Has the Rooney rule helped or hurt minorities?

[AbeBeta]

It's a good rule, I just saw the % of NFL players thing and thought it was bizarre.

Gotcha. You are right -- that is not the correct comparison -- but certainly it is better than the Minority folks in the U.S. population (or as another poster said the % of black folks -- which isn't relevant in two ways).

Another comparison is the % of minorities who are presently assistants -- of course, an arguments can be made that there is a poor representation of minorities at the assistant ranks. I believe when the Rooney Rule came into effect only about 8% of the leagues assistants were minority. That seems awful low when you recognize that many position coaches were players. I'd imagine that when there were few minority head coaches, young minorities who could pursue a career in coaching might not have seen that as a choice that allowed much upward mobility. Another is the broader societal issue -- non-players (e.g., Andy Reid) who can afford to stay on in college as graduate coaching assistants will be better candidates - those guys are overwhelmingly going to come from background where they get financial support from their families -- because graduate positions pay crap.

As I see the assistant issue, this is an area where the league is doing a far better job -- more minority coaches will mean more minority assistants (see Dungy's outstanding coaching tree). Plus, the league has a minority coaching intern program in place to develop interested folks into assistants.

 

[jay cee]

This is a fair point IMO.

You take Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith, for example:

13 years of very succesful coaching in the College ranks before he ever got a shot in the NFL. 13 YEARS. That's a very long time to wait. I think it's also worth mentioning that Tony Dungy gave him his shot. Are we to believe that nobody else new about Lovie Smith except Tony Dungy? 7 more years as an assistant coach before he got a shot as HC. Passed over several times along the way. That's 20 years of putting in time before he ever got his chance as HC and it's not because Smith wasn't good at what he did. He was very good at it.

Dungy's road is a bit different but also alike. Interestingly enough, Tony Dungy graduated from Minnesota (Big 10) as a 4 year starter at QB. By the time he finished, he was there all time career leader in pass attempts, completions, yards and TDs. He was the 4th All time leader in total yardage in the history of the Big 10. He was named MVP twice at Minnesota. In 1977, Tony Dungy entered the NFL as a Free Agent Safety. Amazingly enough, nobody ever gave Dungy a chance to play QB in the NFL. In 1980, Dungy became a DB coach for Pittsburgh. He remained a defensive backs coach for 4 years and then became the DC for the Steelers in 84. In 89, Dungy left to become a DB coach, once again, in KC. It is interesting to note that Bill Cowher entered the NFL as a ST coach in 1985. In 87, he became there DB coach. In 89 he got the job of DC for the Kansas City Chiefs and in 92 became the HC of the Pittsburgh Steelers. In effect, Dungy worked for Cowher while at KC. In 1992, when Cowher got the job as HC in Pittsburgh, Dungy was not brought back to Pittsburgh. Instead, Dungy was hired by Dennis Green to be there DC. He enjoyed huge success in Minnesota, once again and was finally hired as HC by Tampa Bay in 1996. 12 years as a position coach or coordinator before he got his shot. Dungy wasn't just good. He was widely reconginzed as one of the best DCs in the NFL for a long time and got passed over continuosly. If not for Dennis Green, who knows?

Great post. I have often wondered what type of QB, Dungy could have been. He seems to be such a cool level headed guy and a great leader.

It's certainly not like he was anything great as a safety. So why the position change?

 

[tunahelper]

Bingo.

Why he would try to compare the population of America instead of the population of African Americans in the NFL is beyond me.

Well, it's not beyond me. I'm just trying to be nice.

Why have you disgreed with me before if it is beyond you.

If NFL coaching diversity is greater than the population make up, you must concede the owners are hired staff above the racial reflection of our society. (2007 minority coaches- Edwards, Crennel, Dungy, Smith, Shell, Lewis, Green)

Therefor all arguments, stating minorities are not being hired equally is void!

Simple logic really! :

P.S. This is affirmative action 101!
Affirmative action began as a corrective measure[2] for governmental and social injustices against demographic groups that have been said to be subjected to discrimination in areas such as employment and education. The stated goal of affirmative action is to counteract past and present discrimination sufficiently that the power elite will reflect the demographics of society at large, at which point such a strategy will no longer be necessary.
That gun shot is me shooting a hole right through your argument!


Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Why have you disgreed with me before if it is beyond you.

If NFL coaching diversity is greater than the population make up, you must concede the owners are hired staff above the racial reflection of our society. (2007 minority coaches- Edwards, Crennel, Dungy, Smith, Shell, Lewis, Green)

Therefor all arguments, stating minorities are not being hired equally is void!

Simple logic really! :

P.S. This is affirmative action 101!
Affirmative action began as a corrective measure[2] for governmental and social injustices against demographic groups that have been said to be subjected to discrimination in areas such as employment and education. The stated goal of affirmative action is to counteract past and present discrimination sufficiently that the power elite will reflect the demographics of society at large, at which point such a strategy will no longer be necessary.
That gun shot is me shooting a hole right through your argument!


Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

Your arguement here would carry much more weight if you actually realized that Minority doesn't mean Black. Jim Mora Jr. is also a minority.

 

[AbeBeta]

P.S. This is affirmative action 101!
Affirmative action began as a corrective measure[2] for governmental and social injustices against demographic groups that have been said to be subjected to discrimination in areas such as employment and education. The stated goal of affirmative action is to counteract past and present discrimination sufficiently that the power elite will reflect the demographics of society at large, at which point such a strategy will no longer be necessary.
That gun shot is me shooting a hole right through your argument!


Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

That's a totally incorrect interpretation you've laid on this -- the goal of AA is as stated above. That reflects the overall goal for hiring in the U.S. Societal proportions are not relevant to specific jobs. Every job is compared against the pool of qualified applicants. For example, in my own field, when we are hiring, we need to show that our applications matched roughly the proportion of qualified potential applicants, not that our applications matched some societal %. In my area, this may mean fewer minority applicants, but often far more women who are applicants as compared to societal numbers.

 

[AbeBeta]

Your arguement here would carry much more weight if you actually realized that Minority doesn't mean Black. Jim Mora Jr. is also a minority.

Really? What is Mora's background?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Really? What is Mora's background?

He is Hispanic.

 

[aikemirv]

That's a totally incorrect interpretation you've laid on this -- the goal of AA is as stated above. That reflects the overall goal for hiring in the U.S. Societal proportions are not relevant to specific jobs. Every job is compared against the pool of qualified applicants. For example, in my own field, when we are hiring, we need to show that our applications matched roughly the proportion of qualified potential applicants, not that our applications matched some societal %. In my area, this may mean fewer minority applicants, but often far more women who are applicants as compared to societal numbers.

That would almost be an impossible number to come up with for potential coaches though. In most fileds you may be using an area demographic for qualified applicants, but to get a demographic of qualified applicants for the coaching ranks you would be hard pressed. And not only that, but what makes a "coach" qualified. Maybe this has nothing to do with the argument that is being made in this thread (because I have not read it all), but that seems impossible to come up with for coaching.

If you were taking my profession, CPA's, much easier, because the qualifications are set in stone, but for coaching.......

 

[AbeBeta]

That would almost be an impossible number to come up with for potential coaches though. In most fileds you may be using an area demographic for qualified applicants, but to get a demographic of qualified applicants for the coaching ranks you would be hard pressed. And not only that, but what makes a "coach" qualified. Maybe this has nothing to do with the argument that is being made in this thread (because I have not read it all), but that seems impossible to come up with for coaching.

If you were taking my profession, CPA's, much easier, because the qualifications are set in stone, but for coaching.......

Certainly it is a difficult # -- but I'd expect that most NFL executives would believe it was far greater than the % of African Americans in society as a whole.

The difficulty in establishing who is and who isn't qualified is however a formula that promotes reliance on hiring - as I've noted earlier in the thread when conditions are ambiguous applicants who are more like those doing the hiring will have a major edge.

 

[tunahelper]

That's a totally incorrect interpretation you've laid on this -- the goal of AA is as stated above. That reflects the overall goal for hiring in the U.S. Societal proportions are not relevant to specific jobs. Every job is compared against the pool of qualified applicants. For example, in my own field, when we are hiring, we need to show that our applications matched roughly the proportion of qualified potential applicants, not that our applications matched some societal %. In my area, this may mean fewer minority applicants, but often far more women who are applicants as compared to societal numbers.

Interpretation?

The information I gave was from a link I provided again.

It gives a detailed definition of AA and yours is not accurate.

I also cross checked this site to several others for "official definitions" on AA and found it to be compatible.

Minority hiring should reflect racial makeup of society. Overwhelming stated as the definition and this is the key to its hiring barometer.

My point is 7 of 32 coaches are considered black and that is 21% racial makeup.

12% of USA is made up of Black citzens, so I do not feel the Rooney Rule has merit, nor is it logical.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

 

[tyke1doe]

Why have you disgreed with me before if it is beyond you.

My comments were specific to your percentage comparisons, not your overall argument.

If NFL coaching diversity is greater than the population make up, you must concede the owners are hired staff above the racial reflection of our society. (2007 minority coaches- Edwards, Crennel, Dungy, Smith, Shell, Lewis, Green)

Therefor all arguments, stating minorities are not being hired equally is void!

Simple logic really! :

Actually faulty logic.

First, no one that I know of made the argument that African American hiring should reflect their population percentage. That's stupid.

Second, you can't make a comparison from the general population because that is too broad for the scope of this issue. We're talking about potential head coaching candidates. All African Americans do not want to be NFL coaches nor are they qualified to be. But some African Americans within the NFL and the coaching ranks below head coach want the opportunity to be head coaches. That's where you have to draw your percentages.

Using general numbers to address a specific issue distorts and skews the data and makes it irrelevant.

P.S. This is affirmative action 101!
Affirmative action began as a corrective measure[2] for governmental and social injustices against demographic groups that have been said to be subjected to discrimination in areas such as employment and education. The stated goal of affirmative action is to counteract past and present discrimination sufficiently that the power elite will reflect the demographics of society at large, at which point such a strategy will no longer be necessary.

That gun shot is me shooting a hole right through your argument!

Unfortunately, you aren't comprehending the argument.

The Rooney Rule IS NOT saying the minorities have to be hired.

How many times do I have to say that. So PERCENTAGES reflecting overall population are irrelevant.

An owner can interview one minority candidate out of a total of 10. Under your argument, the owner would be obligated to interview another minority candidate to adequately reflect the African American population.

But that IS NOT what the Rooney Rule states!!!!

It simply says that a minority candidate has to be interviewed, and it doesn't even specify African American as the minority candidate.

So everything you've just argued is basically IRRELEVANT!

I can only conclude, now, that you are purposely distorting the Rooney Rule and the nature of this debate or you really don't comprehend what the issue is.

 

[AbeBeta]

Interpretation?

The information I gave was from a link I provided again.

It gives a detailed definition of AA and yours is not accurate.

I also cross checked this site to several others for "official definitions" on AA and found it to be compatible.

Minority hiring should reflect racial makeup of society. Overwhelming stated as the definition and this is the key to its hiring barometer.

My point is 7 of 32 coaches are considered black and that is 21% racial makeup.

12% of USA is made up of Black citzens, so I do not feel the Rooney Rule has merit, nor is it logical.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

You are being ignorant to the rule. I study AA law and applications. You are ignoring just about every simple fact about affirmative action imaginable. The goal of the policy is that hiring reflect society. That part is correct. But you appear not to understand that overarching policy goals of equal representation are not equivalent to the application of policy in any one area.

But that has nothing to do with applications of affirmative action at an organizational level. Professions differ in terms of who is part of the viable applicant pool for hiring. For example it would be idiotic to apply that rule to organations hiring Ph.D.s in Computer Science where only 1 or 2 % of the folks who hold Ph.D.s in that area are African American. The Affirmative Action goals for that organization would be to reflect the % of African Americans with Ph.D.s not the 12% that you state. Based on your argument you would suggest that these organizations would have to hire 12% African Americans -- about 6 times the available applicants. Other organizations, such as the NFL have a pool of far greater than 12%, so their targets would be higher. The goal is to have a 12% average for these positions -- not 12% for every position -- to get to a 12% average some jobs will have to have less and some more.

 

[tyke1doe]

That's a totally incorrect interpretation you've laid on this -- the goal of AA is as stated above. That reflects the overall goal for hiring in the U.S. Societal proportions are not relevant to specific jobs. Every job is compared against the pool of qualified applicants. For example, in my own field, when we are hiring, we need to show that our applications matched roughly the proportion of qualified potential applicants, not that our applications matched some societal %. In my area, this may mean fewer minority applicants, but often far more women who are applicants as compared to societal numbers.

Very good and very accurate.

But this isn't even about Affirmative Action since the Rooney Rule doesn't mandate that minority candidates be hired, simply interviewed and then just one - which negates any argument about percentages.

This distinction is critical to the argument. Then again, there are those on this forum who want to blur the distinction between being interviewed and being hired just as they want to blur the distinction between being interviewed and applying for a job or trying out for a team.

When you argue generalities and compare them with specifics, you can prove anything.

But you sacrifice logic, context and understanding when you do so.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Very good and very accurate.

But this isn't even about Affirmative Action since the Rooney Rule doesn't mandate that minority candidates be hired, simply interviewed and then just one - which negates any argument about percentages.

This distinction is critical to the argument. Then again, there are those on this forum who want to blur the distinction between being interviewed and being hired just as they want to blur the distinction between being interviewed and applying for a job or trying out for a team.

When you argue generalities and compare them with specifics, you can prove anything.

But you sacrifice logic, context and understanding when you do so.

I said this on the second page...

Remember guys this is not a situation where a percentage of the owners HAVE TO HIRE a minority coach. It just gives the minority coach a chance to interview.

I also mentioned...

It is just a chance to try to impress and get a job, not a situation where the league is telling owners who they must hire. I think people need to remember that when comparing it to other race programs outside the NFL.

I honestly think some people believe that it is the same as the government program...that or they are just so stuck in their ways they refuse to actually READ.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I said this on the second page...

Remember guys this is not a situation where a percentage of the owners HAVE TO HIRE a minority coach. It just gives the minority coach a chance to interview.

I also mentioned...

It is just a chance to try to impress and get a job, not a situation where the league is telling owners who they must hire. I think people need to remember that when comparing it to other race programs outside the NFL.

I honestly think some people believe that it is the same as the government program...that or they are just so stuck in their ways they refuse to actually READ.

The key question here.......... What would Yellow Beard do?

 

[AbeBeta]

I honestly think some people believe that it is the same as the government program...that or they are just so stuck in their ways they refuse to actually READ.

Although this is not associated with the gov't program -- it is an example of the way the gov't program might be applied. It isn't immediately obvious that the NFL would fall under Affirmative Action law -- only businesses receiving federal funding (or other considerations) are affected by that law. My sense would be however that the league is subject to those laws - I don't know about funding but there are visits to the White House and things of that nature that might qualify as a federal consideration.

The Gov't does not establish how organizations engage in affirmative action aside from making some form of monitoring a requirement -- the monitoring can be as simple as a short questionnaire regarding sex and ethnic background with hiring decisions compared to applications to establish that hiring discrimination is not going on. For the vast majority of organizations, that satisfies AA criteria. Only organizations who cannot demonstrate they are not discriminating (e.g., not getting any minority applications, 50% minority applications but only 5% hired) move to stronger forms of AA -- these might involve improved recruitment and potentially training programs for minority applicants. More extreme forms (e.g., use of ethnicity to break ties between equally qualified candidates, test-score banding) are even more rarely required -- but may be used by organization who believe it is beneficial to increase minority representation.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

The key question here.......... What would Yellow Beard do?

Nail their...(.)(.)...to the table.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Nail their...(.)(.)...to the table.

That is a great movie.

 

[tunahelper]

My comments were specific to your percentage comparisons, not your overall argument.



Actually faulty logic.

First, no one that I know of made the argument that African American hiring should reflect their population percentage. That's stupid.

Second, you can't make a comparison from the general population because that is too broad for the scope of this issue. We're talking about potential head coaching candidates. All African Americans do not want to be NFL coaches nor are they qualified to be. But some African Americans within the NFL and the coaching ranks below head coach want the opportunity to be head coaches. That's where you have to draw your percentages.

Using general numbers to address a specific issue distorts and skews the data and makes it irrelevant.





Unfortunately, you aren't comprehending the argument.

The Rooney Rule IS NOT saying the minorities have to be hired.

How many times do I have to say that. So PERCENTAGES reflecting overall population are irrelevant.

An owner can interview one minority candidate out of a total of 10. Under your argument, the owner would be obligated to interview another minority candidate to adequately reflect the African American population.

But that IS NOT what the Rooney Rule states!!!!

It simply says that a minority candidate has to be interviewed, and it doesn't even specify African American as the minority candidate.

So everything you've just argued is basically IRRELEVANT!

I can only conclude, now, that you are purposely distorting the Rooney Rule and the nature of this debate or you really don't comprehend what the issue is.

I now know you are ignorant based on your lack of understanding. People like you will always want the Rooney Rule but it will never achieve its goal!

Good day large Font queen...
:laugh2:

 

[Kilyin]

He is Hispanic.

So is Jeff Garcia.