Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Snorkelson

Rooney rule discussion

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:

Yeah, I gave a measured response because it’s easier and I won’t have to the rest of the evening defending myself for the actions and thoughts of others. 

:yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CalBear said:

Every bit of evidence about employment in America, in sports, and in the NFL.

Hm, the NFL consists of primarily black players.  Have you watched that sport in the last 50 years?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Undefeated did an article last year on racial percentages at each position.  For example, 99.4% of cornerbacks were black in 2014.  Perhaps the NFL should require a certain percentage of each different race at each position.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Manster said:

Pipe down Francis.....the pendulum has swung the other way in a lot of industries.....I've experienced it first hand in college and in the real world....I get it, my ancestors did horrible things!  I'm just tired of the emotional outbursts about all this crap......in my world you're given jack ####!  You earn it based on hard work.....I'm just tired of the whining and the victim mentality.....there's always going to be some racism....there's always going to be some bullies....grow a pair and get over it

Again, there is no empirical evidence that whites are at a hiring disadvantage in any industry in the U.S. And there is empirical and research evidence that even presenting the possibility of being black is enough to create a substantial disadvantage for an applicant.

A guy named Greg with 3 years of experience is more likely to get a call-back than a guy named Jamal with 10 years of experience. This is an easy experiment to set  up and it's been repeated multiple times. "Greg" isn't earning anything at all to get his call-back; he is the beneficiary of the unearned advantages which are still dominant throughout our society.

And it's not getting better; in fact, the gaps are growing. 40 years ago, the average black earned 80% of the average white; now, it's 70%. And when wealth is considered, it's even worse; median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households. The median wealth of black households has declined by 75% over the past 40 years, while the median wealth of white households has increased 10%. 

And most depressingly to me, the gap is even wider among those with more education: higher for college graduates than high school graduates, and higher for people with advanced degrees than those with college degrees.

So should "Jamal" just "grow a pair" and accept the fact that less-qualified candidates are being systematically given advantages over him? And is that right?

Once again: I am not saying the Rooney Rule is good policy, necessarily. But to assert that there is no problem to address is ignorant. And that's putting it charitably.

Edited by CalBear
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Concept Coop said:

This is a bit misleading. It's not that black sounding names get less call backs than white sounding names; it's that exotic names get called back less than more traditional English names. That includes Asian sounding names, yet that hasn't kept Asians from outperforming the rest of America in measures of success. 

Asians and Latinos also are subject to discrimination in America. That some Asians (and some Latinos and blacks) have succeeded despite discrimination is not an excuse for them being discriminated against. They have to work harder just to get to the same place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CalBear said:

Again, there is no empirical evidence that whites are at a hiring disadvantage in any industry in the U.S. And there is empirical and research evidence that even presenting the possibility of being black is enough to create a substantial disadvantage for an applicant.

A guy named Greg with 3 years of experience is more likely to get a call-back than a guy named Jamal with 10 years of experience. This is an easy experiment to set  up and it's been repeated multiple times. "Greg" isn't earning anything at all to get his call-back; he is the beneficiary of the unearned advantages which are still dominant throughout our society.

And it's not getting better; in fact, the gaps are growing. 40 years ago, the average black earned 80% of the average white; now, it's 70%. And when wealth is considered, it's even worse; median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households. The median wealth of black households has declined by 75% over the past 40 years, while the median wealth of white households has increased 10%. 

And most depressingly to me, the gap is even wider among those with more education: higher for college graduates than high school graduates, and higher for people with advanced degrees than those with college degrees.

So should "Jamal" just "grow a pair" and accept the fact that less-qualified candidates are being systematically given advantages over him? And is that right?

Once again: I am not saying the Rooney Rule is good policy, necessarily. But to assert that there is no problem to address is ignorant. And that's putting it charitably.

I’m trying to follow your logic here, but unless the NFL specifically was studied in the Greg and Jamal name off, it’s irrelevant to the thread. What makes the Rooney rule even more ridiculous is that these candidates are already known commodities. They aren’t applying for a job working at some HR firm or trying to land a CPA job. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Manster said:

Pipe down Francis.....the pendulum has swung the other way in a lot of industries.....I've experienced it first hand in college and in the real world....I get it, my ancestors did horrible things!  I'm just tired of the emotional outbursts about all this crap......in my world you're given jack ####!  You earn it based on hard work.....I'm just tired of the whining and the victim mentality.....there's always going to be some racism....there's always going to be some bullies....grow a pair and get over it

No

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CalBear said:

Asians and Latinos also are subject to discrimination in America. That some Asians (and some Latinos and blacks) have succeeded despite discrimination is not an excuse for them being discriminated against. They have to work harder just to get to the same place.

It brings into question the impact or degree of said discrimination. (And I’d argue the prescription.) We’re handicapping Asians in Universities in the name of equality. In that sense, it’s not that they’re having to work harder, it’s that they’re doing better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hankmoody said:

The Rooney rule works exactly as intended - to get more minority candidates interviews they might not otherwise get.  They aren't trying to mandate hiring numbers or employment statistics, they are simply trying to provide more opportunities to get your name out there.  As a former hiring manager I went into multiple job searches "knowing" who I was going to hire or promote to the open position.  I ended up with a different candidate every time but one.  And I can't tell you how often I would interview someone and come out so impressed that even though I didn't hire them for that opening I kept their contact info for future opportunities (hired 3 people that way) or to pass them on to colleagues with opportunities (at least 2 more).  THAT is the value in the Rooney rule. 

People complain about "token" interviews - to that I say hogwash.  First of all, if you give me one shot at a job?  I'm going to get it.  I don't care what your plan was going in, I'm going to knock your socks off.  Second, and far more importantly, is the value of getting the interview even if it is a token one.  People with little interview experience can learn a ton about preparation and execution.  And again, the biggest value is that the person might end up impressed and even if you don't get this job, you might get their next one, or get a referral.  You don't get that if you aren't in the chair in the first place.

There is no good answer to employment discrimination practices but the Rooney Rule has a ton of value regardless. 

I really want to agree with you. If you look back at my posts earlier in this thread, you'll see I was making similar arguments. But then I think about guys like Michael Sam and Kerry Rhodes and of course Kaepernick, and I can't prove that any of those guys had their careers cut short by the fact that the league is run by 31 crotchety old white dudes (or, technically speaking, 30 COWDs plus one crotchety old Pakistani dude) who didn't like those players' politics, sexuality or alleged sexuality, but c'mon! And I think of the bottomless wells of cynicism we've seen from the league over the past few years, and I wonder whether a rule that presumes a certain level of good intent has any value with a bunch of guys who clearly don't seem to care about the underlying issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, CalBear said:

Again, there is no empirical evidence that whites are at a hiring disadvantage in any industry in the U.S. And there is empirical and research evidence that even presenting the possibility of being black is enough to create a substantial disadvantage for an applicant.

Proof? The resume study you mentioned proves no such thing. It doesn't show that Jamal is any less likely to be hired than a Jim Bob or Alize or Sevin. It shows that there are stereotypes associated with exotic or unusual names. 

Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, zftcg said:

I really want to agree with you. If you look back at my posts earlier in this thread, you'll see I was making similar arguments. But then I think about guys like Michael Sam and Kerry Rhodes and of course Kaepernick, and I can't prove that any of those guys had their careers cut short by the fact that the league is run by 31 crotchety old white dudes (or, technically speaking, 30 COWDs plus one crotchety old Pakistani dude) who didn't like those players' politics, sexuality or alleged sexuality, but c'mon! And I think of the bottomless wells of cynicism we've seen from the league over the past few years, and I wonder whether a rule that presumes a certain level of good intent has any value with a bunch of guys who clearly don't seem to care about the underlying issue.

You can't fix those crotchety old white guys.  What you can do is force them to give a guy a chance.  You know what will change their minds?  A guy that comes in and shows them "I will make you more money with my plan".  It used to be the owner interviewed Greg and Greg got the job.  Now the owner interviews Greg, and is gonna hire him, but is required to also interview Jamal.  Jamal now has a chance to put his product out there.  He can show his plan, he can strut his stuff, he can make his case.  That's what the Rooney Rule is intended to do.  Calbear's pounding the table about Jamal not getting a callback because his name is Jamal - well the Rooney Rule is ensuring he gets not only a call but a seat at the table.  Maybe he gets the job maybe he doesn't - but he got a shot at it. 

No, it's not the final answer.  There isn't one.  But it's progress, and progress is beautiful.  We just need to keep finding ways to progress.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hankmoody said:

You can't fix those crotchety old white guys.  What you can do is force them to give a guy a chance.  You know what will change their minds?  A guy that comes in and shows them "I will make you more money with my plan".  It used to be the owner interviewed Greg and Greg got the job.  Now the owner interviews Greg, and is gonna hire him, but is required to also interview Jamal.  Jamal now has a chance to put his product out there.  He can show his plan, he can strut his stuff, he can make his case.  That's what the Rooney Rule is intended to do.  Calbear's pounding the table about Jamal not getting a callback because his name is Jamal - well the Rooney Rule is ensuring he gets not only a call but a seat at the table.  Maybe he gets the job maybe he doesn't - but he got a shot at it. 

No, it's not the final answer.  There isn't one.  But it's progress, and progress is beautiful.  We just need to keep finding ways to progress.

So these "crotchety old white guys" who aren't calling Jamal because he's black are suddenly going to start hiring him? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Concept Coop said:

Proof? The resume study you mentioned does no such thing. It doesn't show that Jamal is any less likely to be hired than a Jim Bob or Alize or Sevin. It shows that there are stereotypes associated with exotic or unusual names. 

I'm pretty sure that people who don't get called back for a job interview don't get hired. So Greg has an unearned advantage in getting hired over Jamal. And sure, maybe he also has that same advantage over Muhammad, although a number of studies have shown that black-sounding names have lower call-back rates than other unusual names, though all have lower call-back rates than white-sounding names.

It's not as easy to study job interview outcomes, because you can't abstract them in the way you can resume call-backs. But there has been a lot of research in the area, for example Dovidio, Gaertner (2000), which found that participants did not discriminate against clearly strong or clearly weak candidates, but did on more ambiguous decisions. (Which is a partial answer to the "but there was a black President!" argument).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CalBear said:

I'm pretty sure that people who don't get called back for a job interview don't get hired. So Greg has an unearned advantage in getting hired over Jamal. And sure, maybe he also has that same advantage over Muhammad, although a number of studies have shown that black-sounding names have lower call-back rates than other unusual names, though all have lower call-back rates than white-sounding names.

It's not as easy to study job interview outcomes, because you can't abstract them in the way you can resume call-backs. But there has been a lot of research in the area, for example Dovidio, Gaertner (2000), which found that participants did not discriminate against clearly strong or clearly weak candidates, but did on more ambiguous decisions. (Which is a partial answer to the "but there was a black President!" argument).

Why would you quote me proving white sounding-names (what you mean is English sounding) and then argue against Muhammad? 

If I get around to reading the study in the next day or two, I'll get back to you on it. 

 

Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CalBear said:

 

It would be great if that were the case. But it's not.

If a superior black candidate is interviewed alongside an inferior white candidate, and still doesn’t get the job, what purpose is the Rooney rule serving.? As someone else mentioned, getting the interview gives them a chance they may not have had. But you still can’t force an owner to hire someone. You can’t “cure” racism no matter what rules you try and put in place. And yet we talk about it every year, with no solution. Basically going in circles. 

What I don’t understand, and I plead ignorance without hesitation, is why an owner of a team is being told who they have to interview for “their” team? They own the team, so why can’t they decide who they interview and hire without any sort of requirements? If I owned a business, I would assume it was my call (with or without a “board” if something were to exist with said company) to hire who I wanted. Again, I am ignorant of how the NFL, and business in general, ultimately works at the top. There’s a “board” that still has a say for the NFL as a whole and thus have some control over the owners? 

Edited by Elevencents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Max Power said:

ESPN is discussing this issue again.  5 of the 7 black head coaches were fired this year.  They have already jumped to the conclusion that there will be fewer black head coaches to start the 2019 season than there were at the start of 2018. 

The commentators proposed several ideas to try to increase the number of black head coaches. I didn't hear anything proposed that will be a real game changer.  This issue gets brought up yearly and while I personally don't see it as an issue, I understand that it is to some.

I think the job should always go to the best person for the spot. 

So because Hue Jackson, Marvin Lewis, Vance Joseph, Todd Bowles, and Steve Wilkes failed at their jobs we need to change the rules. 

On the plus side for BSPN, their idiocy got me to respond so mission accomplished. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hankmoody said:

No, it's not the final answer.  There isn't one.  But it's progress, and progress is beautiful.  We just need to keep finding ways to progress.

That's what I've been thinking about lately. Rather than just saying, "Well, it's not perfect, but it's something," should we be focusing on things that would be better? I know the league has taken some steps to help feed more minority coaches into the pipeline, but maybe there's more that can be done on the mentorship front. Maybe they could set league-wide goals for 2025 or 2030 or whatever. Maybe it's something as simple as jawboning league execs when they conduct a BS hiring process that doesn't give minority candidates a fair shake, regardless of whether they followed the spirit of the rules. I'm really not sure.

I just worry that the understandable desire to defend the RR from unfair attacks could lead to us getting too invested in the status quo, which remains unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CalBear said:

Uh, I didn't accuse anyone of being a racist. I asked a question. I'll ask the same question of you:

Do you think it's OK that two guys with the exact same resume have different employment outcomes because one of them is named Jamal and one is named Greg?

Is it ok that a person named Jamal, who scores 8 points less on a qualifying exam for school gets the seat over Greg because the last seat has to go to a minority? I think the harder people try to make any selection process fair the more unfair it inevitably becomes. But like I said earlier, these things always end up being the snake head eating the tail - round and round we go. 

Edited by Elevencents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading back through old posts from this thread, it's kind of amazing how many dudes think they're being oh-so-smart by making jokes like "Why not a Rooney Rule for midget albino coaches?" or "What about white cornerbacks?"

Note to future wags who are planning on using those lines. You're neither funny, clever nor original.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Elevencents said:

Is it ok that a person named Jamal, who scores 8 points less on a qualifying exam for school gets the seat over Greg because the last seat has to go to a minority? I think the harder people try to make any selection process fair the more unfair it inevitably becomes. But like I said earlier, these things always end up being the snake head eating the tail - round and round we go. 

I see you didn't answer my question. I was asking if you think that inequity is OK.

Instead of answering, you've shifted the goalposts from equity to equality. And my answer is that "equality" in an inequitable system is both illusory and inequitable. When we know that the system we have produces and reinforces inequity, those of us who hold values around equity say that something needs to be done to address it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Elevencents said:

If I owned a business, I would assume it was my call (with or without a “board” if something were to exist with said company) to hire who I wanted.

Except for a few exceptions where "authenticity" allows hiring practices based on race, the law does not allow you to discriminate based on race (or other protected classes).

I just don't get why people get so up in arms over the Rooney Rule. @Hankmoody laid out it's purpose very well and no one is forcing anyone to hire anyone. In most cases their will be a minority candidate that is in demand anyway, so its not really a big deal. The only time it ever really becomes a "sham" is rare instances like last season with the Raiders where it was well known they were hiring Gruden - in that case maybe a team should be able to request a waiver - otherwise who really cares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Elevencents said:

Is it ok that a person named Jamal, who scores 8 points less on a qualifying exam for school gets the seat over Greg because the last seat has to go to a minority?

The Supreme Court has outlawed quotas in the college application process (but has allowed for a desire to have diversity among it's student population as a legitimate practice).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe resumes should not have names, but codes.  There, problem solved on the Sheniqua vs. Jill issues.  In all seriousness, this might actually happen some day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CalBear said:

Again, there is no empirical evidence that whites are at a hiring disadvantage in any industry in the U.S. And there is empirical and research evidence that even presenting the possibility of being black is enough to create a substantial disadvantage for an applicant.

A guy named Greg with 3 years of experience is more likely to get a call-back than a guy named Jamal with 10 years of experience. This is an easy experiment to set  up and it's been repeated multiple times. "Greg" isn't earning anything at all to get his call-back; he is the beneficiary of the unearned advantages which are still dominant throughout our society.

And it's not getting better; in fact, the gaps are growing. 40 years ago, the average black earned 80% of the average white; now, it's 70%. And when wealth is considered, it's even worse; median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households. The median wealth of black households has declined by 75% over the past 40 years, while the median wealth of white households has increased 10%. 

And most depressingly to me, the gap is even wider among those with more education: higher for college graduates than high school graduates, and higher for people with advanced degrees than those with college degrees.

So should "Jamal" just "grow a pair" and accept the fact that less-qualified candidates are being systematically given advantages over him? And is that right?

Once again: I am not saying the Rooney Rule is good policy, necessarily. But to assert that there is no problem to address is ignorant. And that's putting it charitably.

You must be a hit at parties...

 

I get your point.  There's inequality in our country.....there's inequality all around the world.

 

Big picture here......

My problem with most of the SJW agenda in today's America is you are using identity politics to your advantage while at the same time saying we don't discriminate.

Look, you've spent a lot of work presenting your data up there, I'm sure....and that's great, but you can't legislate fairness, and as much as you obviously can't stand caucasian Americans, insulting them, and marginalizing their ideas and beliefs, does nothing for progress.....I'm not saying you are doing this specifically per se, but this undercurrent has gained a lot steam in the US....in spite of that, the real progress is being made out in the real world every day with people of all backgrounds working together and trying to put our past behind us, not keep throwing it in everyone's faces......progress is not happening on college campuses or the NFL or your little liberal bubble you live in.....the sad thing is, a large percentage of our college campuses have become bastions of non-acceptance....kids are being brainwashed by tenured profs who are just spouting off from their soap box....this a very impressionable time, and we are raising a generation of victims who think they are owed everything!  Communism is "in" with this new generation....that's the problem!  My kids are taught no one owes them anything!  The world is a tough place and you prepare for it, period!

 

Edit to add:. There is some progress made on college campuses and the NFL.....I didn't mean to say there's nothing good happening in either setting, just the main "progress" being made is not progress at all.

Edited by Manster
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screed: definition- see above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

Maybe resumes should not have names, but codes.  There, problem solved on the Sheniqua vs. Jill issues.  In all seriousness, this might actually happen some day.

Some years ago, when orchestras started having auditioners perform behind a screen, the number of women and minorities hired went up significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Some years ago, when orchestras started having auditioners perform behind a screen, the number of women and minorities hired went up significantly.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dr. Octopus said:

The Supreme Court has outlawed quotas in the college application process (but has allowed for a desire to have diversity among it's student population as a legitimate practice).

so...quotas.  Albeit quotas in the name of "diversity" but quotas nonetheless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unckeyherb said:

so...quotas.  Albeit quotas in the name of "diversity" but quotas nonetheless.

 

There's a difference that isn't necessarily all that subtle. Wanting to create diversity can be a factor but it can not be a mandated requirement that you must allow X% of blacks into your class or only Y% of Asians will be accepted.

Obviously, this can still be create a disadvantage to certain groups and perhaps benefit other groups -  but there's no such thing as "a person named Jamal, who scores 8 points less on a qualifying exam for school gets the seat over Greg because the last seat has to go to a minority."

I do think there is some legitimacy to a campus life where all kinds of people are represented and I think that also is a good learning experience for all involved. I do also see how/why that would be considered unfair though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tjnc09 said:

That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

:confused:

@ghostguy123 said that resumes should not have names on them and speculated that it "might actually happen someday". I pointed out that is essentially what orchestras have been doing for years.

Furthermore, I would argue that highlighting the ways that bias, whether consciously or not, affects hiring decisions is very relevant to a discussion of a rule that is designed to mitigate bias in hiring decisions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Octopus said:

There's a difference that isn't necessarily all that subtle. Wanting to create diversity can be a factor but it can not be a mandated requirement that you must allow X% of blacks into your class or only Y% of Asians will be accepted.

Obviously, this can still be create a disadvantage to certain groups and perhaps benefit other groups -  but there's no such thing as "a person named Jamal, who scores 8 points less on a qualifying exam for school gets the seat over Greg because the last seat has to go to a minority."

I do think there is some legitimacy to a campus life where all kinds of people are represented and I think that also is a good learning experience for all involved. I do also see how/why that would be considered unfair though.

I understand, but I'm only pointing out that while quotas have been outlawed, the end result of wanting specific ethnic and racial diversity is necessarily to adopt some kind of quota system.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

I understand, but I'm only pointing out that while quotas have been outlawed, the end result of wanting specific ethnic and racial diversity is necessarily to adopt some kind of quota system.  

No, it's not. Most universities do a "comprehensive review," which looks at factors beyond raw test scores. Because Greg's 8-point test score advantage over Jamal doesn't mean much, when Greg grew up in an affluent household with two college graduate parents, went to Montessori kindergarten, private elementary school and college prep school, and Jamal grew up with working-class parents who worked multiple jobs, went to public schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and had to work during the school year as a teenager to make money to help support the family. Jamal is almost certainly harder-working than Greg, and is probably more capable, but unlike Greg, wasn't raised since birth to be a college freshman.

Looking at those other factors doesn't require quotas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CalBear said:

No, it's not. Most universities do a "comprehensive review," which looks at factors beyond raw test scores. Because Greg's 8-point test score advantage over Jamal doesn't mean much, when Greg grew up in an affluent household with two college graduate parents, went to Montessori kindergarten, private elementary school and college prep school, and Jamal grew up with working-class parents who worked multiple jobs, went to public schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and had to work during the school year as a teenager to make money to help support the family. Jamal is almost certainly harder-working than Greg, and is probably more capable, but unlike Greg, wasn't raised since birth to be a college freshman.

Looking at those other factors doesn't require quotas. 

Not sure how you glean that one is harder working than another, nor more capable.  Are you suggesting that its hard work that got Jamal to where he is and that other lower income blacks that are not in his ideal situation are there because of a bad work ethic? 

Either way, the end result is not a quota system in your scenario because, in your scenario, the desire for diversity is ignored.  If you desire more blacks, more latinos, a few less asians and less whites, as has been discussed above, regardless of your good intentions, you will be establishing a quota system.  Maybe not to exact numbers.  but a quota system regardless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, zftcg said:

:confused:

@ghostguy123 said that resumes should not have names on them and speculated that it "might actually happen someday". I pointed out that is essentially what orchestras have been doing for years.

Furthermore, I would argue that highlighting the ways that bias, whether consciously or not, affects hiring decisions is very relevant to a discussion of a rule that is designed to mitigate bias in hiring decisions.

 

lol the rule doesn't mitigate bias in hiring decisions.  

The only people who consciously think about the race of NFL coaches are people who have nothing better to do than complain.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

The only people who consciously think about the race of NFL coaches are people who have nothing better to do than complain.  

I bet a lot of orchestra conductors thought the same thing before the institution of blind auditions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zftcg said:

I bet a lot of orchestra conductors thought the same thing before the institution of blind auditions

Again, something from 40 years ago has nothing to do with this discussion.  You can keep repeating it as many times as you wish, but it doesn't make it any more relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The percentage of black players in the NFL has more than doubled from 1970 to now - from 30% to nearly 70%.  But we are talking about orchestras :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

The percentage of black players in the NFL has more than doubled from 1970 to now - from 30% to nearly 70%.  But we are talking about orchestras :lmao:

Looking at players is a very different case than coaches because there are so many objectively quantifiable measures of ability for players that aren’t there for coaches.

Comparing a white candidate for starting RB with a black candidate, power/strength metrics, yards per carry, yards after contact, catch radius all come in, so if the black runner significantly outperforms the white one it is easy to overcome subconscious racial bias,

Coach performance is affected by so many invisible factors that it’s not as easy to rank candidates and have an objective sense of relative skill.  So if there is subconscious bias it is harder to recognize and overcome, and conscious bias is easier to conceal.

I am not an expert on orchestra performance but I suspect that is closer to the player than the coach model.  Still not a bad study for pointing out unconscious biases, so the suggestion that NFL coaching faces similar conditions is germane to the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The weirdest thing about the Rooney rule is how bent out of shape people get about it when they are never going to be in line for a job in the NFL.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Arodin said:

Looking at players is a very different case than coaches because there are so many objectively quantifiable measures of ability for players that aren’t there for coaches.

Comparing a white candidate for starting RB with a black candidate, power/strength metrics, yards per carry, yards after contact, catch radius all come in, so if the black runner significantly outperforms the white one it is easy to overcome subconscious racial bias,

Coach performance is affected by so many invisible factors that it’s not as easy to rank candidates and have an objective sense of relative skill.  So if there is subconscious bias it is harder to recognize and overcome, and conscious bias is easier to conceal.

I am not an expert on orchestra performance but I suspect that is closer to the player than the coach model.  Still not a bad study for pointing out unconscious biases, so the suggestion that NFL coaching faces similar conditions is germane to the topic.

In short, people who defend this particular rule make up a bunch of stuff that can't be proven.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arodin said:

Looking at players is a very different case than coaches because there are so many objectively quantifiable measures of ability for players that aren’t there for coaches.

Comparing a white candidate for starting RB with a black candidate, power/strength metrics, yards per carry, yards after contact, catch radius all come in, so if the black runner significantly outperforms the white one it is easy to overcome subconscious racial bias,

Coach performance is affected by so many invisible factors that it’s not as easy to rank candidates and have an objective sense of relative skill.  So if there is subconscious bias it is harder to recognize and overcome, and conscious bias is easier to conceal.

I am not an expert on orchestra performance but I suspect that is closer to the player than the coach model.  Still not a bad study for pointing out unconscious biases, so the suggestion that NFL coaching faces similar conditions is germane to the topic.

What a bunch of hooey.  Dry this out and you can fertilize the lawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thouht creating the PSF was supposed to free up the Shark Pool for legitimate converstaion,

Disposable one-liners designed to mock dissenters may play well for twitter followers, but does nothing to advance the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Arodin said:

I thouht creating the PSF was supposed to free up the Shark Pool for legitimate converstaion,

Disposable one-liners designed to mock dissenters may play well for twitter followers, but does nothing to advance the conversation.

You are claiming that everyone is inherently, racially biased and that only quantifiable attributes, which are found more in players, can make teams see past the biases.  Qualifiable attirubutes, which you claim exist more in coaching, are harder to ascertain, so the teams default to their racial biases instead.  

You used a made-up anecdote to support your opinion, which is made up.  And you did so as though you are an authority in this made up school of thought.

I contend my response was pretty valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

You are claiming that everyone is inherently, racially biased and that only quantifiable attributes, which are found more in players, can make teams see past the biases.  Qualifiable attirubutes, which you claim exist more in coaching, are harder to ascertain, so the teams default to their racial biases instead.  

You used a made-up anecdote to support your opinion, which is made up.  And you did so as though you are an authority in this made up school of thought.

I contend my response was pretty valid.

I made no such claim.  In fact I do not believe that alleged claim.

I did, however, entertain the possibility that some people in hiring positions might have unconscious biases, and if so, how those might be manifest differently between different types of hires.  Thus, citing player hiring outcomes as evidence of the non-existence of such biases seemed like an unreliable indicator, given that player performance is more readily quantifiable than coaching performance.

I teach for a living.  I know from self-reflection that “bias” is more possible when grading an essay than when grading a math problem.  That doesn’t make me inherrently biased, but does mean that if I wanted to devise a test for bias in teachers I’d target essay grading rather than math grading in my search for it.

I don’t know how you got from what I posted that I was authoritatively pronouncing on the subject...I even expressly stated “if there is unconscious bias” in making my point.  But it’s a an internet message board and nuance can be easily lost.  Thank you for following up and allowing me the chance to clarify my thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone wants to claim the SJWs have gone too far again, I encourage you to delete your account. Failing that, return to the garbage side of this board and stay there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Arodin said:

I made no such claim.  In fact I do not believe that alleged claim.

I did, however, entertain the possibility that some people in hiring positions might have unconscious biases, and if so, how those might be manifest differently between different types of hires.  Thus, citing player hiring outcomes as evidence of the non-existence of such biases seemed like an unreliable indicator, given that player performance is more readily quantifiable than coaching performance.

I teach for a living.  I know from self-reflection that “bias” is more possible when grading an essay than when grading a math problem.  That doesn’t make me inherrently biased, but does mean that if I wanted to devise a test for bias in teachers I’d target essay grading rather than math grading in my search for it.

I don’t know how you got from what I posted that I was authoritatively pronouncing on the subject...I even expressly stated “if there is unconscious bias” in making my point.  But it’s a an internet message board and nuance can be easily lost.  Thank you for following up and allowing me the chance to clarify my thinking.

Fair enough and sorry to be insulting.  I just think it’s not as black and white (no pun intended) as you make it sound.  There are plenty of factors that are not quantifiable in players and many quantifiable traits in coaches.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2019 at 5:20 PM, Manster said:

Pipe down Francis.....the pendulum has swung the other way in a lot of industries.....I've experienced it first hand in college and in the real world....I get it, my ancestors did horrible things!  I'm just tired of the emotional outbursts about all this crap......in my world you're given jack ####!  You earn it based on hard work.....I'm just tired of the whining and the victim mentality.....there's always going to be some racism....there's always going to be some bullies....grow a pair and get over it

Amen. This talk is all bull####.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arodin said:

Thus, citing player hiring outcomes as evidence of the non-existence of such biases seemed like an unreliable indicator, given that player performance is more readily quantifiable than coaching performance.

Thank you for following up and allowing me the chance to clarify my thinking.

I want to confirm your clarification

When people in hiring positions consider applicants, they might be subconsciously biased against minorities because of some reason.  They are more likely to hire white candidates because of said reason.

When people in hiring positions consider drafting players, it's ALWAYS because of quantifiable attributes, and NEVER has anything to do with the bias that black players are more athletic than white players.  

It seems like a lot of people ignore the latter because it doesn't fit their narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.