Orton's Arm Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 I have less problem with the discrimination against coaches of white descent. 599706[/snapback] This is the crux of our disagreement. Ultimately, coaches are human beings, and we should learn to see them as such. How can you say to one human being, "I will do my best to prevent you from being discriminated against," while saying to another, "I don't like discrimination against you either, but it's less of a problem to me because of your race."? Doesn't that seem unfair to you?
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 The things you mention were certainly hard burdens for black people. Many in the black community showed courage in the face of these burdens, and this should be applauded. But as difficult as these things were, the situation faced by the people of Poland was even worse. In 1939, the Soviet Union invaded the eastern half of Poland, and proceeded to murder one person out of every ten. Look around the league, and count the number of coaches with Polish-sounding last names. I can't think of any. Most of the arguments being advanced in favor of affirmative action for blacks could also be used to advocate affirmative action for Poles. Certainly there have been enough past injustices against Polish people. Old boy networks don't necessarily include proportionate numbers of Poles. And I have the feeling Poles are underrepresented in the coaching ranks, when compared against their proprotionate numbers in the general population. Does this mean the NFL should adopt a Rooney Rule for Poles? Does this mean Poles should be a protected minority, as defined by employment law? Of course not. Such measures would merely serve to politicize the hiring process still further; moving us even further away from a meritocracy. 599707[/snapback] No the NFL should not adopt a Rooney Rule for Poles because the NFL has no record of discrimanation against Poles (unless you know about some plot I do not know about). Again, the goal behind the Rooney rule is not to make the HC pool look like America (if that were the goal then hiring Norm Chow or making sure a hair over 50% of all HCs were women would be the measure). The Rooney Rule sets out to amelitorate decades of practices by the NFL which resulted in qualified men who happened to be of A-A descent simply not being considered for jobs like HC or even just QB. I cam see how some folks like The Dean can get frustrated and lash out at comments like yours because they simply seem to miss the point. The Rooney Rule is a practice put in place by THE NFL itself to remediate past discriminatoru practices that it admits to itself. The Rooney Rule is far more than just an interview requirement, it is series pf affirmative action initiatives designed to increase the pool of qualified A-A applicants. More than a question of ideology, the Rooney Rule and its programs are a self imposed management tool designed to foster good productions and feelings from its worker pool which is majority A-A and well aware of the NFL and society's troubled past. It is also designed to improved the quality of the NFL product by improving the pool of qualified HCs. It appears to have accomplished these goals so far (in part due to the discplining of idiots like Matt Millen and in part due to the somewhat coincidence of success of men like Marvin Lewis and Lovie Smith).
The Dean Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 No the NFL should not adopt a Rooney Rule for Poles because the NFL has no record of discrimanation against Poles (unless you know about some plot I do not know about). Again, the goal behind the Rooney rule is not to make the HC pool look like America (if that were the goal then hiring Norm Chow or making sure a hair over 50% of all HCs were women would be the measure). The Rooney Rule sets out to amelitorate decades of practices by the NFL which resulted in qualified men who happened to be of A-A descent simply not being considered for jobs like HC or even just QB. I cam see how some folks like The Dean can get frustrated and lash out at comments like yours because they simply seem to miss the point. The Rooney Rule is a practice put in place by THE NFL itself to remediate past discriminatoru practices that it admits to itself. The Rooney Rule is far more than just an interview requirement, it is series pf affirmative action initiatives designed to increase the pool of qualified A-A applicants. More than a question of ideology, the Rooney Rule and its programs are a self imposed management tool designed to foster good productions and feelings from its worker pool which is majority A-A and well aware of the NFL and society's troubled past. It is also designed to improved the quality of the NFL product by improving the pool of qualified HCs. It appears to have accomplished these goals so far (in part due to the discplining of idiots like Matt Millen and in part due to the somewhat coincidence of success of men like Marvin Lewis and Lovie Smith). 599720[/snapback] Excellent response, FFS...but, I fear you're howling at the moon with this obtuse mouth breather. (It was one thing when the topic was as inconsequential as the Bills starting QB. It's quite another when it's as important an issue to our society as this.) My guess is Arm will, rather than trying to understand your obvious points, attempt to engage you in another mindless tangent. But, hope springs eternal.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 This is the crux of our disagreement. Ultimately, coaches are human beings, and we should learn to see them as such. How can you say to one human being, "I will do my best to prevent you from being discriminated against," while saying to another, "I don't like discrimination against you either, but it's less of a problem to me because of your race."? Doesn't that seem unfair to you? 599713[/snapback] No it does not seem unfair because i think this view refuses to ignore the reality of years if discrimination by the NFL and society against men of A-A descent. It would be nice if we could just declare discrimination based on race wrong and stop it now, but the reality is that people do get better (I beleive prople mostly are fundamentally good but thats a PPP discussion) but it takes time and we are not all perfect. I think it is naive to assume otherwise. In addition, the history of discriminatory NFL practices (the long waits imposed on Tony Dungy and Marvin Lewis, the failure to rehire Art Shell after he experienced success) is so recent and current that strong action is merited. The Rooney Rule is actually a relatively mild action (quotas would be draconian and stupid IMHO) and is one based on assuring oppoetunity for qualified applicants. I see few problems with it.
Orton's Arm Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 No the NFL should not adopt a Rooney Rule for Poles because the NFL has no record of discrimanation against Poles (unless you know about some plot I do not know about). The NFL has a clear record of discriminating against anyone without the right connections. That's a pretty broad group; one which may well include Poles. Again, the goal behind the Rooney rule is not to make the HC pool look like America (if that were the goal then hiring Norm Chow or making sure a hair over 50% of all HCs were women would be the measure). You know, it's interesting how different standards apply to different sectors. At least last time I checked, blacks were underrepresented among graduates from engineering schools. Yet the employment laws that apply to engineering companies are intended to make their workforces look like America, and not like the graduating classes from engineering schools. An engineering degree is a more critical qualification for being an engineer than NFL experience is to being an NFL coach. Yet the Rooney Rule has the goal of making the NFL look less like America, and more like the pool of NFL players. I've already discussed why this doesn't make sense in other threads. My point here, however, is that you can't have it both ways: either the employment laws that apply to engineering companies are unfair, or the Rooney Rule is unfair. I cam see how some folks like The Dean can get frustrated and lash out at comments like yours because they simply seem to miss the point. I made a point, and used logic to back it up. The Dean responded with a personal attack. I expected to be personally attacked from someone, because some people are incapable of dealing with controversial topics without resorting to such measures. While I was unsurprised, I was also unpersuaded. More than a question of ideology, the Rooney Rule and its programs are a self imposed management tool designed to foster good productions and feelings from its worker pool which is majority A-A Why should I care about fostering good feelings among NFL players? Those guys are getting paid millions to play a game they love. If a particular player isn't motivated by that, he's not going to be motivated by the Rooney Rule either.
Orton's Arm Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Excellent response, FFS...but, I fear you're howling at the moon with this obtuse mouth breather. (It was one thing when the topic was as inconsequential as the Bills starting QB. It's quite another when it's as important an issue to our society as this.) My guess is Arm will, rather than trying to understand your obvious points, attempt to engage you in another mindless tangent. But, hope springs eternal. 599727[/snapback] Speaking of mindless tangents, how is the question of the Bills' starting QB relevant to a discussion about employment law?
SDS Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 An engineering degree is a more critical qualification for being an engineer than NFL experience is to being an NFL coach. Yet the Rooney Rule has the goal of making the NFL look less like America, and more like the pool of NFL players. I've already discussed why this doesn't make sense in other threads. My point here, however, is that you can't have it both ways: either the employment laws that apply to engineering companies are unfair, or the Rooney Rule is unfair. 599736[/snapback] you could take this one step further and make a case that you would have to poll all players/former players/and assistant coaches and find what percentage of those actually aspire to be a HC... The numbers may be the same, but I wouldn't assume it either.
Orton's Arm Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 No it does not seem unfair because i think this view refuses to ignore the reality of years if discrimination by the NFL and society against men of A-A descent. 599730[/snapback] I'm a little confused by your post. Are you saying that discrimination against white candidates outside the old boy network is less of a problem because: - Whites (even unconnected whites) are less likely to be discriminated against than are blacks? - Past discrimination against blacks means that it's a graver injustice to discriminate against a black person than a white person? If you're claiming the former, I'd suggest you were maybe overstating the importance of race, and understating the importance of connections. If you're claiming the latter, my response would be that we differ greatly on our understanding of justice.
don_of_manhattan Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 Sounds like right wing loony PPP logic to me...transfer this baby to la-la-land! 599241[/snapback] okay, so you really believe that people get into college just based on grades - if so, then you probably believe that America is a true meritocracy....I have a bridge for sale in Arizona if believe any of the aforementioned...Colleges skew admissions to put together classes based on all sorts of categories - athletics, geography (must have a certain number of Nebraska folks at Harvard), family connections....don't get so caught up in the race thing - if you don't get into Harvard, some kid in Oklahoma got your spot, the numbers of blacks in the elite schools and high, high paying jobs is still woefully small.
don_of_manhattan Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 Okay..do me a favor. Go to the library..check out "Roots". Watch it. Slavery, lynching all that stuff. Go get the Burns documentary. Civil war, slavery, Emancipation Proclamation (tall ugly guy with a beard) Thirteenth amendment. Pull out American History II notes. Jim Crow..separate but equal Plessy v. Ferguson. Emmet Till, Voting Rights Act, Violet Liuzzo, freedom riders, Brown v. Board of Education. Segregated sports. Reflecting pool..."I have a dream"...Civil Rights Act, Duke v. Griggs Power. Having reviewed and reflected do you agree this may a be a LITTLE more complicated than the situation you posit? 599465[/snapback] you go...somebody has a damn clue around here!
Orton's Arm Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 you go...somebody has a damn clue around here! 599832[/snapback] Yeah, because there's such an obvious connection between the slaves who were beaten and abused back in the 1850s, and former NFL players (who have already been paid millions) who want to be paid additional millions for being head coaches. It's not often that a group of millionaires (in this case, retired black NFL players) is cast in the victim role. If you want to find real victims, go to an inner city, or to Appalachia.
Simon Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 You are right on target that the solution is about qualification and the NFL is trying to figure out a way to deal with the seeming real world occurence that objective qualifications unfortunately does not seem to be what the hiring of NFL HCs is all about......So I disagree with both suggestions from the original post because I do not think that the simple employment of quotas be it for more A-A HCs or for nore white players achieves a good result in terms of the product or in fairness and equity. An excellent post Sunny and one of the best I've seen on the subject. The only suggestion I would make is that it may be more pertinent if you were to focus less on the hiring aspect and more on the issue of interviewing. That is the disparity which I think the Rooney Rule is attempting to address. Cya
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 I'm a little confused by your post. Are you saying that discrimination against white candidates outside the old boy network is less of a problem because: - Whites (even unconnected whites) are less likely to be discriminated against than are blacks? - Past discrimination against blacks means that it's a graver injustice to discriminate against a black person than a white person? If you're claiming the former, I'd suggest you were maybe overstating the importance of race, and understating the importance of connections. If you're claiming the latter, my response would be that we differ greatly on our understanding of justice. 599752[/snapback] I'd say tbe former is probably true but has little top do with this issue. The latter is true in some cases like the NFL, but overall, there are so many specific cases which cut different ways there is no generally applicable rule to be found here. Again speaking in general, I tend to personally judge discriminatory acts from the perspective of the victim rather than the discriminator. Thus, I do view injustices against women generally more harshly than I view injustices against men, because overall I think women have gotten a much rawer deal in our society and have a much harder time or more to put up with than men. Likewise, I tend to view injustices against a race like A-As who as a race were subjected slavery by America, the Japanese who were subjected to interment during WWII bv America, Native Americans who our government perpetually made treaties with and broke them and other groups who were subjected to (wjat I consider serious) governmental rather than societal abuse by individuals abit more harshly than other injustices. Speaking as someone who is not a member of groups our American government in our name even before I was born subjected to governmental discrimination, I feel that we as a country still owe them and I do not begrudge our country apologizing to them or even raising my tax dollars to pay them back something. Obviously i would not support confiscatory taxes to pay back this debt (actually we have already paid off the Japanese still living who were interred and apologized, but this was such a small pittance on my taxes I did not even notice. I do not see us paying back any direct reparations to A-As as a country because none of them are still alive. However, given that official discrimination continued long after slavery through Jim Crow laws and ongoing governmental acts (which I think the Supreme Court has dealt with well by requiring special scrutiny of some governmental functions, it is fine with me that continuing action or focus on this front occurs. As far as Native Americans, I think it would result in an unacceptable to me confisctory tax to pay back all that the US ripped off from the Indians. It would be fair to pay them back but I am not willing to be fair about this debt. I think the question of discrimination against Native Americans remains a blight on our country's soul. All this being said, this is ideological stuff just like much of the way you seem to be judging this NFL issue. Just as my feeling about discrimination against women, against A-As or N-As has nothing really to do with this issue, i think your ideological feelings about workplace employment seem to have a general ideological drive which does not apply to this or many workplace cases. General perspectives apply to general things, but this is a specific case where specific rules or a specific approach which may differ from the general are the best approaches. I suggest that one may usefully be guided by ideology, but one should realize that general ideology should guide but not be applied in lockstep to particular cases.
SDS Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 By repetitively I meant twice in this case. If instead it is taken to mean 3 times or more, then feel free to swutch my wording to mean twice as I think it makes no difference in the point I am making. Alternately if the rehiring of Kotite by NYJ (where he led them to 3-13 and 1-24 records) was not stupid after he dragged some great Philly teams down to 8-8 snd 7-9 records feel free to make that case. 599711[/snapback] Sorry to harp on this point, but you bring this up all the time and it is just false. He was rehired ONCE. He had two double digit win seasons in Philly and only one losing season.. and that was only a 7-9 record. I hardly think that disqualified him from being recycled with another team. He was a complete disaster with the Jets, but you are erroneously using his history with the Jets as a means to disqualify him for the Jets job and you are also exaggerating the number of times the guy was rehired. Straw men make weak arguments.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 Sorry to harp on this point, but you bring this up all the time and it is just false. He was rehired ONCE. He had two double digit win seasons in Philly and only one losing season.. and that was only a 7-9 record. I hardly think that disqualified him from being recycled with another team. He was a complete disaster with the Jets, but you are erroneously using his history with the Jets as a means to disqualify him for the Jets job and you are also exaggerating the number of times the guy was rehired. Straw men make weak arguments. 599912[/snapback] OK I'll quit using this example as I gave a fale impression from its use.
Orton's Arm Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 I do view injustices against women generally more harshly than I view injustices against men, because overall I think women have gotten a much rawer deal in our society and have a much harder time or more to put up with than men. 599899[/snapback] No good can come from thinking like this. Imagine a family with twin children; a boy and a girl. The parents decide to treat the girl better than the boy, to make up for past injustices against women. Is that a good--or even a sane--attitude for the parents to adopt? Is there even the slightest chance this attitude will make them better parents than they would have been had they treated both children equally? Of course not. But let's say the boy from this family chooses to apply your logic of group rights. His experience is that females are treated better than males. So according to this whole group rights logic, he's entitled to make up for this by treating males better than females. His response would be a natural human reaction. Traditionally, people were taught not all their reactions were good; and that sometimes you had to restrain your more evil desires to be just to those around you. There is still some of this being taught, but not as much. Too often, modern society has gotten away from notions like justice or fairness to the individual. This group rights confusion is a big reason why. People are born into this world as relatively blank slates. Yes, each person has their own unique nature and inborn personality. But no language, no culture, no history of having done right or wrong. No burdens, no obligations, and no entitlements. Treat everyone decently, until they give you a reason to do otherwise. Don't get caught up in which genders or ethnic groups should be treated more decently than others. That's silly. If you want to know who needs your help the most, listen to individuals. Pay attention to people as individuals. Not as groups. Then you'll know.
Grant Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 The poll results, as I see them now, are frightening.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 1. The racial disparity in hiring where few or none of the onfield leadership positions of NFL teams smacks of unfairness and a lack of opportunity. let's take these poitns one-by-one. Ah, yes. UNFAIRNESS. The buzzword du jour for claims of racism. This is going to sound harsh, and in large part it is. THE NFL IS AN UNFAIR LEAGUE. Period. There are only 32 NFL head coaching jobs in all the world. 32. Last I checked, there's 6 billion people on Earth. That means that 32 people have NFL HC jobs, and 5,999,999,968 people don't. That's pretty unfair if you ask me. I mean WHY shouldn't *I* have an NFL head-coaching job? Lack of opportunity? Again, you make your own opportunity, black, white or otherwise. 2. It is quite apparent that not only is race not a limitation on the chances of success of an HC, but in practice given the records of success (as measured in W/Ls an making the playoffs but not SB wins but simply wait and it will happen as more A-As get an opportunity to HC) o HCs of A-A descent. Interesting premise. Maybe if Denny Green or Art Shell had won a SB there would be more black coaches. Maybe. 3. it is an emplyee management problem when a majority of the employees rightfully feel that they cannot achieve the highest on field position they are qualified to fill if the NFL continued its practice of hiring none or few A-A coaches. Again with the "fairness" angle. Look, Where I work, my department has 10 people in it. 9 of us are "team members" and one of us is a "team leader". Do the math...chances are I have about ZERO opportunity to advance to that leadership position, even though I'm more than qualified enough to do the job. Is it unfair? maybe. But that's life. And it would be the same way no matter if I was Black, South Asian, East Asian, Jewish or what-not. 4. The argument that people do not believe that NFL teams would not hire a man of A-A descent who can help them win appears pretty doubtable when the NFL consistenly makes a practice of hiring HCs repetitively like a Rich Kotite or who seem less qualified like a Marty Morningwheg or the new guy hired this year as an HC with little previous coaching experience. Horse-sh--. Morningweg and Kotite have all but disappeared from Head Coaching opportunities because they SUCKED.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 An excellent post Sunny and one of the best I've seen on the subject.The only suggestion I would make is that it may be more pertinent if you were to focus less on the hiring aspect and more on the issue of interviewing. That is the disparity which I think the Rooney Rule is attempting to address. Cya 599889[/snapback] Problem: If what you're saying is true, and there is explicit racism in the interview process, than the Rooney Rule is doing nothing other than forcing teams to conduct a TOKEN interview to satisfy the rule. Most teams know exactly which coach they wish to hire. Why the hell should they be mandated to interview someone they don't want to hire in the first place? To me, that seems un-American. Not only that, it's doing a dis-service to the person whom the team is forced to interview.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 Excellent response, FFS...but, I fear you're howling at the moon with this obtuse mouth breather. (It was one thing when the topic was as inconsequential as the Bills starting QB. It's quite another when it's as important an issue to our society as this.) My guess is Arm will, rather than trying to understand your obvious points, attempt to engage you in another mindless tangent. But, hope springs eternal. 599727[/snapback] Waitaminute...WHO is hired to be an NFL head coach is IMPORTANT to our society? Wow, that's news to me. I woulda thought that the deficit, terrorism, government intrustion and political corruption were more important.
Recommended Posts