The Rooney Rule... Is it Fair? | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

The Rooney Rule... Is it Fair?

FINintheMOON

FINintheMOON

Practice Squad
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
4,898
Reaction score
0
Location
Catharpin, Va
Now I know that a decade ago this rule may have been needed and might have been a good idea... but as of late, I really don't see the need for it any longer. I actually feel that it has served it's purpose and should now be retired. There is a good percentage of HCs in the NFL that are minority. I know that I can count at least 7 that has been or currently are HCs... And that is without doing any research!

The QB position also has seen growth in the minority realm as well over the past 2 decades and properly so...

In this day and age, forcing anyone to consider a man, or woman, for a position based on their race is in effect supporting racism and not allowing it to die...

The more we spend time focusing on, and forcing consideration on, the race of the individual rather than their qualifications, the longer it will be before the racism dies. Not only does this ruling undermind society, it underminds everything that we stand for in this country today! It is a slap in the face of everyone considered and everyone that is doing the considering...

Enforcing this rule only supports the racism and does nothing to quell it. This is the 21 century... Let's move on!!!
 
Move on?? How very racist of you...

I agree. This rule has become obsolete. It, along with affirmative action, need to go away. This is 2008, not 1968.
 
I understand where you are coming from,and I agree on some, but we are also in a society that needs reassurance that we are taking steps in the right direction. I can say the Rooney Rule is a good thing to have,but color would not interfere with my decision to hire the best possible candidate for the job in the first place.
 
54Fins said:
I understand where you are coming from,and I agree on some, but we are also in a society that needs reassurance that we are taking steps in the right direction. I can say the Rooney Rule is a good thing to have,but color would not interfere with my decision to hire the best possible candidate for the job in the first place.
Click to expand...

How is this rule reassuring steps in the right direction? It forces management and teams to interview at least 1 person of color, or of a minority race, for a position of authority... That alone would indicate that 1 of the following is happening...
  1. The team is biased against, or expresses racism against, an individual based on the color of their skin or heritage.
  2. The individual is NOT qualified and while he is of the minority realm, should be considered as a viable candidate.
In addition, it is a slap in the face of anyone of the minority group to even participate in the interview process as it will be conceived as a "Rooney Rule" Interview, even if the guy is qualified without his skin color or heritage being considered to begin with...:(
 
Agreed 100%. I was born in Cuba, but came here at a few young age. I've been an American Citizen for more than 15 years now. I never liked anything that resembles "Affermative Action" or anything that gives an advantage to one minority for the other. I've always hated the "Rooney Rule" and never thought is was a good idea.
 
I don't like these rules either but they really can't enforce them. If they say you have to 'interview' someone then you can always just go through the motions when you full well know you aren't going to hire the candidate. What's next? How about a gender rule that says we have to interview women for HC positions to really level the playing field. It never ends.
 
Why aren't there more Asian or Hispanic coaches in the NFL??? I think the concept of trying to hire more minorities for coaching positions is ok, but the Rooney Rule is no different from affirmative action and other quota systems...it makes the problem worse.

What if a black owner decided to only interview potential black head coaches would that be fair? I think an owner or GM should be able to hire who he wants, and hopefully the best person or the job, regardless of skin color.
 
Looking at the numbers only:

If the first number is correct and there are 7 HCs that are black. Then 7/32 = 22%.

Twenty two percent of HCs are currently black. This actually over represents the percentage of blacks in society. Given the percentage of blacks is about 13% nationally, it shows a very good success story for the advancement of black coaches.

I am wondering when such a rule will be applied to other sports. Why, for example, isn't this considered a problem that non-blacks aren't adequately represented on the playing field. Take the NBA for example. These are jobs that pay millions of dollars. Why not have the same mentality apply? If it's more important to have the best person in the position regardless of their color, why have any rule at all?
 
It's only fair if it also works the other way.

The Colts are going to be allowed to hire a MINORITY head coach if Dungy quits. And they don't have to interview a white candidate???? WHY????

It should work both ways
 
It is too big of an issue for any of us to tackle in it's entirety. But looking at it from where we are, I am for it. If only because it's there, and changing it would require action, which would in turn require a justification for such action. And like I said, that's way too big an issue.

The fact is that it is so easy to manipulate the rule, and as a result, some minority candidates are being alienated. Weak African-American's and Hispanics being alienated by rich white men. Hmmm, and this is a step away from racism?

In an ideal world, these candidates would be hired because of their coaching qualities, not their race. Imagine if a team had to draft a certain number of white players every year. How stupid would that be? When we talk about players, talent is the whole of the issue (obviously excluding character and other circumstances that all pertain but on an entirely different level). Yet with coaches, there seems to be the wild assumption that 'talent' is not the central issue, or at least one of the more important issues.

Like I said, it's too big of an issue to deal with. And for that reason, I can't really make a fair decision. But this is why people are paid millions of dollars to make these decisions. Because there is no right, or wrong. There is no solution which is perfect. And therefore whatever is done, on some efficacious level, is wrong.
 
jguig said:
Looking at the numbers only:

If the first number is correct and there are 7 HCs that are black. Then 7/32 = 22%.

Twenty two percent of HCs are currently black. This actually over represents the percentage of blacks in society. Given the percentage of blacks is about 13% nationally, it shows a very good success story for the advancement of black coaches.

I am wondering when such a rule will be applied to other sports. Why, for example, isn't this considered a problem that non-blacks aren't adequately represented on the playing field. Take the NBA for example. These are jobs that pay millions of dollars. Why not have the same mentality apply? If it's more important to have the best person in the position regardless of their color, why have any rule at all?
Click to expand...

I have a hard time even believing you're serious with this post.
 
finswin56 said:
I have a hard time even believing you're serious with this post.
Click to expand...

What part are you having trouble with: 1) The statistics that support the success of the black coach or 2) wondering why racial quotas don't work for more than one race? If it's really a good idea, why does it only apply to one race?
 
jguig said:
What part are you having trouble with: 1) The statistics that support the success of the black coach or 2) wondering why racial quotas don't work for more than one race? If it's really a good idea, why does it only apply to one race?
Click to expand...
If the first number is correct and there are 7 HCs that are black. Then 7/32 = 22%.

Twenty two percent of HCs are currently black. This actually over represents the percentage of blacks in society. Given the percentage of blacks is about 13% nationally, it shows a very good success story for the advancement of black coaches.
Click to expand...
This statistic is irrelevant. Making a comparison with the percentage of "blacks in our society" is nothing more than a convienent stat for your argument. The comparison you should be making is with the percentage of blacks in the NFL 10-20 years ago. This is because the vast majority of candidates have played in the NFL or college. HC candidates are not being pulled off the street, they have been a part of the profession with which they are seeking advancement. It is that demographic from which you should draw your numbers.

I am wondering when such a rule will be applied to other sports. Why, for example, isn't this considered a problem that non-blacks aren't adequately represented on the playing field. Take the NBA for example. These are jobs that pay millions of dollars. Why not have the same mentality apply? If it's more important to have the best person in the position regardless of their color, why have any rule at all?
Click to expand...
* "Other sports" couldn't be more irrelevant as this is an NFL rule, not one passed by congress.
* So what defines adequately, when it comes to who or how much is represented on the playing field? This analogy doesn't pass the laugh test. I don't even know where to begin with this part.
You seem to be making an argument against affirmative action here, when the Rooney rule has nothing to do with a hiring quota. It's purely an interview for men who have been overlooked for decades.
Those on the playing field is nonsense. That is FAR more objectively measured than the ability to coach.

I'm not going to spell out the rest, it's a waste of time. If you truly believe the arguments you made were relevant to the Rooney Rule, then I'm sorry to say that you're unnecessarily upsetting yourself for no reason.

I apologize for my previous post, as I didn't mean to be condescending. Going off your posting history, I knew you were smart, and figured you were making that argument for the sake of arguing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom