The rooney rule is it fair< did the redskins follow the rules

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by SkinsFanSince91

Well, Im going to assume that most in here are not people of color. For those who are of color, we find it hard to just "accept" things off of merit, when it comes to race, just because someone says that they followed the rules.

The Rooney rule is a positive step in the right direction for diversity amongst the head coaching and GM ranks in the NFL. However, it is far from being perfect, and even farther from actually having an working long term. When one can use the current loopholes to bypass the system, it defeats the purpose when we see a guy resigns and then a replacements in less than 24 hours. I am skeptical of the time it took from hearing about Cerrato's resignation to the time we found out the Allen would be replacing him.

Now, can we honestly sit here and say, with that time frame, that there was enough time to SERIOUSLY consider an African American, Asian America or Hispanic/Latino for the GM job? I seriously doubt that is possible.

I honestly feel that if Dan Snyder did follow the Rooney Rule, it was just so that he could pacify the league. He really just wanted to bypass the system so he could get his man. Snyder is a man who likes to get what he wants by any means necessary, and it would make perfect sense for him to say he considered someone seriously when all he did was go through the motions in order to get Allen.

Now, if there is anyone who doubts me, you can help us all find the truth if we can answer these two requests:

1) find out the minority or minorities that we did interview for GM job

2) then lets find out how many people of color(that are not Jerry Gray or Greg Blache) we interview before Shannahan, Gruden, Cowher, or Holmgren show up in Burgundy and Gold.

Im just saying, don't be so quick to drink the Kool-Aid. Racism still exists. I applaud TO Killa for bringing this up, and I pray that all those who are not in the "minority" would take this issue seriously, because one day those in the majority may find themselves in the minority.

A wise man once said, "The first shall be last, and the last shall be first." Things have a way of correcting themselves, while teaching a valuable lesson. One would be wise to heed such a lesson.

Sources are saying that we interviewed at least one.. around 10 days ago or so.

What do you think is enough time to consider a minority? Does that vary from the time it takes to consider anybody else?

Do you have an statistics on the percentage of men that want these jobs? That are qualified?

It's ridiculous to look at it in terms of race when there are qualified people of many races. There are what.. 6 or 7 black head coaches? Right around 20pct of the coaches, which is a higher percentage than the actual racial demographics of the USA. Maybe not the same as players in the NFL, but honestly, not everyone that has played is good enough to coach.. or even become a broadcaster, so I don't really look at that argument much.

Coaches of all colors have had successes and failures and that is the way that it will remain. When we no longer have to bring race into the discussion it will be much better. Unfortunately it seems to come equally from both sides, it won't disappear just from the whites overlooking it.

[SkinsFanSince91]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Sources are saying that we interviewed at least one.. around 10 days ago or so.

What do you think is enough time to consider a minority? Does that vary from the time it takes to consider anybody else?

Do you have an statistics on the percentage of men that want these jobs? That are qualified?

It's ridiculous to look at it in terms of race when there are qualified people of many races. There are what.. 6 or 7 black head coaches? Right around 20pct of the coaches, which is a higher percentage than the actual racial demographics of the USA. Maybe not the same as players in the NFL, but honestly, not everyone that has played is good enough to coach.. or even become a broadcaster, so I don't really look at that argument much.

Coaches of all colors have had successes and failures and that is the way that it will remain. When we no longer have to bring race into the discussion it will be much better. Unfortunately it seems to come equally from both sides, it won't disappear just from the whites overlooking it.

I agree.

To answer your question. I do not have a formula or percentage to equate equality in the NFL, but I do believe a week is enough time for any franchise to ensure their due diligence..

All I want is to know who they interviewed, and maybe, just maybe have some of that information available after the selection is made.

It would have been nice to hear some of that information during the press conference. When none of that info ever comes out, then it just looks like the info that "we satisfied the commissioner's taste" seems like PR "smoke."

In short, the Rooney rule is a positive step in right direction to attaining parity in the executive ranks of the NFL coaching and management ranks, but process, in its current form, lacks transparency and allows teams to sidestep the spirit and intention of the rule. Changes could be made to enhance that original intent of the Rooney rule.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by SkinsFanSince91

I agree.

To answer your question. I do not have a formula or percentage to equate equality in the NFL, but I do believe a week is enough time for any franchise to ensure their due diligence..

All I want is to know who they interviewed, and maybe, just maybe have some of that information available after the selection is made.

It would have been nice to hear some of that information during the press conference. When none of that info ever comes out, then it just looks like the info that "we satisfied the commissioner's taste" seems like PR "smoke."

In short, the Rooney rule is a positive step in right direction to attaining parity in the executive ranks of the NFL coaching and management ranks, but process, in its current form, lacks transparency and allows teams to sidestep the spirit and intention of the rule. Changes could be made to enhance that original intent of the Rooney rule.

Teams usually don't air out things like that and I'm not sure why it would change for our situation. Anybody who knows who they want is giving more than one interview out on a guy that they don't plan on hiring, regardless of race. It would be in bad taste to announce the guys that you didn't select in the press conference.

If the Rooney Rule contributed to some of the successful black coaches then I agree that it was a good step. Many of them have proven that they can lead teams quite well.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SkinsFanSince91

I agree.

To answer your question. I do not have a formula or percentage to equate equality in the NFL, but I do believe a week is enough time for any franchise to ensure their due diligence..

All I want is to know who they interviewed, and maybe, just maybe have some of that information available after the selection is made.

It would have been nice to hear some of that information during the press conference. When none of that info ever comes out, then it just looks like the info that "we satisfied the commissioner's taste" seems like PR "smoke."

In short, the Rooney rule is a positive step in right direction to attaining parity in the executive ranks of the NFL coaching and management ranks, but process, in its current form, lacks transparency and allows teams to sidestep the spirit and intention of the rule. Changes could be made to enhance that original intent of the Rooney rule.

Well if an owner is dumb enough to not look at what they feel is the most qualified person because of their color then thats their stupid ass. If I was black the last person I would want to work for or with is the person forced to do so.

[GMScud]

I think the Rooney Rule is so stupid. Hire the best man for the job. Head coaches both black and white have proven they can coach at a high level and win Super Bowls. If a team has their sights set on a coach who happens to be white, why go through the motions of interviewing a minority candidate just for the sake of it? It's wasting the time of both parties.

Hire the best man for the job. Who gives a crap what his skins color is. There are several very solid black head coaches in the league and dozens more assistants.

[Kalisto2010]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I think the Rooney Rule is so stupid. Hire the best man for the job.

I wish I lived in the world you lived in. Where institutional racism is non existent. However, in the real world where I reside it's still a pervasive problem, despite many falsely claiming that it's no longer a hinderance. Here's some facts to back up my thought processes, I'm getting tired of reading un-verifiable conjecture.

Devah Pager

Princeton University August 9, 2008

Is racial discrimination a thing of the past?

Debates about the relevance of discrimination in today's society have been difficult to resolve, in part because of the challenges in identifying, measuring, and documenting its presence or absence in all but extreme cases. Discrimination is rarely something that can be observed explicitly.

The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.

Racial disparities have been documented in many contexts, but here, comparing the two job applicants side by side, we are confronted with a troubling reality: Being black in America today is just about the same as having a felony conviction in terms of one’s chances of finding a job.

Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire « - Blogs from CNN.com

This is why we need the Rooney rule.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Kalisto2010

I wish I lived in the world you lived in. Where institutional racism is non existent. However, in the real world where I reside it's still a pervasive problem, despite many falsely claiming that it's no longer a hinderance. Here's some facts to back up my thought processes, I'm getting tired of reading un-verifiable conjecture.

Devah Pager

Princeton University August 9, 2008

Is racial discrimination a thing of the past?

Debates about the relevance of discrimination in today's society have been difficult to resolve, in part because of the challenges in identifying, measuring, and documenting its presence or absence in all but extreme cases. Discrimination is rarely something that can be observed explicitly.

The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.

Racial disparities have been documented in many contexts, but here, comparing the two job applicants side by side, we are confronted with a troubling reality: Being black in America today is just about the same as having a felony conviction in terms of one’s chances of finding a job.

Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire « - Blogs from CNN.com

This is why we need the Rooney rule.

I am speaking only of the Rooney rule as it relates to head coaching positions in the NFL. Being a head coach in the NFL is an exclusive fraternity to say the least. Of the 32 head coaching positions, 7 are currently occupied by minorities. Could it be more? Sure. Does it scream discrimination? Not at all.

You speak of institutional racism. You're swinging at much bigger fences than I'm talking about. I'm not going beyond the NFL with my opinion. The question in the thread title is only about the Rooney rule. The links/references you made were regarding studies discussing all kinds of employment on a variety of levels in this country. And in that case, I think it's a awful that a black person with no criminal history statistically stands the same chance as a white person with a felony. That's terrible.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I am speaking only of the Rooney rule as it relates to head coaching positions in the NFL. Being a head coach in the NFL is an exclusive fraternity to say the least. Of the 32 head coaching positions, 7 are currently occupied by minorities. Could it be more? Sure. Does it scream discrimination? Not at all.

You speak of institutional racism. You're swinging at much bigger fences than I'm talking about. I'm not going beyond the NFL with my opinion. The question in the thread title is only about the Rooney rule. The links/references you made were regarding studies discussing all kinds of employment on a variety of levels in this country. And in that case, I think it's a awful that a black person with no criminal history statistically stands the same chance as a white person with a felony. That's terrible.

Yep; I'd like to know what industries that they polled as well. Having done hiring and with discussions with HR in everything from retail to state govt I know that even misdemeanors hurt your chances, especially if it's drug/alcohol or theft related.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Kalisto2010

I wish I lived in the world you lived in. Where institutional racism is non existent. However, in the real world where I reside it's still a pervasive problem, despite many falsely claiming that it's no longer a hinderance. Here's some facts to back up my thought processes, I'm getting tired of reading un-verifiable conjecture.

Devah Pager

Princeton University August 9, 2008

Is racial discrimination a thing of the past?

Debates about the relevance of discrimination in today's society have been difficult to resolve, in part because of the challenges in identifying, measuring, and documenting its presence or absence in all but extreme cases. Discrimination is rarely something that can be observed explicitly.

The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.

Racial disparities have been documented in many contexts, but here, comparing the two job applicants side by side, we are confronted with a troubling reality: Being black in America today is just about the same as having a felony conviction in terms of one’s chances of finding a job.

Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire « - Blogs from CNN.com

This is why we need the Rooney rule.

I gotta ask then, how do you feel about affirmative action in the schools/workplace? You think it's wrong (and I agree) that a white man with poor qualifications (i.e. felony conviction) is looked at on the same level as black man who is better qualified for a job. Ok.

So if affirmative action results in college admission to a black kid at the expense of a white kid who is slightly more qualified, is that wrong? Kind of a double standard, no?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I gotta ask then, how do you feel about affirmative action in the schools/workplace? You think it's wrong (and I agree) that a white man with poor qualifications (i.e. felony conviction) is looked at on the same level as black man who is better qualified for a job. Ok.

So if affirmative action results in college admission to a black kid at the expense of a white kid who is slightly more qualified, is that wrong? Kind of a double standard, no?

But how do you measure a more qualified student? In a vacuum, test scores and GPA would be perfectly adequate to determine the best candidate for acceptance into a school, but the problem is that applicants don't come from the same vacuum, they come from different socio-economic backgrounds and levels of education (suburban vs. inner city), and then you have to determine who the most qualified candidate is when it may not be so obvious. Most standards would simply determine the most qualified candidate to be the one most similar to the selectors.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But how do you measure a more qualified student? In a vacuum, test scores and GPA would be perfectly adequate to determine the best candidate for acceptance into a school, but the problem is that applicants don't come from the same vacuum, they come from different socio-economic backgrounds and levels of education (suburban vs. inner city), and then you have to determine who the most qualified candidate is when it may not be so obvious. Most standards would simply determine the most qualified candidate to be the one most similar to the selectors.

Well that's for the admissions committee of each school to determine. I'm sure they all have specific criteria they weigh in different ways, and they are obviously smart enough to consider things like suburbs vs inner-city, income levels, etc etc.

In the end what I'm talking about is, after the admissions committees finish evaluating applicants (including the factors you mentioned), is it not a double standard (compared to Kalisto's comments) to give admission to a black candidate they found to be less qualified than a white candidate simply because he's a minority?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Well that's for the admissions committee of each school to determine. I'm sure they all have specific criteria they weigh in different ways, and they are obviously smart enough to consider things like suburbs vs inner-city, income levels, etc etc.

In the end what I'm talking about is, after the admissions committees finish evaluating applicants (including the factors you mentioned), is it not a double standard (compared to Kalisto's comments) to give admission to a black candidate they found to be less qualified than a white candidate simply because he's a minority?

Well, then I think it's a strawman. I mean, if the assertion is that they've concluded that the white student is more qualified, then no amount of affirmative action is going to change who gets accepted. It sounds like it's already been decided.

Even one step further, though, the Rooney Rule doesn't even go this far. It stops at the interview process. So if I have a problem with the Rooney Rule, it's that it doesn't actually accomplish what it's intended to. Too easy to get around it.

But, I mean, there's only so much the NFL can do if Snyder is going to hire Shanahan. They can't make it illegal for him to do that. At the end of the day, there's no actual meaningful interview process going on here, so the application of the Rooney Rule is not helpful.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Kalisto2010

I wish I lived in the world you lived in. Where institutional racism is non existent. However, in the real world where I reside it's still a pervasive problem, despite many falsely claiming that it's no longer a hinderance. Here's some facts to back up my thought processes, I'm getting tired of reading un-verifiable conjecture.

Devah Pager

Princeton University August 9, 2008

Is racial discrimination a thing of the past?

Debates about the relevance of discrimination in today's society have been difficult to resolve, in part because of the challenges in identifying, measuring, and documenting its presence or absence in all but extreme cases. Discrimination is rarely something that can be observed explicitly.

The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.

Racial disparities have been documented in many contexts, but here, comparing the two job applicants side by side, we are confronted with a troubling reality: Being black in America today is just about the same as having a felony conviction in terms of one’s chances of finding a job.

Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire « - Blogs from CNN.com

This is why we need the Rooney rule.

So I'm guessing they all got interviewed by white people? Wonder what would have happened if they went to black owned businesses and did the same thing? I'm sure those results would then be flipped.

[Kalisto2010]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So I'm guessing they all got interviewed by white people? Wonder what would have happened if they went to black owned businesses and did the same thing? I'm sure those results would then be flipped.

Thank you for illustrating why we need the Rooney rule. People are not to be trusted Black or White. I'm glad you agree.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I think the Rooney Rule is so stupid. Hire the best man for the job. Head coaches both black and white have proven they can coach at a high level and win Super Bowls. If a team has their sights set on a coach who happens to be white, why go through the motions of interviewing a minority candidate just for the sake of it? It's wasting the time of both parties.

Hire the best man for the job. Who gives a crap what his skins color is. There are several very solid black head coaches in the league and dozens more assistants.

So the minority candidate, who otherwise would traditionally be overlooked, would have the chance to at least interview. I don't understand why people are so bothered by this. Actually, I would further this Rule by adding that all teams have a bona fide search process, to get all young execs and coaches in the interview pool and at least the opportunity to go through interviews.