Has the Rooney rule helped or hurt minorities?

[Chuck 54]

Just wondering. On the surface it seemed like it was needed. But has it helped minority coaches get HC positions? I am of the belief that the ones that are truley qualified will get the jobs. I do not believe that in a time and place where we are today that there is any racisim in hiring for these positions.

I look at a comment from mike Singletary today and he said he was pleased he got the interview but was wondering if it had anything to do with the Rooney Rule.

If it was, then it would be nothing more than a sham and it is disrespectful to the candidates.

If not then he would have gotten the interview anyways.

Maybe it's kind of like affirmitive action. Needed at one point but totaly rediculous today.

It's a huge huge help...no doubt about it. Getting your name bandied about in the media and getting the interview experience is the first step to landing a job in the next couple of years when you are called because owners heard good things from another owner instead of because you are a minority.

 

[bbgun]

Phil Mushnick
NY Post

January 26, 2007 -- My parents must've been conning me. Seems that everything I was taught not to notice or care about are the things I'm told to notice and care about.

For example, the media at large have already made it clear - and will make it clear many more times in the coming week - that two black head coaches in this year's Super Bowl constitutes a big, BIG story.

Yet, the bigger story may be that many-to-most football fans don't think it's a big story because they don't think it's a big deal. That might be the bigger story and the better story. And, upon reflection (or further review), that should make us feel pretty good.

Most of those I've canvassed about this year's Super Bowl being coached by two African-Americans regard that as a non-issue. They couldn't care less. That's right, the skin color of the head coaches in this year's Super Bowl means nothing to a lot of people.

And that's a huge story, no? Or is it the kind that should be dismissed as insignificant?

It seemed that a bigger race-based story was provided by the NHL on Jan. 11, when Kevin Weekes, black goalie, played for the Rangers against Ottawa's Ray Emery, black goalie, in Madison Square Garden. Neat stuff.

But it wasn't a big story, so what do I know?

I think it's a big story that people who once knew why there was a need to hold a Miss Black America pageant now wonder why it's still held.

Two black head coaches in the Super Bowl? OK, that's a natural, can't-miss news angle. Understood. The struggles of Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy certainly should not be ignored.

But the more significant story - and the one that's not likely to be reported - might be that a lot of people who eagerly await the game don't care about the color of the head coaches. And that's great, no? That was the goal, all along, wasn't it? At least that's what my mother used to tell me.

 

[tyke1doe]

OK, sacase, I see your point, and the results may back you up - there are more African-American head coaches in the league since the rule was put into play (and this is a good thing). Whether there is a causal relationship has not yet been definitively established ... though anecdotal evidence may point in that direction.

But here is my question. Woody'sGirl posted an article in which Sherman was complaining that he had not yet been interviewed because he felt that the trend was pointing toward younger and younger head coaches. Couldn't this be considered age discrimination?

The fundamental logic behind the Rooney rule is that since a class of individuals is being discriminated against based on the current demographics of the head coaching position, the situation can be remedied by forcing owners to at least interview one member of the discriminated class.

Where does that logic end?

If the trend toward younger coaches continues (and the mean age of a Head Coach drifts toward 45), should the NFL require owners to interview at least one candidate over the age of 50?

And how about the fact that there are no female head coaches in the NFL? Should the NFL require owners to interview at least one female candidate for head coaching positions?

I understand that this may seem a bit absurd, but I use these examples to point out that the fundamental logic behind the Rooney Rule may not be as sound as it appears on its surface.

I bolded the parts I want to respond to.

1. Where does logic end? Where context ends.

You can't interpret the Rooney Rule in a vaccuum just as you can't interpret Affirmative Actions in a vaccuum. They both have to be interpreted within a context otherwise they both, indeed, would be unfair and discriminatory.

The context with respect to the Rooney Rule is that blacks in American society were discriminated against SIMPLY because of their skin color and the construct that was built upon that, namely, because of their skin color they were socially and intellectually unqualified to run NFL teams - or sports teams in general for that matter.

2. With respect to trend with respect to younger coaches, you put your finger on the distinction - TREND. Simply put, at one time older coaches was the norm. We have now moved into a period where younger coaches are being chosen but that trend does not highlight a systematic pattern. Blacks traditionally were systematically excluded from management positions and not even given consideration, whereas older coaches were. That separates the two.

3. It's not enough to claim discrimination. You must establish reasons for discrimination and the reason for why a policy like the Rooney Rule should exist.
Applying the rule to women is ridiculous because ...
a.) women don't play in the NFL
b.) women have no basis to argue that they're underserved in an exclusively male game where playing experience or coaching football is a major factor in determining coaching skills and potential qualification as a head coach. Women (not that I know of) aren't coaching even on the high school or college level, where you would likely find potential position coaches for the NFL. But blacks are.

Again, you have to understand laws and policies within a context. There's a reason why sexual discrimination laws have benefited women more than men and that has to do with a historical pattern of men being the major instigators of sexual harassment towards women than women towards men, though it does happen.

You just can't take the "Martian visitation" approach to this issue. And what I mean by that is if you're a Martian visiting the planet earth for the first time and you examine the Rooney Rule, you would conclude that it is discriminatory because it seems to give interview "preference" to black coaching candidates (although even that's a strain because it doesn't suggest that whites can't be interviewed and, in fact, whites still are the majority race for job openings than blacks even with the Rooney Rule).

But when you take the Rooney Rule and combine it with history or a historical perspective, THEN you start to understand the need for such a policy.

 

[BulletBob]

I bolded the parts I want to respond to.

1. Where does logic end? Where context ends.

You can't interpret the Rooney Rule in a vaccuum just as you can't interpret Affirmative Actions in a vaccuum. They both have to be interpreted within a context otherwise they both, indeed, would be unfair and discriminatory.

The context with respect to the Rooney Rule is that blacks in American society were discriminated against SIMPLY because of their skin color and the construct that was built upon that, namely, because of their skin color they were socially and intellectually unqualified to run NFL teams - or sports teams in general for that matter.

2. With respect to trend with respect to younger coaches, you put your finger on the distinction - TREND. Simply put, at one time older coaches was the norm. We have now moved into a period where younger coaches are being chosen but that trend does not highlight a systematic pattern. Blacks traditionally were systematically excluded from management positions and not even given consideration, whereas older coaches were. That separates the two.

3. It's not enough to claim discrimination. You must establish reasons for discrimination and the reason for why a policy like the Rooney Rule should exist.
Applying the rule to women is ridiculous because ...
a.) women don't play in the NFL
b.) women have no basis to argue that they're underserved in an exclusively male game where playing experience or coaching football is a major factor in determining coaching skills and potential qualification as a head coach. Women (not that I know of) aren't coaching even on the high school or college level, where you would likely find potential position coaches for the NFL. But blacks are.

Again, you have to understand laws and policies within a context. There's a reason why sexual discrimination laws have benefited women more than men and that has to do with a historical pattern of men being the major instigators of sexual harassment towards women than women towards men, though it does happen.

You just can't take the "Martian visitation" approach to this issue. And what I mean by that is if you're a Martian visiting the planet earth for the first time and you examine the Rooney Rule, you would conclude that it is discriminatory because it seems to give interview "preference" to black coaching candidates (although even that's a strain because it doesn't suggest that whites can't be interviewed and, in fact, whites still are the majority race for job openings than blacks even with the Rooney Rule).

But when you take the Rooney Rule and combine it with history or a historical perspective, THEN you start to understand the need for such a policy.

Very good points. I'm still digesting ...

 

[tyke1doe]

Phil Mushnick
NY Post

January 26, 2007 -- My parents must've been conning me. Seems that everything I was taught not to notice or care about are the things I'm told to notice and care about.

For example, the media at large have already made it clear - and will make it clear many more times in the coming week - that two black head coaches in this year's Super Bowl constitutes a big, BIG story.

Yet, the bigger story may be that many-to-most football fans don't think it's a big story because they don't think it's a big deal. That might be the bigger story and the better story. And, upon reflection (or further review), that should make us feel pretty good.

Most of those I've canvassed about this year's Super Bowl being coached by two African-Americans regard that as a non-issue. They couldn't care less. That's right, the skin color of the head coaches in this year's Super Bowl means nothing to a lot of people.

And that's a huge story, no? Or is it the kind that should be dismissed as insignificant?

It seemed that a bigger race-based story was provided by the NHL on Jan. 11, when Kevin Weekes, black goalie, played for the Rangers against Ottawa's Ray Emery, black goalie, in Madison Square Garden. Neat stuff.

But it wasn't a big story, so what do I know?

I think it's a big story that people who once knew why there was a need to hold a Miss Black America pageant now wonder why it's still held.

Two black head coaches in the Super Bowl? OK, that's a natural, can't-miss news angle. Understood. The struggles of Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy certainly should not be ignored.

But the more significant story - and the one that's not likely to be reported - might be that a lot of people who eagerly await the game don't care about the color of the head coaches. And that's great, no? That was the goal, all along, wasn't it? At least that's what my mother used to tell me.

I appreciate the article, but the writer misses a few key points:

1. It doesn't matter what the average fan thinks. It matters what the NFL OWNERS think. At many jobs, the average rank-and-file enjoy diversity within the workplace. But they're not the ones doing the hiring - THE BOSSES ARE. And it makes a difference at that level because many of those rich bosses, based on economics, cultural and social surroundings, live in segregated environments.
Segregation, truth be told, impacted the middle class more than it did the lower and upper class. Poor people tend to go to poor schools, shop at stores in lower-income neighborhoods, go to churches or other religious institutions in their communities and those institutions are likely going to be predominantly one racial makeup. The same with the super rich, especially within the corporate world. But those are the people who make the hiring decisions, who golf at exclusive country clubs, whose circle of friends and business acquaintances are going to typically be people of the same color.
That's why it's a bit of a fallacious premise to build an argument on the "average" people who don't care when they aren't the ones making the decisions.

2. With all due respect to the writer, and I don't know whether he's black or white though I assume he's white, blacks coaches and blacks who do occupy the upper-echelons of corporate society aren't going to draw attention to their color because they're trying to fit into the mainstream and don't want to use that as an excuse. That's why you have generally heard Denny Green, Ray Rhodes and other black head coaches downplay the significance of their race, not because they don't understand the impact but because they don't want to be seen as making an issue about it when that might not rub future prospective bosses the wrong way. But as a black man, I can assure you that the significance of the moment hasn't gone unnoticed with Lovie, Tony or any other black coach.

3. It's interesting how some writers are sick of this "first" story but yet all other angles are poured over and repoured over throughout this week. Many if not most of the stories aren't big stories, IMO. But everyone's looking for an angle and this is a unique angle particularly because of the history of African Americans in this country and how discrimination delayed and limited their ability to achieve in the NFL.

Maybe the bigger story is why this didn't happen before 2007.

 

[tunahelper]

Just wondering. On the surface it seemed like it was needed. But has it helped minority coaches get HC positions? I am of the belief that the ones that are truley qualified will get the jobs. I do not believe that in a time and place where we are today that there is any racisim in hiring for these positions.

I look at a comment from mike Singletary today and he said he was pleased he got the interview but was wondering if it had anything to do with the Rooney Rule.

If it was, then it would be nothing more than a sham and it is disrespectful to the candidates.

If not then he would have gotten the interview anyways.

Maybe it's kind of like affirmitive action. Needed at one point but totaly rediculous today.

WHO CARES!
Maybe we should have a Steve Largent rule for WR?
Every team must tryout one white WR each year so we can level the playing field.
Sounds good!

 

[tyke1doe]

WHO CARES!
Maybe we should have a Steve Largent rule for WR?
Every team must tryout one white WR each year so we can level the playing field.
Sounds good!

Actually, white receivers are allowed to try out for teams.

Unfortunately, not all candidates interested in coaching are given interviews.

But carry on trying to make unequal comparisons.

 

[BulletBob]

I appreciate the article, but the writer misses a few key points:

1. It doesn't matter what the average fan thinks. It matters what the NFL OWNERS think. At many jobs, the average rank-and-file enjoy diversity within the workplace. But they're not the ones doing the hiring - THE BOSSES ARE. And it makes a difference at that level because many of those rich bosses, based on economics, cultural and social surroundings, live in segregated environments.
Segregation, truth be told, impacted the middle class more than it did the lower and upper class. Poor people tend to go to poor schools, shop at stores in lower-income neighborhoods, go to churches or other religious institutions in their communities and those institutions are likely going to be predominantly one racial makeup. The same with the super rich, especially within the corporate world. But those are the people who make the hiring decisions, who golf at exclusive country clubs, whose circle of friends and business acquaintances are going to typically be people of the same color.
That's why it's a bit of a fallacious premise to build an argument on the "average" people who don't care when they aren't the ones making the decisions.

2. With all due respect to the writer, and I don't know whether he's black or white though I assume he's white, blacks coaches and blacks who do occupy the upper-echelons of corporate society aren't going to draw attention to their color because they're trying to fit into the mainstream and don't want to use that as an excuse. That's why you have generally heard Denny Green, Ray Rhodes and other black head coaches downplay the significance of their race, not because they don't understand the impact but because they don't want to be seen as making an issue about it when that might not rub future prospective bosses the wrong way. But as a black man, I can assure you that the significance of the moment hasn't gone unnoticed with Lovie, Tony or any other black coach.

OK - you had me thinking ... and then you blew it. What you have just done in your quote above is to stereotype a bunch of different classes of people, how they operate, and how they view race as a whole.

That's what got us into trouble in the first place.

 

[BulletBob]

Actually, white receivers are allowed to try out for teams.

Unfortunately, not all candidates interested in coaching are given interviews.

But carry on trying to make unequal comparisons.

Could you not make the very same argument in the opposite direction?

Actually, black coaches are allowed to interview for head coaching positions.

Unfortunately, not all white guys who are interested in playing WR are given tryouts.

 

[Doomsday101]

Could you not make the very same argument in the opposite direction?

Actually, black coaches are allowed to interview for head coaching positions.

Unfortunately, not all white guys who are interested in playing WR are given tryouts.

Same with CB, Jason Seahorn heard many comments about being white and playing that position

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Could you not make the very same argument in the opposite direction?

Actually, black coaches are allowed to interview for head coaching positions.

Unfortunately, not all white guys who are interested in playing WR are given tryouts.

Any white player that has the required ability is able to try out. Any white player that has ability is given a chance. In fact, this applies to any color of person. In sports, talent over rides everything.

 

[BulletBob]

I bolded the parts I want to respond to.
2. With respect to trend with respect to younger coaches, you put your finger on the distinction - TREND. Simply put, at one time older coaches was the norm. We have now moved into a period where younger coaches are being chosen but that trend does not highlight a systematic pattern. Blacks traditionally were systematically excluded from management positions and not even given consideration, whereas older coaches were. That separates the two.

OK - so you differentiate between trend and systematice pattern. I trust that you would refrain from arguing that a trend cannot in time evolve into a systematic pattern.

So, let's say that the trend continues. It's now 2050 and now all of the coaches in the league are under the age of 40. For the past 20 years, owners wouldn't even look at a candidate over the age of 45, and head coaches are getting fired repeatedly once they hit their 50s.

Your trend has just turned into a systematic pattern.

Does the NFL have to fix it?

Does the NFL step in and mandate that owners must interview at least one candidate over the age of 50?

 

[Doomsday101]

Any white player that has the required ability is able to try out. Any white player that has ability is given a chance. In fact, this applies to any color of person. In sports, talent over rides everything.

I agree with that. But face it white guys get looked at a certain way when they are playing certain position. Seahorn talked about many comments by his peers of being a white boy playing CB. It is not an issue with him but he did hear it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

OK - so you differentiate between trend and systematice pattern. I trust that you would refrain from arguing that a trend cannot in time evolve into a systematic pattern.

So, let's say that the trend continues. It's now 2050 and now all of the coaches in the league are under the age of 40. For the past 20 years, owners wouldn't even look at a candidate over the age of 45, and head coaches are getting fired repeatedly once they hit their 50s.

Your trend has just turned into a systematic pattern.

Does the NFL have to fix it?

Does the NFL step in and mandate that owners must interview at least one candidate over the age of 50?

It does if society views it as unfair. The NFL is a product. It's consumers are society. Basically, whatever society deams as acceptable or unacceptable is what become the written law. Does this answer the question?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree with that. But face it white guys get looked at a certain way when they are playing certain position. Seahorn talked about many comments by his peers of being a white boy playing CB. It is not an issue with him but he did hear it.

I don't deny that. There will always be a mind set that is in place until you make a play or two. Once that happens, it's done. You may get something like "White boys can't play CB, except XYZ", but that's only natural. Sports, on the field, are not the same as main stream society. I know that things are discussed, talked about openly and even accepted in the Locker Room that would never be accepted in main stream society. It is the leagues job to put a good face on some of these things on occasion but it is still a fact. On the field, things are viewed differently. It's just that way.

 

[WV Cowboy]

I have felt for some time that white guys get slighted at the RB position, and it probably starts in HS, I know it happens in college.

Many good white RB's don't get the chance because it is perceived that the black RB is better.

If you look back throughout the NFL there have been many great white RB's, but that is not the case anymore because they never get the chance.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I have felt for some time that white guys get slighted at the RB position, and it probably starts in HS, I know it happens in college.

Many good white RB's don't get the chance because it is perceived that the black RB is better.

If you look back throughout the NFL there have been many great white RB's, but that is not the case anymore because they never get the chance.

There may be something to this but I can honestly say that, with the exception of somebodies Dad coaching a team, the better player has unsually won out. I don't have experience other then HS so it would be misleading for me to try and say that I know this for a fact at every level but I do believe that Coaches play the guys who afford them the best chance to keep there jobs.

 

[WV Cowboy]

There may be something to this but I can honestly say that, with the exception of somebodies Dad coaching a team, the better player has unsually won out. I don't have experience other then HS so it would be misleading for me to try and say that I know this for a fact at every level but I do believe that Coaches play the guys who afford them the best chance to keep there jobs.

Oh, I agree with that, I'm just saying they aren't always right.

The black RB may have better breakaway speed so they go with him when in some cases the white RB may just be a better straight ahead runner.

Riggins, Czonka, Kiick, Garrison.

The best in history have been black, Walter, Emmitt, LT, etc., so coaches are looking for that type of talent, but I have also seen a lot of black RB's that weren't anything special.

Maybe some white RB's were overlooked when these guys were selected.

JMO, .. no big deal.

 

[tyke1doe]

OK - you had me thinking ... and then you blew it. What you have just done in your quote above is to stereotype a bunch of different classes of people, how they operate, and how they view race as a whole.

That's what got us into trouble in the first place.

Clarification, please.

What I pointed out isn't a stereotype. It's an economic and social dynamic.

Rich people generally speaking live in rich communities that are largely made up of the same racial makeup. That's not a stereotype. That is a real dynamic with respect to homogeniety.

Same with poor people.

Then again your comment was a bit general. Care to example more specifically.

 

[tyke1doe]

Could you not make the very same argument in the opposite direction?

Actually, black coaches are allowed to interview for head coaching positions.

Unfortunately, not all white guys who are interested in playing WR are given tryouts.

Now, black coaches aren't always allowed to interview for head coaching jobs. Hence, the Rooney Rule.

Owners were under no obligation - prior to the Rooney Rule - to interview several coaches. They could have interviewed only one candidate.

Second, the issue isn't interest but opportunity.

White guys who want to be receivers are given tryouts. I don't know of many white guys who weren't allowed to tryout for an NFL team. Do you know of any?