Minority coaches

[GuernseyCard]

What makes you think that we will get to stop talking about it then? We have an African American president and we are still talking about the Rooney Rule

An African American with a white mother..

 

[CtCardinals78]

An African American with a white father.

Uhhhhh no.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Uhhhhh no.

Sorry, mother.

Anyway,my point is about as relevant as the suggestion that all things are fine on the racial front because he's in the White House. Women Prime Ministers and Presidents hasn't ended sexism.

 

[desertdawg]

FYI per nfl.com/teams

Baltimore has 6 black assistants plus one guy who didn't have a picture
San Francisco has 3
Atlanta 5
New England 5 plus one guy with no picture

Each team has 15-16 assistants.

It would be really interesting to see how many minority coaches the minority HC's have on their teams.

 

[CtCardinals78]

Sorry, mother.

Anyway,my point is about as relevant as the suggestion that all things are fine on the racial front because he's in the White House. Women Prime Ministers and Presidents hasn't ended sexism.

I agree and while the Rooney Rule isn't perfect it is still necessary. There's still a long way to go to make things better in this country for everyone.

 

[GuernseyCard]

I agree and while the Rooney Rule isn't perfect it is still necessary. There's still a long way to go to make thing better in this country for everyone.

Agree.

 

[cardsfanmd]

Do you pencil in a black mustache and play fast paced classical music when you post?

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Stout]

@Cardiac: I'm sorry, but the two wrongs make a right strategy is inherently flawed. You just compared slavery to affirmative action, which is laughable in its lack of relevance. You do not start--let alone run for 40+ years--a program that promotes inequality. That is exactly what affirmative action does. It's a program with far too many unintended, yet very real, consequences.

 

[GuernseyCard]

@Cardiac: I'm sorry, but the two wrongs make a right strategy is inherently flawed. You just compared slavery to affirmative action, which is laughable in its lack of relevance. You do not start--let alone run for 40+ years--a program that promotes inequality. That is exactly what affirmative action does. It's a program with far too many unintended, yet very real, consequences.

If affirmative action is not a response to the residue of racism born from bondage, then what is it?

To equate the possible consequences to some members of the majority to the systemic denial of opportunity to minorities strikes me as misplaced, and largely anecdotal.

These programs will pass from the scene some day, we can all hope, but they still have a role at this point. (IMO)

 

[JeffGollin]

@Cardiac: I'm sorry, but the two wrongs make a right strategy is inherently flawed. You just compared slavery to affirmative action, which is laughable in its lack of relevance. You do not start--let alone run for 40+ years--a program that promotes inequality. That is exactly what affirmative action does. It's a program with far too many unintended, yet very real, consequences.

Affirmative action and The Rooney Rule are not identical.

Affirmative Action sets minority quotas and requires that institutions fill them.

The Rooney Rule merely requires that each team involved in a search interview at least one minority candidate.

 

[Stout]

If affirmative action is not a response to the residue of racism born from bondage, then what is it?

To equate the possible consequences to some members of the majority to the systemic denial of opportunity to minorities strikes me as misplaced, and largely anecdotal.

These programs will pass from the scene some day, we can all hope, but they still have a role at this point. (IMO)

It is of course a response to it, but that's not what you said. There has been (in the past--it is NOT systematic any more) systematic denial of opportunity to minorities. There are certainly still instances of it today--no denying that--but it isn't what it used to be. Your answer, and indeed affirmative action's answer, is that it's cool to screw over a smaller number of people--unfairly, grossly unjustly--to make up for what's happened in the past, and to *hope* to do some right today. The problem with that logic, other than the obvious problem of it not being all right to screw people over to help others, is that AA often promotes the wrong minority candidates, putting under-qualified people in positions of responsibility.

Affirmative action and The Rooney Rule are not identical.

Affirmative Action sets minority quotas and requires that institutions fill them.

The Rooney Rule merely requires that each team involved in a search interview at least one minority candidate.

I do realize that.

 

[GuernseyCard]

It is of course a response to it, but that's not what you said. There has been (in the past--it is NOT systematic any more) systematic denial of opportunity to minorities. There are certainly still instances of it today--no denying that--but it isn't what it used to be. Your answer, and indeed affirmative action's answer, is that it's cool to screw over a smaller number of people--unfairly, grossly unjustly--to make up for what's happened in the past, and to *hope* to do some right today. The problem with that logic, other than the obvious problem of it not being all right to screw people over to help others, is that AA often promotes the wrong minority candidates, putting under-qualified people in positions of responsibility.

I do realize that.

I find it laughable when a representative of the overwhelming majority in a society complains about programs designed to help rectify an imbalance.

No program designed by man will be flawless, but, it seems every counter argument to affirmative action programs end with "putting under-qualified people in positions of responsibility", and the logical, linear sequence to this thinking is that a white candidate would invariably be the "right" choice.

I completed graduate studies in the US, travel there on business frequently and have a winter residence in Florida. I've seen changes for the better over the decades, but, without getting into great detail, Nirvana is still far away.

 

[Stout]

I find it laughable when a representative of the overwhelming majority in a society complains about programs designed to help rectify an imbalance.

No program designed by man will be flawless, but, it seems every counter argument to affirmative action programs end with "putting under-qualified people in positions of responsibility", and the logical, linear sequence to this thinking is that a white candidate would invariably be the "right" choice.

I completed graduate studies in the US, travel there on business frequently and have a winter residence in Florida. I've seen changes for the better over the decades, but, without getting into great detail, Nirvana is still far away.

Right, since I'm part of the majority I am automatically disqualified from the possibility of having a qualified opinion on it That isn't a lazy argument; it's just plain ignorant--on purpose, I suspect.

The logical, linear choice is not that a white candidate is invariably a white candidate, no. You're trying to put words in my post that I didn't type. There are times, however--times, not always--when it is absolutely true that a lesser qualified minority gains advantage over a more qualified member of the majority, be it the white majority, male majority, or what have you. If you try to say otherwise, you're either lying or stupid. It isn't always the case, and the law isn't always abused, but it is by definition a discriminatory law. You do not solve discrimination through different forms of discrimination. Even affirmative action advocates (smart, educated, and well-spoken ones) admit that it's a broken system, even while willing to use it to correct other wrongs.

 

[Chopper0080]

What people fail to acknowledge is that most coaches are failed players at the college level (some at the Pro Level). The sooner these ex-players head into the coaching ranks, the longer time they have to gain experience and contacts. Considering the normal reason players fail to reach the NFL or in the NFL is a lack of athleticism, it is no surprise that you have more white/hispanic coaching candidates entering the coaching realm at a younger age than african american ones. This is what the Rooney Rule fails to consider. If I have 4 years of college playing experience and 10 years of coaching experience, and the other interviewing candidate has 4 years college playing experience, 7 years NFL playing experience, and 3 years coaching experience, it is realistic that the years of coaching experience would be valued over the years of NFL playing experience.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Right, since I'm part of the majority I am automatically disqualified from the possibility of having a qualified opinion on it That isn't a lazy argument; it's just plain ignorant--on purpose, I suspect.

The logical, linear choice is not that a white candidate is invariably a white candidate, no. You're trying to put words in my post that I didn't type. There are times, however--times, not always--when it is absolutely true that a lesser qualified minority gains advantage over a more qualified member of the majority, be it the white majority, male majority, or what have you. If you try to say otherwise, you're either lying or stupid. It isn't always the case, and the law isn't always abused, but it is by definition a discriminatory law. You do not solve discrimination through different forms of discrimination. Even affirmative action advocates (smart, educated, and well-spoken ones) admit that it's a broken system, even while willing to use it to correct other wrongs.

Yes you certainly do have a 'qualified' argument, which ranks right up there in historical terms with the working Irish poor of New York and Boston concerned with blacks coming north after the Civil War and taking their jobs. I leave it to a bright and 'disinterested' person like you to devise a better system.

 

[Stout]

Yes you certainly do have a 'qualified' argument, which ranks right up there in historical terms with the working Irish poor of New York and Boston concerned with blacks coming north after the Civil War and taking their jobs. I leave it to a bright and 'disinterested' person like you to devise a better system.

Right, so you can't come up with an intelligent response, so you result to pettiness. You lost. I get it.

A better system? Of ensuring absolute equality in the workplace? No such animal. It is tacitly impossible to ensure absolute equality, just like it's impossible to eradicate crime; certain idiots will still do it. Affirmative action needs to go, because it's discriminatory and wrong. I'd say to just make the penalties for wrongful, discriminatory hiring practices so outrageously high that it can be a deterrent.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Right, so you can't come up with an intelligent response, so you result to pettiness. You lost. I get it.

A better system? Of ensuring absolute equality in the workplace? No such animal. It is tacitly impossible to ensure absolute equality, just like it's impossible to eradicate crime; certain idiots will still do it. Affirmative action needs to go, because it's discriminatory and wrong. I'd say to just make the penalties for wrongful, discriminatory hiring practices so outrageously high that it can be a deterrent.

An intelligent response, which you gift yourself with, would not include suggesting that those who disagree are Liars and stupid.

AA programs will pass with time, but, given the underlying thinking in your response it likely will be one generation beyond you.

 

[Cardiac]

An intelligent response, which you gift yourself with, would not include suggesting that those who disagree are Liars and stupid.

AA programs will pass with time, but, given the underlying thinking in your response it likely will be one generation beyond you.

I feel kinda lazy because I haven't been around to continue this debate and I'm glad because you said it all better than I could have.

Stout, the injustice and "outrage" you feel about AA is understandable to a point. The thing is without AA minority candidates would have never had the chance for better positions. So while it can cause hardships for some white employees it is far from the injustice that was taking place before AA.

So yes, I prefer the lesser of 2 evils until a better solution is found.

It seems to me that you refuse to see or at least acknowledge that the opportunities for minorities was criminally non existent.

 

[Cards Czar]

I just wish I was an owner. I would just hire the most qualified coach after my interviews. Could care less if you were white, black, brown, red, green or pokadotted.

Just hire the best dam coach/s that you interviewed.

 

[8ndkorner]

I'm a minority and I think the Rooney Rule is stupid.

I agree. You can't "right" the past hiring practices by doing the opposite now. You can hire the best qualified regardless of race though.

 

[Darkside]

I am naive, because I didn't even realize this was an issue in today's society. These owners care about one thing: money. And winning, which ensures more money. Its almost unfathomable to me that any gazillionare would pass on anyone they thought could increase their bottom line.

Its honestly difficult for me to believe that happens. What I find more likely is a complete difference in culture and education. Not better or worse, just different. And I think that makes proper communication very difficult and they end up passing or missing on the right guy.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

 

[Stout]

An intelligent response, which you gift yourself with, would not include suggesting that those who disagree are Liars and stupid.

AA programs will pass with time, but, given the underlying thinking in your response it likely will be one generation beyond you.

Right, because I don't agree with your line of thinking, I'm a racist. Nice one, and just as laughable as the others. Oh, you couched it in polite language, but you just called me at least an individual that discriminates against minorities, or at worst an all-out racist--all because I don't agree with you, and because I refuse to support a discriminatory policy.

Now, answer a simple question, if you're brave enough to do it: Is AA a discriminatory program?

I feel kinda lazy because I haven't been around to continue this debate and I'm glad because you said it all better than I could have.

Stout, the injustice and "outrage" you feel about AA is understandable to a point. The thing is without AA minority candidates would have never had the chance for better positions. So while it can cause hardships for some white employees it is far from the injustice that was taking place before AA.

So yes, I prefer the lesser of 2 evils until a better solution is found.

It seems to me that you refuse to see or at least acknowledge that the opportunities for minorities was criminally non existent.

Now this is an intelligent post. I agree that minorities were discriminated against in a gross and wholesale manor, yes. I very much wish the government would have implemented a more sensible (and nondiscriminatory) policy, but I understand why AA came about. It was considered a given that a minority would simply have a harder time than the white majority in the job market--an ugly truth. And AA has played a role in turning that around--a long time ago.

Today, however, AA needs to be put to bed. We've needed to do that for a long time. Stiffen penalties against discriminatory employers to a crippling level, get rid of AA, and we'll be fine. We'll never be perfect, and we certainly aren't perfect under AA either, but as a society, we'll be fine.

The problem I have with what you say is in your bolded statement. You give a simple one-or-the-other situation, which is inaccurate. For one thing, if AA was done away with, we wouldn't suddenly revert to discrimination evels from decades ago. That's hyperbole. The other problem is that there are other solutions, like the one I suggested. So it isn't a choice between AA and gross discrimination against minorities; it's a choice between the effrontery of reverse discrimination under an unfair law (AA) and better, more progressive, and more fair options, like I've mentioned.

I thank you for being civil and intelligent in your response, Cardiac.

 

[40yearfan]

Right, because I don't agree with your line of thinking, I'm a racist. Nice one, and just as laughable as the others. Oh, you couched it in polite language, but you just called me at least an individual that discriminates against minorities, or at worst an all-out racist--all because I don't agree with you, and because I refuse to support a discriminatory policy.

Now, answer a simple question, if you're brave enough to do it: Is AA a discriminatory program?



Now this is an intelligent post. I agree that minorities were discriminated against in a gross and wholesale manor, yes. I very much wish the government would have implemented a more sensible (and nondiscriminatory) policy, but I understand why AA came about. It was considered a given that a minority would simply have a harder time than the white majority in the job market--an ugly truth. And AA has played a role in turning that around--a long time ago.

Today, however, AA needs to be put to bed. We've needed to do that for a long time. Stiffen penalties against discriminatory employers to a crippling level, get rid of AA, and we'll be fine. We'll never be perfect, and we certainly aren't perfect under AA either, but as a society, we'll be fine.

The problem I have with what you say is in your bolded statement. You give a simple one-or-the-other situation, which is inaccurate. For one thing, if AA was done away with, we wouldn't suddenly revert to discrimination evels from decades ago. That's hyperbole. The other problem is that there are other solutions, like the one I suggested. So it isn't a choice between AA and gross discrimination against minorities; it's a choice between the effrontery of reverse discrimination under an unfair law (AA) and better, more progressive, and more fair options, like I've mentioned.

I thank you for being civil and intelligent in your response, Cardiac.

Stout, you and I don't often agree with each other, but in this instance, we agree completely. It's time to stop discrimination and allow the market to seek it's level.

Compared to players salaries, coaching salaries (especially at the starting level) are not very good. Any NFL player who has been making a good salary might not want to work for a coaching salary. This could play into the number of minorities who turn to coaching after an NFL career. Because of their notariety they can make more money in another industry.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Right, because I don't agree with your line of thinking, I'm a racist. Nice one, and just as laughable as the others. Oh, you couched it in polite language, but you just called me at least an individual that discriminates against minorities, or at worst an all-out racist--all because I don't agree with you, and because I refuse to support a discriminatory policy.

Now, answer a simple question, if you're brave enough to do it: Is AA a discriminatory program?



Now this is an intelligent post. I agree that minorities were discriminated against in a gross and wholesale manor, yes. I very much wish the government would have implemented a more sensible (and nondiscriminatory) policy, but I understand why AA came about. It was considered a given that a minority would simply have a harder time than the white majority in the job market--an ugly truth. And AA has played a role in turning that around--a long time ago.

Today, however, AA needs to be put to bed. We've needed to do that for a long time. Stiffen penalties against discriminatory employers to a crippling level, get rid of AA, and we'll be fine. We'll never be perfect, and we certainly aren't perfect under AA either, but as a society, we'll be fine.

The problem I have with what you say is in your bolded statement. You give a simple one-or-the-other situation, which is inaccurate. For one thing, if AA was done away with, we wouldn't suddenly revert to discrimination evels from decades ago. That's hyperbole. The other problem is that there are other solutions, like the one I suggested. So it isn't a choice between AA and gross discrimination against minorities; it's a choice between the effrontery of reverse discrimination under an unfair law (AA) and better, more progressive, and more fair options, like I've mentioned.

I thank you for being civil and intelligent in your response, Cardiac.

If you'd offered this as an initial point, we'd have had less of an issue. All AA programs have penalties for those who don't abide, and the discriminated can avail themselves of the courts. An increase in fines will not likely have the results you seek.

As a member of the board on a major international conglomerate involved in the natural resource industry, we have setup AA programs throughout the world. We revise and improve continuously, and in our experience there is still a need for these initiatives.

 

[Stout]

If you'd offered this as an initial point, we'd have had less of an issue. All AA programs have penalties for those who don't abide, and the discriminated can avail themselves of the courts. An increase in fines will not likely have the results you seek.

As a member of the board on a major international conglomerate involved in the natural resource industry, we have setup AA programs throughout the world. We revise and improve continuously, and in our experience there is still a need for these initiatives.

And if you'd responded like a mature adult, we wouldn't have had any problems.

I still disagree with you. If I'm more qualified for a position, and I am unfairly denied that position due to discrimination--it's given to a lesser qualified AA minority--then it's fine, because I can spend all kinds of money I don't have to hire a lawyer and go through a court system that will likely take years to decide my case?

No matter how you slice it, AA is discrimination, and it is wrong. I'm not in favor of it personally, and I would like it eliminated. As a social work student, I will of course help any clients I have avail themselves of AA, but that doesn't mean I have to support it personally.