone started a White Miss America pageant Jesse Jackson would have a heart attack.



That said, I think if a company were found to purposelly not hire a minority because they are minorities then a HEAVY punishment should be put upon them, but they shouldn't have a law that forces them to hire a certain amount of any color person.


But make it like that, HEAVY punishment for discrimination, but no laws forcing anyone to hire a certain amount of any race/religion/color/nationality of people.

And no Million dollar franchise should be forced to interview/hire a minority if they feel someone else is better for the job. They should do it cuz they feel that person is the better MAN for the job, not cuz they feel pressured to do so cuz of some rule.


I know I wouldn't want to be hired simply because some company felt they needed to to fill some quota. And I've been passed over for jobs here because of my skin color. I know what it's like, but I don't want a damn thing GIVEN to me.

 

[tyke1doe]

How does the voting rights act force people to hire people they don't want to hire?

Or are you jsut being a jerk trying to throw a bigger blanket over the discussion?


And incase you have a problem with reading comprehension, I'll change the wording for you...

PEOPLE SHOULD BE HIRED BASED ON MERIT, NOT SKIN COLOR. BUT NO ONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO DO SO IN THE USA.

:laugh2:

You question my reading comprehension, but it's you who have trouble with the English language, my friend.

Here is what you wrote:

But no one should be forced to treat everyone equally.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is YOU who made the blanket statement and not I.

And I retorted with legal actions because it destroys your argument. Often times, throughout American history, whites had to be FORCED to treat people equally. There were those who didn't want blacks to vote. So they had to be FORCED to accommodate blacks at the polls, hence the Voting Rights Act.

There were those who didn't want blacks to be free but to remain slaves, hence the Emancipation Proclamation.

There were those who didn't want blacks to be able to sit where they wanted to on the bus, hence legislation that made segregation in public accommodations illegal.

There were those who didn't want blacks to attend schools with whites, hence, Brown vs. Board of Education.

But you know you're arguing a losing point, which is why you sought to clarify and narrow the discussion. Well, I'm glad you're doing so because you've just admitted - albeit reluctantly - that your general statement was nonsense.

I won't respond to the other idiocy you're spouting about the Miss White America Pageant because, like this discussion, you fail to understand such issues from the context of history.

Besides, I wouldn't want to "jerk" your chain further.

 

[tyke1doe]

I make no presumptions nor did I claim that race was "never a factor" in hiring. I only stated the reality of this situation: You won't end racial discriminate by creating and implenting policies that promote racial discrinimation, such as racial quotas.

And, conversely, you won't remedy racial discrimination without established efforts to do so. AA policies are one remedy.

Racial discrimation is wrong regardless of whom it affects.

In a pure sense, of course. But that's the problem with your argument. It presumes racial discrimination merely as a "wrong" without understanding a broader context.

If, for example, traditionally black schools were trying to recruit more whites (which has been the case) and admit whites even while it "discriminates" against other blacks, is that wrong?

If a company believes it needs to hire a manager who better understands its African American or Hispanic employees, is that wrong?

Of course not. It's merely understanding the issue from a context.

And therein lies the problem with our disagreement. You want to see racial discrimination as if everything were equal, and I see it as an issue to be evaluated within a context.

And you certainly won't elimiate it through policies that require employers to hire a certain number of a particular race or ethnicity.

Who said anything about numbers?

The Voting Rights Act and Brown vs. Board of Education had nothing to do with altering personal perceptions or changing the way businesses such as the NFL operated.

The Voting Rights Act and Brown vs. Board of Education changed the manner in which federal, state, and local institutions could conduct themselves and regulate accessibility to themselves. Essentially, it was the government policing government institutions.

Correct. And the Rooney Rule has been instituted by the NFL because it sees a need for the NFL to police the NFL and at least make efforts towards racial inclusion in the interviewing process.

And for all intents and purposes, "white people" did decide for themselves.

Really?

So when the Arkansas eight try to integrate public schools whites just went along with it?

When blacks started to boycott the Montgomery bus system, whites were okay with that?

Some decided they didn't like it and pulled out of public schools and refuse to ride the bus and some decided to accept the changes in society because they were fair.

This was the brilliance of Martin Luther King. He was a great visionary, and doesn't receive nearly enough credict for his genius as a tactician.

He knew precisely what would occur when he and his fellow activists went to Selma, Alabama. They understood just how violently certain people within Selma would react, and King and his followers willingly subjected themselves to that violence knowing the media would come and broadcast their oppression to the nation. By having the beatings, the hosings, and the dog maulings - the true face of racism - shown on TV, King generated symphathy for his cause among whites all over America.

King achieved Civil Rights by convincing white America of the validity of his cause, the ugliness of racism, and the need for racial equality.

And, ultimately, getting the laws changed to signal to those whites who didn't like it that there is a need day dawning - one supported by the rule of law.

When last I checked, the Rooney Rule was the rule of law in the NFL.