Cajuncowboy;4948126 said:
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.
