NFL HC Minority Interview Policy

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

There has been a lot of false guesses and idiocy on TSW about the nature of the NFL HC Minority InterView policy.

 

For those interested in facts, the original anouncement of the program can be found at this site: > http://www.nfl.com/news/story/6046016 <

 

In general, the NFL has established this policy because of its past history of discrimination against qualified candidates. This policy was created because:

 

1. Our society has advanced to the point where it is viewed as unacceptable that qualified candidates for a job will not even get an interview for it due to factors which have little bearing (none really beyond some of the good ol' boys being uncomfortable with a minority in charge or being their partner seeking the goal of lots of Ws for their team) on their qualifications.

 

2. Despite a significant majority of the workers in the NFL being of African-American descent, there were (and actually still are) relaively few HCs of A-A heritage. It is not only counter to the goals of US society to have individuals not receive a fair shot, it simply is poor presentation and management of the pro football product to have such a huge disparity between the racial demographics of the players and of the HCs.

 

While being an NFL player does not gurantee that a person will be a qualified HC, it certainly is a strong factor in determining one's viability as a potential HC and the disparity in the numbers simply needs to be addressed.

 

3. The NFL approach is far more than some blind adherence to statistics. The irony here is that those who seriously (or jokingly to some extent) seem to demand that a "real" program would create an HC pool which looks like America (51% Women HCs, some number of Asian HCs, etc) are actually endorsing the same type of thinking that supports quotas as a means of diversity.

 

The NFL prgoram in fact rejects a quota based approach and instead seeks to guarantee opportunity by requiring diverse interviwing and by emphasing minority coaching internships and other actions which fill the pipeline with quality interview applicants who also happen to be people of color.

 

4. The program is not designed to fulfuill some bizarres statistical quota of diversity, but is instead designed to address a clear history of discrimaination where the large number of A-A players were not given any consideration for HC slots regardless of their qualifications.

 

Specifically, there will be women interviewed under a diversity program IF there was a clear history of discrimination against women for getting these jobs in the past. There was not a statistical result which clearly indicated that qualified women applicants were not getting HC jobs or interviews. However, there is a clear statistical showing that there were many seemingly qualified A-A candidates who were not even interviewed.

 

To date, while a disparity still exists, there are a number of clear examples (such as Marvin Lewis and Lovie Smith) where the hiring of men of A-A descent has accelerated slightly but significantly. The good news for this effort is that both Lewis's hiring coincided with a reversal of years of Bengals failure to make the playoffs and Smith's hiring coincided with a great Bear's resurgence.

 

Overall, all signs that I see point to the minority interview requirements working quite well and I for one am pleased to see the NFL accomplish the goal of increasing diversity and do so without resorting to a bizarre and unfair quota system and to do this an improve the quality of the product as seen in Cincinnati and Chicago.

[KRC]

There has been a lot of false guesses and idiocy on TSW about the nature of the NFL HC Minority InterView policy.

 

For those interested in facts, the original anouncement of the program can be found at this site:  >  http://www.nfl.com/news/story/6046016  <

 

In general, the NFL has established this policy because of its past history of discrimination against qualified candidates.  This policy was created because:

 

1. Our society has advanced to the point where it is viewed as unacceptable that qualified candidates for a job will not even get an interview for it due to factors which have little bearing (none really beyond some of the good ol' boys being uncomfortable with a minority in charge or being their partner seeking the goal of lots of Ws for their team) on their qualifications.

 

2. Despite a significant majority of the workers in the NFL being of African-American descent, there were (and actually still are) relaively few HCs of A-A heritage.  It is not only counter to the goals of US society to have individuals not receive a fair shot, it simply is poor presentation and management of the pro football product to have such a huge disparity between the racial demographics of the players and of the HCs.

 

While being an NFL player does not gurantee that a person will be a qualified HC, it certainly is a strong factor in determining one's viability as a potential HC and the disparity in the numbers simply needs to be addressed.

 

3.  The NFL approach is far more than some blind adherence to statistics. The irony here is that those who seriously (or jokingly to some extent) seem to demand that a "real" program would create an HC pool which looks like America (51% Women HCs, some number of Asian HCs, etc) are actually endorsing the same type of thinking that supports quotas as a means of diversity.

 

The NFL prgoram in fact rejects a quota based approach and instead seeks to guarantee opportunity by requiring diverse interviwing and by emphasing minority coaching internships and other actions which fill the pipeline with quality interview applicants who also happen to be people of color.

 

4.  The program is not designed to fulfuill some bizarres statistical quota of diversity, but is instead designed to address a clear history of discrimaination where the large number of A-A players were not given any consideration for HC slots regardless of their qualifications.

 

Specifically, there will be women interviewed under a diversity program IF there was a clear history of discrimination against women for getting these jobs in the past.  There was not a statistical result which clearly indicated that qualified women applicants were not getting HC jobs or interviews.  However, there is a clear statistical showing that there were many seemingly qualified A-A candidates who were not even interviewed.

 

To date, while a disparity still exists, there are a number of clear examples (such as Marvin Lewis and Lovie Smith) where the hiring of men of A-A descent has accelerated slightly but significantly.  The good news for this effort is that both Lewis's hiring coincided with a reversal of years of Bengals failure to make the playoffs and Smith's hiring coincided with a great Bear's resurgence.

 

Overall, all signs that I see point to the minority interview requirements working quite well and I for one am pleased to see the NFL accomplish the goal of increasing diversity and do so without resorting to a bizarre and unfair quota system and to do this an improve the quality of the product as seen in Cincinnati and Chicago.

572635[/snapback]

 

 

How is this program not a slap in the face to A-A's? Take the Detroit example. They wanted Mooch. Everyone knew they were going to hire Mooch. Now, you need to fine an A-A who was willing to be the token interview or risk a fine. That would be absolutely humiliating to be that person. You are only being interviewed based on your skin color and it has nothing to do with qualifications. Now look at other teams. If you interview an A-A, how could they not possibly think that they are just a token interview?

 

I have always had a problem with programs like this. You cannot stop basing interviewees on skin color by implimenting a program where you interview people based on skin color.

[bradjames24]

How is this program not a slap in the face to A-A's? Take the Detroit example. They wanted Mooch. Everyone knew they were going to hire Mooch. Now, you need to fine an A-A who was willing to be the token interview or risk a fine. That would be absolutely humiliating to be that person. You are only being interviewed based on your skin color and it has nothing to do with qualifications. Now look at other teams. If you interview an A-A, how could they not possibly think that they are just a token interview?

 

I have always had a problem with programs like this. You cannot stop basing interviewees on skin color by implimenting a program where you interview people based on skin color.

572680[/snapback]

 

Totally agree. Getting an interview just because you are black is more of a slap in the face then not getting one at all.

[tennesseeboy]

If it weren't for this program Marv Lewis and Lovie Smith would not have become head coaches. Face it, it IS an old boy's network. How is Jauron a loser head coach a finalist? ML and RW like him, he's from the same club. Left to their own devices the club finds a million excuses to find their own (Blacks can't play q-back, Blacks can't coach...etc.) Jauron with a .432 head coaching win record is the favorite. Shell with a .527 is not even a token.

[boomerjamhead]

If it weren't for this program Marv Lewis and Lovie Smith would not have become head coaches. 

572774[/snapback]

 

Total bull sh--.

 

Sorry T-boy, but those guys were hired because they were considered top flight coordinators.

[tennesseeboy]

Total bull sh--.

 

Sorry T-boy, but those guys were hired because they were considered top flight coordinators.

572782[/snapback]

Actually go back to the Williams and Mularkey hire and look at the names of the guys who were waste of time ninority tokens.

[Ramius]

If it weren't for this program Marv Lewis and Lovie Smith would not have become head coaches. 

572774[/snapback]

 

Wow, a vote for most re-tarded post of the year already!

 

Marvin Lewis and Lovie Smith got coaching jobs because they are damn good at what they do, and they were fantastic coordinators with great promise of being a good head coach, not because they got an interview due to being black.

 

As stated above, its a slap in the face to both the team and the interviewee to have to go through a "token" interview just so you satisfy a league requirement.

[KD in CA]

If it weren't for this program Marv Lewis and Lovie Smith would not have become head coaches. 

 

Wow. That is the dumbest thing I have ever read on this board. And you wonder why you are banned on PPP?

 

 

Remember African Americans, you have no ability to succeed on your own. If you get a job you are qualified for, it is only because we set up special rules to help you. Naah, that's not insulting.

[tennesseeboy]

Believe me, I don't for one moment think they aren't three or four times the coaches Mularkey and Williams were..just like I think Art Shell is a better coach than Jauron. The system works against the black coach and the Rooney rule at least addresses that system.

 

detroit's search and results.

[The Dean]

How is this program not a slap in the face to A-A's? Take the Detroit example. They wanted Mooch. Everyone knew they were going to hire Mooch. Now, you need to fine an A-A who was willing to be the token interview or risk a fine. That would be absolutely humiliating to be that person. You are only being interviewed based on your skin color and it has nothing to do with qualifications. Now look at other teams. If you interview an A-A, how could they not possibly think that they are just a token interview?

 

I have always had a problem with programs like this. You cannot stop basing interviewees on skin color by implimenting a program where you interview people based on skin color.

572680[/snapback]

 

 

 

Yes...and no. That some teams actually conduct bogus/token AA interviews is repulsive, IMO. But the Detroit situation is at the very heart of the NFL policy (and affirmative action, in general, IMO).

 

Millen wanted to hire his buddy (and former SF buddy) Mooch. That's the way hiring has worked in sports (and a lot of industries) for years. SO...if all you buddies in the biz were white (because all their buddies were white) only white guys are getting hired and moving up. That's a vicious cycle that had to be broken. One way to do that is by requiring interviews with minority candidates. I forget which owner admitted he ended up being impressed enough with a "courtsey" interview (my words, not his) that he hired the guy. You have to at least GET an interview if you expect to be considered for the job. Also, it's a good idea to get interviewing experience. You may take an interview for a job you know you have no shot at for TWO good reasons:

 

1. You get in front of the decision maker and have a chance to impress them (for this job or future opportunities)

 

2. You get experience interviewing with owners for an HC job.

 

add this one, too:

 

3. Your name is now being mentioned as a candidate for HC...get a two or three of those and you become a "usual suspect".

 

So...it sucks that some owners actually have to be FORCED to consider AA coaches for the HC position and interview AA candidates only because they have to. But, it's better than what they did before.

 

A quick note on affirmative action in general. Many people are against it on principle (and i understand that.) But there's always been affirimative action for the privileged (usually white). Getting a job because your dad plays golf with the CEO...getting into a school because your Mom went there...etc. These are not based on qulifications...they are based on other factors. Minority affirimitive action is a way to BEGIN to counter-balance that.

 

There's a stigma some attached by some to affirmative action hires. But there are also stigmas attached to the son of the CEO who starts at a company. But, at the end of the day (I HATE that expression) both have jobs and are getting experience and a chance to prove themselves. Get rid of affirmative action opportunities, and the son of the CEO (and his glof friends, etc) still have jobs and opportunities because we will never get rid of THAT affirmative action.

[KRC]

Believe me, I don't for one moment think they aren't three or four times the coaches Mularkey and Williams were..just like I think Art Shell is a better coach than Jauron.  The system works against the black coach and the Rooney rule at least addresses that system.

 

detroit's search and results.

572823[/snapback]

 

Since I am not going to register and I do not have time to check bugmenot, I am guessing that this writer is using 20/20 hindsight to revise history?

[KRC]

Millen wanted to hire his buddy (and former SF buddy) Mooch.  That's the way hiring has worked in sports (and a lot of industries) for years.  SO...if all you buddies in the biz were white (because all their buddies were white) only white guys are getting hired and moving up.  That's a vicious cycle that had to be broken. 

 

No question.

 

 

 

So...it sucks that some owners actually have to be FORCED to consider AA coaches for the HC position and interview AA candidates only because they have to.  But, it's better than what they did before.

 

I disagree. It demeans the interviewee.

 

 

 

A quick note on affirmative action in general.  Many people are against it on principle (and i understand that.)  But there's always been affirimative action for the privileged (usually white).  Getting a job because your dad plays golf with the CEO...getting into a school because your Mom went there...etc.  These are not based on qulifications...they are based on other factors.  Minority affirimitive action is a way to BEGIN to counter-balance that.

 

There's a stigma some attached by some to affirmative action hires.  But there are also stigmas attached to the son of the CEO who starts at a company.  But, at the end of the day (I HATE that expression) both have jobs and are getting experience and a chance to prove themselves.  Get rid of affirmative action opportunities, and the son of the CEO (and his glof friends, etc) still have jobs and opportunities because we will never get rid of THAT affirmative action.

572833[/snapback]

 

 

You are not solving anything with affirmative action, only making the problem worse. People resent the CEO's spawn getting the job, just like they resent someone getting the job based solely on their skin color. By implimenting AA, you are not fixing (or even addressing) the root cause of the problem. You are only expanding the existing problem to include other people, thereby making things worse.

[tennesseeboy]

I believe the Rooney rule has had a significant effect in the hiring of minority coaches as head coaches in the NFL. I never thought these "tokens" were any less than the white candidates. In FACT I would be hard pressed to find many of the "tokens" being bandied about right now as not head and shoulders above Jauron (Shell being the most obvious as he is in the same generation, has better credentials and isn't being interviewed, but the others are looking pretty good against Jauron as well.) I think Lewis was better than Williams at the time hired and I think Smith was better than Mularkey. Maybe this article says it better than I have

minority interviewing.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Totally agree. Getting an interview just because you are black is more of a slap in the face then not getting one at all.

572726[/snapback]

 

 

I disagree.

 

It is a slap in the face of every American for a major American business not to judge a person based on the content of his character rather than of trivia like skin color.

 

The initial and unfortubnately ongoing transgression here was by the NFL ownership for being unwilling to even interview much less hire an African-American as an HC.

 

Flat out, the NFL ownership refused to take steps which could have helped their teams best achieve the goal of getting Ws because they refused to interview much less hire the most qualified candidates for HC position,

 

As best as i can tell, this was done by the variety of folks who make-up NFL ownership likely for a variety of reasons. At best the reasons for these un-American acts was that the good ol' boys network was only comfortable hiring guys who looked like them. At worse, some were probably in the Marge Schott role of being a flat out racist with Nazi paraphenalia at fome in her desk.

 

I don't know what was the motivation of a particular individual and I do not care as I think the NFL as an American entity needed to and needs to take actions to eradicate the effects of these views,

 

To date, the minority intrview requirement seems to be making small reasonable differences which are resulting in both the greater interviewing of A-A candidates and even better is producing better play on the field. Who can say for sure what role the minority interview policy had in hiring of Lovie Smith or Marvin Lewis finally getting hired as an HC. Howeer, it looks to me as though the NFL's greater focus on American-ideal hiring outcomes played a role in both these hires.

 

Should these two men (or any others) be embarassed by this policy? No, not IMHO. it is the NFL and racists across the country who should be embarassed that this action is necessary to get the NFL to follow the American ideal of every body getting a chance based on their skills and deficits.

 

Ultimately, any embarassment that Lewis/Smith have will either be overwhelmed by the confirmation or denial of their skills which their team's records show. As both these teams out up double digit win #s after several years of medicrity, if anyone is embarassed it should be the NFL and also racists in America who clearly were denying qualified individuals an opportunity to show what they can do when they get a chance.

[Maguire's Beer]

Spot on, Dean.

[stuckincincy]

I think the discriminatation I've faced through the years because I have a big nose requires Federal legislation to address this obvious bias.

 

A check for $250,000 from the taxpayers will shut me up, even though those who did me dirt are mostly dead now.

[tennesseeboy]

I think the discriminatation I've faced through the years because I have a big nose requires Federal legislation to address this obvious bias.

 

A check for $250,000 from the taxpayers will soothe me, even though those who did me dirt are mostly dead now.

572887[/snapback]

Gweez...a big nose and having to live in Cincinnatti to boot? I think 250,000 is WAY too low!

[stuckincincy]

Gweez...a big nose and having to live in Cincinnatti to boot?  I think 250,000 is WAY too low! 

572891[/snapback]

 

Can you send me your business card?

[The Dean]

No question.

I disagree. It demeans the interviewee.

You are not solving anything with affirmative action, only making the problem worse. People resent the CEO's spawn getting the job, just like they resent someone getting the job based solely on their skin color. By implimenting AA, you are not fixing (or even addressing) the root cause of the problem. You are only expanding the existing problem to include other people, thereby making things worse.

572855[/snapback]

 

 

And, you solution would be?

 

The privileged become privigeled over a long period of time. The wealthy (the REALLY wealthy, for the most part) become wealthy over a very long period of time. I'm assuming you don't want to strip away all of the wealth and power accumulated by some people (often on the backs of those who lived in the "underclass"...or slaves, even).

 

So...how do people who've had little chance over the years get a chance, when chances are not doled-out equally, fairly, based on qualifiications, etc? We are getting to a point (just BARELY getting there, IMO) where people of color are getting real chances they used to be denied. But, it ain't there yet. i could go on on how my little pocket of my industry is way behind in giving people of color real opportunity...but we've gone on too much for the "football" section of this board.

 

So, here's my final thought on the subjedct (for now). In my mind, affirmitive action (noty quotas, mind you) is "reparations" in a sense. It's a "payment" that can be cashed by effort. The opportunity provided can be used to build a future for many who come after. Is the opportunity sometime demeaned? Sure...but many jobs and opportunities are demeaning. Amnd a demeaning opportunity is better than no opportunity at all. Dontcha think?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

How is this program not a slap in the face to A-A's? Take the Detroit example. They wanted Mooch. Everyone knew they were going to hire Mooch. Now, you need to fine an A-A who was willing to be the token interview or risk a fine. That would be absolutely humiliating to be that person. You are only being interviewed based on your skin color and it has nothing to do with qualifications. Now look at other teams. If you interview an A-A, how could they not possibly think that they are just a token interview?

 

I have always had a problem with programs like this. You cannot stop basing interviewees on skin color by implimenting a program where you interview people based on skin color.

572680[/snapback]

 

The flip-side to that argument is that interviewing minority candidates, while it doesn't guarantee them jobs, guarantees them exposure in the head coach market. And that exposure counts for something; owners and GMs certainly talk amongst themselves, so a guy who has a "good interview" - who apparently has and presents all the skills necessary for a head coach - but is not hired for some reason (Bill Parcells suddenly becomes available) still has exposure in the market that he may otherwise not have achieved, which makes him more likely to be a candidate for other positions in the future.

 

Is it a perfect solution? No. It is not, however, without benefits: it's an implicit admission that racism isn't a problem in the NFL (as it's a tacit admission that candidates will be judged on their merits and not their race, if given a chance) so much as conservatism and hesitancy of team ownership and management, and it's far better than any quota-based affirmative action type system they could have put in place.