Rooney rule discussion (2 Viewers)

[Concept Coop]

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. 

 

[zftcg]

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.

 

[Concept Coop]

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. 

 

[Hankmoody]

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.

 

[Concept Coop]

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? 

 

[CalBear]

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).

 

[Concept Coop]

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. 

 

[Elevencents]

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? 

 

[MAC_32]

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. 

 

[zftcg]

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.

 

[Elevencents]

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. 

 

[zftcg]

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.

 

[tjnc09]

Hue Jackson still has a job.  The rule must be working really well.

 

[CalBear]

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.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

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?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

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).

 

[ghostguy123]

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.

 

[Manster]

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.

 

[dutch]

Screed: definition- see above

 

[zftcg]

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.

 

[tjnc09]

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.

 

[unckeyherb]

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.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

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.

 

[zftcg]

That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

@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.

 

[unckeyherb]

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.  

 

[CalBear]

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. 

 

[unckeyherb]

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.

 

[tjnc09]

@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.  

 

[zftcg]

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

 

[tjnc09]

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.

 

[tjnc09]

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

 

[Arodin]

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

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.

 

[mbuehner]

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.

 

[tjnc09]

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.

 

[unckeyherb]

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.

 

[Arodin]

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.

 

[unckeyherb]

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.

 

[Arodin]

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.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

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.

 

[unckeyherb]

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.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

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####.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

boomers die every day

 

[tjnc09]

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.

 

[GregR]

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. 

Just to be clear, I went to public kindergarten...

 

[zftcg]

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.

You seem weirdly touchy on this subject. Did you have a lifelong unfulfilled dream to join the Boston Pops? Did a cellist kill your brother? Whatever it is, I'm sorry if I triggered you.

Anyway, I thought I was making the entirely uncontroversial point that hiring decisions are affected by unconscious bias, racial and otherwise. I cited the orchestra thing as an example where, when the possibility of bias was removed from the equation, hiring results were different. It seems that maybe you disagree with the entire premise of unconscious bias? If not, I apologize for misunderstanding your argument. And if so, that's not really a debate I want to waste time on. The point of this thread is to discuss the Rooney Rule, not affirmative action or psychology or any other broader subject.

 

[zftcg]

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.

I don't really follow any of the Kaepernick threads, but my understanding is that in the Shark Pool thread people discuss his value as a player, his collusion case against the NFL, etc., and in the Politics Forum thread they talk about the issues he's raised (eg, police brutality, patriotism). Maybe we need a similar split in this case? 

The NFL has a policy in place to encourage more minority hires. I think there's an interesting debate to be had over its effectiveness, whether alternate methods might be better at achieving that goal, or even why the entire approach is wrong-headed. But that debate inevitably gets crowded out by big-picture, non-football related discussions of affirmative action, hiring discrimination, etc. It seems like all of that stuff would be better off in the PF.

What say you, @Joe Bryant?

 

[zftcg]

Just to be clear, I went to public kindergarten...

Check your privilege. 

(For the record, as a fellow Greg, I too am offended by the incorporation of my name as a stand-in for generic whiteness. I thought we had all agreed that Chad drew that assignment.)

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

So is Jim Caldwell really a legit candidate or is he the Rooney rule requirement  interview?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

So is Jim Caldwell really a legit candidate or is he the Rooney rule requirement  interview?

The Jets are brining him in, but also interviewed Bienemy already and will bring in Kris Richard also which says that none of them are being brought in just to satisfy the Rooney rule because any one of them would have been enough.

I think Caldwell is a "token" interview more along the lines that he's one of the few veteran coaches available that have had some modicum of success in this league so teams want to pick his brain and find out how he sees their teams and how his other organizations have done things (poorly or well). I don't  think he's a serious candidate anywhere but you never know - maybe he impresses one of these teams and gets another shot.

 

[tjnc09]

You seem weirdly touchy on this subject. Did you have a lifelong unfulfilled dream to join the Boston Pops? Did a cellist kill your brother? Whatever it is, I'm sorry if I triggered you.

Anyway, I thought I was making the entirely uncontroversial point that hiring decisions are affected by unconscious bias, racial and otherwise. I cited the orchestra thing as an example where, when the possibility of bias was removed from the equation, hiring results were different. It seems that maybe you disagree with the entire premise of unconscious bias? If not, I apologize for misunderstanding your argument. And if so, that's not really a debate I want to waste time on. The point of this thread is to discuss the Rooney Rule, not affirmative action or psychology or any other broader subject.

Hiring executives can see the race of the applicant. 

Unconscious bias is not an uncontroversial point. 

Not going to waste any more time on this.  People are way too desperate to suggest others are racist.