There was a study, which I can't find at the moment, where participants were asked to listen to a radio broadcast of a basketball game, and rate one specific player on various qualities (leadership, team play, athleticism, knowledge of the game). Half of the participants were shown a picture of a black player, the other half were shown a picture of a white player. Those who thought the player was white were more likely to rate him higher in leadership and knowledge of the game; those who thought he was black were more likely to rate him higher in athleticism. That's a deeply ingrained bias that exists in our culture and society, and it's difficult for a person to correct for it, even if he knows he may have that bias.
A similar study is "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?" We all have biases and these
may be driving the wedge we see in NFL hiring choices. But consider:1. Would such biases change or disappear with mandated discrimination polices (i.e., Rooney Rule)? On the one hand, many feel the heart of a man is rarely changed by law or government fiat [the majority posters on this board]. Others, who believe bias is formed irrationally [presumably Calbear and others], feel that forcing hires could reveal information that would change perceptions. Note: whatever effectiveness the Rooney rule may have had in fostering black hires
may have nothing to do with the rule itself, but incidental to the changing racial views that have (gradually) changed over the past fifty years. [i.e., the NFL has the hires and the Rooney rule because of changes in perception, not the other way around].
2. Are there reasons for this bias that are
not grounded in irrationality or cultural preferences? Are people's biases influenced by how blacks, asians, and other minorities are portrayed in the media? [reality TV shows, sports, etc.] What if 7 out of 10 black kids are born out of wedlock? What about if the average 17-year-old black students performed as well on math as a 13-year-old white student? What if blacks are statistically more prone to fall into various social pathologies - drugs, gangs, crime, etc. Thus, the root of the bias
may have as much or more to do with inputs [the values of the black, asian, etc. family] as it does with the outputs [the outsider discerning those values].
In any case, as others have posted, the hiring may be less to do with bias than with the skill sets of the broader population - there's only so many good leaders out there. But if leadership can be improved upon, in some sense athletics may be a double-edged sword - gifted athletes perform well [and are remunerated] on the field but are not incentivized to develop teaching skills, people skills and analysis. By contrast, it will pay for relatively unsuccessful athletes to develop those areas, particularly those with marginal leadership abilities, so that they can remain connected with the sport.