Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 The poll results, as I see them now, are frightening. 599931[/snapback] Really? Is there not a bias against white players at the uppermost level of sports? How many white WRs and CBs are there in the league? How about white forwards in basketball? Rhetorical question, try not to get your panties in a twist, Grant.
Simon Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 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. What the Rooney Rule is attempting to do is to provide an opportunity for some black coaches to at least begin occasionally moving in circles where they had previously been unable to do so. It's not tokenism, it's an opportunity to enter a closed loop. Most teams know exactly which coach they wish to hire. Why the hell should they beamndated to interview someone they don't want to hire in the first place? To me, that seems un-American. Many teams do indeed already know who they want to hire. And that is because many teams only know the same old faces. It's not abnormal for people to want to hire other people that they know and who they're comfortable with. The problem arises when the only people they know are a bunch of old white guys who were introduced to them by a bunch of other old white guys who in turn had been introduced to them by another bunch of old white guys. This rule just provides the opportunity for those who are making the hires to get to know some people who they wouldn't have gotten to know otherwise. Most of these rare and coveted jobs are usually being appointed on the basis of who you know, as opposed to how qualified you may be. That, to me, is un-American.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 It's not tokenism, it's an opportunity to enter a closed loop.Many teams do indeed already know who they want to hire. And that is because many teams only know the same old faces. It's not abnormal for people to want to hire other people that they know and who they're comfortable with. The problem arises when the only people they know are a bunch of old white guys who were introduced to them by a bunch of other old white guys who in turn had been introduced to them by another bunch of old white guys. This rule just provides the opportunity for those who are making the hires to get to know some people who they wouldn't have gotten to know otherwise. In a perfect world, maybe. But this isn't a perfect world. The FACT...the real "boots-on-the-ground" fact is that these guys ARE being brought in as TOKEN interviews. Did anyone REALLY believe James Lofton was going to be the Bills head coach or that he even had a snowball's chance in hell of getting the job? That's what job interviews are for, not to introduce people into social circles. Look, if I showed up for a CEO interview at, say, Time Warner...I wouldn't even get in the front door. Why? I'm not qualified. I have no experience. This is an age-old chicken-and-egg problem that's been going on for, well, forever. And it hasn't just affected blacks. It affects everyone. How do you get a job without experience and how do you get experience without a job? Most of these rare and coveted jobs are usually being appointed on the basis of who you know, as opposed to how qualified you may be. That, to me, is un-American. And you know their qualifications HOW? Does being black make these guys more qualified? If a white candidate has been a head coach twice before and a black candidate hasn't, how can you choose the less experienced candidate simply because he's black? This is not just an NFL problem. In higher ed, you have many cases of minority students with poorer grades and fewer extra-cirricular activities getting coveted scholarships and university spots over better-qualified white students. how are we as a country supposed to become a meritocracy when merit itself is ignored in favor of ethnicity?
Simon Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 In a perfect world, maybe. But this isn't a perfect world. The FACT...the real "boots-on-the-ground" fact is that these guys ARE being brought in as TOKEN interviews. Did anyone REALLY believe James Lofton was going to be the Bills head coach or that he even had a snowball's chance in hell of getting the job? That's what job interviews are for, not to introduce people into social circles. Look, if I showed up for a CEO interview at, say, Time Warner...I wouldn't even get in the front door. Why? I'm not qualified. I have no experience. This is an age-old chicken-and-egg problem that's been going on for, well, forever. And it hasn't just affected blacks. It affects everyone. How do you get a job without experience and how do you get experience without a job? And you know their qualifications HOW? Does being black make these guys more qualified? If a white candidate has been a head coach twice before and a black candidate hasn't, how can you choose the less experienced candidate simply because he's black? This is not just an NFL problem. In higher ed, you have many cases of minority students with poorer grades and fewer extra-cirricular activities getting coveted scholarships and university spots over better-qualified white students. how are we as a country supposed to become a meritocracy when merit itself is ignored in favor of ethnicity? 599987[/snapback] While I'm tempted to say that you'll simply never get it, I think it would be more accurate to say that you simply don't want to get it.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 While I'm tempted to say that you'll simply never get it, I think it would be more accurate to say that you simply don't want to get it. 599993[/snapback] Ah, yes. There it is, the tried-and-true weapon of the race argument. It was only a matter of time before some self-righteous person pulled that one out. "Gee, if you don't think there's racism, you must be one yourelf." Ad hominem, the last bastion of the intellectually blunted.
Simon Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 Ah, yes. There it is, the tried-but-true weapon of the race argument. It was only a matter of time before some self-serving hypocrite pulled that one out. "Gee, if you don't think there's racism, you must be one yourelf." Ad hominem, the last bastion of the intellectually blunted. What are you going on about now? The only person that implied you're a racist was you. And I must be intellectually blunted because I had to look up ad hominem. I found it hysterically ironic that I'm being accused of personal attacks by somebody who's calling me an intellectually blunted self-serving hypocrite.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 What are you going on about now?The only person that implied you're a racist was you. And I must be intellectually blunted because I had to look up ad hominem. I found it hysterically ironic that I'm being accused of personal attacks by somebody who's calling me an intellectually blunted self-serving hypocrite. 600015[/snapback] "While I'm tempted to say that you'll simply never get it, I think it would be more accurate to say that you simply don't want to get it." Then what, exactly was the implication of this particular line, eh? And, BTW, that must have been THE single longest reply time ever. I edited the post before your esponded
Orton's Arm Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 While I'm tempted to say that you'll simply never get it, I think it would be more accurate to say that you simply don't want to get it. 599993[/snapback] He "simply doesn't want to get it" because he sees the world differently than you do, right? Well, Simon, maybe some of the people who see things differently than you actually have honest motives and good intentions. You should learn to respect others' points of view, and not simply assume their intentions are evil or that they are out of touch just because their views differ from yours. Tolerance is sometimes a difficult thing to achieve, but at least try.
Simon Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 "While I'm tempted to say that you'll simply never get it, I think it would be more accurate to say that you simply don't want to get it." Then what, exactly was the implication of this particular line, eh? I'd say that the implication was that you prefer to view the world in black and white terms, but I'm afraid you'll think I'm talking about race again.
Simon Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 He "simply doesn't want to get it" because he sees the world differently than you do, right? Well, Simon, maybe some of the people who see things differently than you actually have honest motives and good intentions. You should learn to respect others' points of view, and not simply assume their intentions are evil or that they are out of touch just because their views differ from yours. I never implied that he didn't have honest motives or good intentions, nor did I imply that he was out of touch or evil. I don't believe any of those things to be true and if I did I would have said as much. You, on the other hand, are a fu(king idiot with a singular talent for sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.
Orton's Arm Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 I never implied that he didn't have honest motives or good intentions, nor did I imply that he was out of touch or evil. I don't believe any of those things to be true and if I did I would have said as much. Well, buddy, that's sort of what you did say. Unless you're implying that someone can have honest and good intentions for simply choosing not to get it. You, on the other hand, are a fu(king idiot with a singular talent for sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. 600035[/snapback] I guess I must have hit a nerve. Fine with me.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 I'd say that the implication was that you prefer to view the world in black and white terms, but I'm afraid you'll think I'm talking about race again. 600029[/snapback] Heh. Funny. Kind of, anyway. I'm not a moral absolutist, but I play one on TV. Anyway, I think the issue has far more to do with comfort levels and experience than it does with skin color.
tennesseeboy Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 Wow...this is the most interesting thread I've read with a minimum of name calling about a difficult and strongly felt issue. It's too good for PPP.
Simon Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 Well, buddy, that's sort of what you did say. Unless you're implying that someone can have honest and good intentions for simply choosing not to get it. Well, buddy, that's sort of how you interpreted it; incorrectly again. I'm perfectly capable of recognizing that just because somebody views the world in simpler straightforward terms that they can still be honest and well-intended. Are you incapable of differentiating between the two? I guess I must have hit a nerve. Fine with me. You're not nearly smart enough to annoy me. Anyway, I think the issue has far more to do with comfort levels and experience than it does with skin color. I wouldn't strongly disagree with that. I don't think most owners are inherently racist, but I do think that they tend to provide interview opportunities to those who they're familiar with. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, and ties in to what you're saying about comfort levels, I think that it does sort of shaft some guys by not giving them an the same opportunity just because they happen to move in different circles. I don't think the Rooney Rule is some way to redress past grievances or to change hiring practices or to make some grander social statement; I just think it's a relatively unobtrusive way to allow the owners to get to know some of these guys they may have never met otherwise. Nothing more, nothing less.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 I wouldn't strongly disagree with that. I don't think most owners are inherently racist, but I do think that they tend to provide interview opportunities to those who they're familiar with. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, and ties in to what you're saying about comfort levels, I think that it does sort of shaft some guys by not giving them an the same opportunity just because they happen to move in different circles. I don't think the Rooney Rule is some way to redress past grievances or to change hiring practices or to make some grander social statement; I just think it's a relatively unobtrusive way to allow the owners to get to know some of these guys they may have never met otherwise. Nothing more, nothing less. 600048[/snapback] But could you see where this affects white candidates as well as black?
Orton's Arm Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 I'm not a moral absolutist, but I play one on TV. 600038[/snapback] Why on earth should you have to defend yourself from the accusation of being a moral absolutist? You simply made the very logical and reasonable point that allowing race to become a factor in employment decisions is yet another barrier to a meritocracy. Instead of addressing this (valid) point, Simon chose to make this a discussion of whether you see the world in black and white. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Simon is completely right. Let's say that you've never noticed a single nuance about anything. Would that invalidate your point about race preferences and a meritocracy? Of course not. Simon complains about your inability to grasp subtle nuance. Yet he seems to agree with those who lump millionaire black former NFL players and lynch mob victims into the same general category.
Simon Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 But could you see where this affects white candidates as well as black? 600053[/snapback] Maybe some, but if so I think it would be to a lesser degree. And if it does, it would really be hard to quantify it and impossible to address it. It's relatively easy to sit back and say "Hey, 1/2 the players in the league are black but only 1/16 of the head coaches in the leauge are black; there's a glaring discrepancy here." It's a lot more tenous to try and say "Hey, 1/2 of the players in the league are white but only 1/x of the head coaches in the league are white guys who don't know enough important people to wrangle interviews." The Rooney Rule isn't a perfect solution by any means, but I don't have a problem with the league at least making some attempt to address such a glaring disparity, as imperfect as that solution may be. Cya
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 Maybe some, but if so I think it would be to a lesser degree.And if it does, it would really be hard to quantify it and impossible to address it. It's relatively easy to sit back and say "Hey, 1/2 the players in the league are black but only 1/16 of the head coaches in the leauge are black; there's a glaring discrepancy here." It's a lot more tenous to try and say "Hey, 1/2 of the players in the league are white but only 1/x of the head coaches in the league are white guys who don't know enough important people to wrangle interviews." The Rooney Rule isn't a perfect solution by any means, but I don't have a problem with the league at least making some attempt to address such a glaring disparity, as imperfect as that solution may be. Cya 600057[/snapback] You could address it by taking race entirely out of it. Make the rooney rule "You must interview one PREVIOUSLY UNINTERVIEWED or one NEVER HEAD-COACHED candidate in every process." Just an idea.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 Why on earth should you have to defend yourself from the accusation of being a moral absolutist? You simply made the very logical and reasonable point that allowing race to become a factor in employment decisions is yet another barrier to a meritocracy. Instead of addressing this (valid) point, Simon chose to make this a discussion of whether you see the world in black and white. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Simon is completely right. Let's say that you've never noticed a single nuance about anything. Would that invalidate your point about race preferences and a meritocracy? Of course not. Simon complains about your inability to grasp subtle nuance. Yet he seems to agree with those who lump millionaire black former NFL players and lynch mob victims into the same general category. 600055[/snapback] Well, there is something to be said for that. I was raised a child of a second-generation immigrant and the daughter of an incredibly poor white family. I have no illusions about how exclusive America is. But this is where I and the race-baiters differ. America is not merely exclusive for blacks, but for poor whites as well. And also, I have a firm belief in upward mobility, unlike many in the black activist community. My mother had ZERO growing up, yet worked her way through College and a Master's program. She had a 35 year career as an educator and ended up with a life that could be described as very comfortable. On the surface, she looks to be a memeber of what the Democratic party would call "Wealthy", but I will guarantee you she doesn't see herself as such.
Simon Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Simon is completely right. Let's say that you've never noticed a single nuance about anything.Simon complains about your inability to grasp subtle nuance. I never said he was incapable of it, just that he prefers to view it in more distinct terms. You seem to be the only one who seems to think that viewing the world that way means you are incapable of viewing it in any other way. Simon.....seems to agree with those who lump millionaire black former NFL players and lynch mob victims into the same general category. Yes, there's all kinds of people running around here comparing NFL owners to the Klan and saying that owners who don't interview black candidates are like cowardly murderers and should be thrown in jail. And yes, I obviously agree with all of them. You're like that really embarrasingly stupid drunk guy at the bar who keeps trying to stick his nose into a conversationw where he doesn't belong, while my buddy and I just keep rolling our eyes and laughing at your idiocy.
Recommended Posts