White Makes Right

[ThankQ]

In 2003, the NFL passed what is colloquially called the "Rooney Rule". The short-n-simple of it for those of you out of the loop: When a team has a vacancy at head coach, they must interview at least one minority candidate for head coach.

In many ways it made sense. Something like 80% of NFL players were black, but something like 80% of coaching staffs were white (those numbers are made-up guesses, but likely in the ballpark). And, to make things simple, "minority" pretty much means "black". Yes, it can mean any minority, but the closest thing the NFL has to Hispanic players are white guys named Gonzales and Romo.

As I gathered at the time, the unspoken justification was certainly understandable. Most NFL owners were old white men. I believe at the time there was one female owner (though she may have already been gone), and only a couple of white guys under 50. You can do the "Gee, why can't we trust white men who grew up in the 40s and 50s to give African Americans every earned chance to be their right-hand-man and the face of their multi-billion dollar franchise?" math from here. Certainly, on its face, a justified concern.

Many believe Super Bowl winning, and current coach, of the Pittsburgh Steelers, Mike Tomlin, got his job due to a Rooney Rule interview. He was not the front runner for the job, but his interview blew management away, they tabbed him, and then the football gods did their part -- making sure the Cardinals never win a Super Bowl. The "Rooney" rule happens to be named after the Steelers owner who proposed it.

Fast forward to 2010-11. Here's where it gets tricky.

- October. Dallas Cowboys fire head coach Wade Phillips in the middle of the season. They promote Jason Garrett (white) to interim head coach.

- November. Minnesota Vikings fire head coach Brad Childress in the middle of the season. They promote Leslie Frazier (black) to interim head coach.

Now, you can make a guy interim coach during the season without an interview process. But here's where it gets head-scratchy:

The Vikings have promoted Frazier to full-time head coach. And they did so without interviewing anyone else--since Frazier is a minority. But the Dallas Cowboys, who will likely keep Garrett, MUST interview a minority candidate before they can name Garrett the full-time coach.
In this light, it seems the Rooney Rule is the very definition of racist: a black guy can have the job straight up, but a white guy can't have the job until they talk to a minority candidate about the job. Separate AND unequal.

Conversely, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who must interview a minority candidate, will be accused of sham interviews. All signs point to Garrett, but to satisfy the Rooney Rule, he'll interview a minority, making that man, most likely, literal window dressing. (The positive spin of this is that the candidate will gain experience interviewing for head coach. Most guys don't get hired their first round of interviews, so this candidate will gain valuable experience for the next interview)

So, here we have a goodhearted attempt at equality that winds up in blatant racism. Is this justified? Is this the lesser of two evils? Is it not evil at all? There are many ways of viewing this situation.

[looks into camera] What's YOUR way, kids? [/looks into camera]

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Given the problem you described (NFL head coaches being almost uniformly white) I'm really not gonna boohoohoo too much about the Cowboys having to do a token minority interview before they decide to hire Garrett anyway.

Oh, when will it be whitey's turn?

 

[Roger Wilco]

It sounds like a extremely minor issue to me; ok, so the owners have to spend a couple hours interviewing a guy who may or may not get a job. What's the big deal either way?

 

[ThankQ]

Given the problem you described (NFL head coaches being almost uniformly white) I'm really not gonna boohoohoo too much about the Cowboys having to do a token minority interview before they decide to hire Garrett anyway.

Oh, when will it be whitey's turn?

Oh please. How about this instead:

When you realize we're fewer than 150 years removed from slavery, and only 50 years removed from "civil rights", the fact that we're making (small, granted) efforts to help a group of people overcome a massive hinderance to their ability to move up int he world, an hinderance that WE wrongly imposed upon them--when you consider we're only 150 years removed from SLAVERY, it's really a small price to pay to serve the greater good.

We think of slavery as "history". Many people surprise themselves when they truely realize how short a time 150 years is. 1863 sounds like forever ago. When you think of it as only 5 30-year olds stacked on top of each other, or only THREE 50-year olds, you can realize how really recent it is.

 

[ThankQ]

It sounds like a extremely minor issue to me; ok, so the owners have to spend a couple hours interviewing a guy who may or may not get a job. What's the big deal either way?

I thought the big deal was principles and values. Here we have two different standards being applied to men.

This is 100% accurate:

There is one standard for the white guy.
There is a different standard for the black guy.

Since when did we again start saying, "It's okay if we treat black people differently than white people?"

 

[Roger Wilco]

Yes, that's the point of regulations like that. It's not even affirmative action technically.

 

[ThankQ]

So it's okay to treat people differently based ONLY on race, so long as the guys who once got the short end now get the big stick?

 

[Roger Wilco]

I would say it depends. Generally I'm a bit sceptical of that, but telling the team owners to at least look at other options doesn't seem to be too much to ask imo.

 

[ThankQ]

I would say it depends. Generally I'm a bit sceptical of that, but telling the team owners to at least look at other options doesn't seem to be too much to ask imo.

Should the Vikings have to interview a white guy?

Yes, the simple view is to go "poor whitey, boohoo" and move on, however, there is far more to this.

The "values" issue is a massive social issue in the US. In this example, we are saying that one of our values is to treat people differently based on skin color.

As I recall, we had a WAR about that.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Well, no. The principle behind affirmative action (and like I said, this is just about the softest version of it) is the assumption that people with a certain social/ethnic background are institutionally discriminated against and to fight that disadvantage on a broader level need a certain "boost" on a individual level.
For example, there are currently only 16 women in the US Senate (if I counted correctly) - which is signifiantly less than the 50+% of the general population that are women. Why? Are women stupider than men, less ambitious, less cutthroat? Of course not. How to fix discrepancies like that and ensure equal opportunities for everybody is a complicated question, but I think the NFL's approach to fix that specific lack of black head coaches is very fair imo (and it seems that it worked).

 

[Alpha Romeo]

Yes, that's the point of regulations like that. It's not even affirmative action technically.

Its wrong.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Well, no. The principle behind affirmative action (and like I said, this is just about the softest version of it) is the assumption that people with a certain social/ethnic background are institutionally discriminated against and to fight that disadvantage on a broader level need a certain "boost" on a individual level.
For example, there are currently only 16 women in the US Senate (if I counted correctly) - which is signifiantly less than the 50+% of the general population that are women. Why? Are women stupider than men, less ambitious, less cutthroat? Of course not. How to fix discrepancies like that and ensure equal opportunities for everybody is a complicated question, but I think the NFL's approach to fix that specific lack of black head coaches is very fair imo (and it seems that it worked).

Bingo! Preferentially advantaging historically disadvantaged groups is one way to level the proverbial playing field. It's not the only way, by any means, but it's one of the tools available.

 

[ThankQ]

Well, no. The principle behind affirmative action (and like I said, this is just about the softest version of it) is the assumption that people with a certain social/ethnic background are institutionally discriminated against and to fight that disadvantage on a broader level need a certain "boost" on a individual level.
For example, there are currently only 16 women in the US Senate (if I counted correctly) - which is signifiantly less than the 50+% of the general population that are women. Why? Are women stupider than men, less ambitious, less cutthroat? Of course not. How to fix discrepancies like that and ensure equal opportunities for everybody is a complicated question, but I think the NFL's approach to fix that specific lack of black head coaches is very fair imo (and it seems that it worked).

Bingo! Preferentially advantaging historically disadvantaged groups is one way to level the proverbial playing field. It's not the only way, by any means, but it's one of the tools available.

Yes, it is a way. Surely we can all see that it is a blatantly hypocritical way?

"It was wrong of us to treat you differently. To make up for it, we're going to treat you differently."

 

[Roger Wilco]

It's not hypocritical if you say outright that that's what you're doing and what your goal is. You might disagree with it, but there are reasons for it.

 

[TheMurph]

I'm not a fan of the Rooney Rule, and if I was the token black coach being interviewed I would be insulted. Most owners will hire who they want, and usually that is who they think will help them win.

 

[Franklin]

Yes, that's the point of regulations like that. It's not even affirmative action technically.

Its wrong.

No, it is not wrong. What is wrong is creating an old boys network of mostly aging white men with "names" who create a "coaching carrousel" that not only shuts out qualified blacks, but qualified whites as well.

The Rooney Rule is awkward to implement in a situation like the Cowboys'. During the season, Jerry Jones had been considering other coaching options through back-channels. In the end, he was satisfied with keeping Garrett. Maybe the rule should be modified that in cases like this, as long as a team can prove that as it explored possibilities to line up candidates, it made a sincere effort to explore qualifed minority possibilities, then that would be adequate.

I mean in this case, technically, I don't think Garrett formally interviewed for the job, himself. Did he?

 

[ThankQ]

It's not hypocritical if you say outright that that's what you're doing and what your goal is. You might disagree with it, but there are reasons for it.

Of course it's hypocritical. Reading between the lines, what you seem to be saying is it's okay because I think the goals are good: equal opportunity for all.

I happen to agree that a level playing field all the way around is a good thing. Most Americans, however, do not.

If you want to argue the ends justify the means, that's fine, and I'm sure you could build a strong arguement toward that.

 

[Mr. B]

So, here we have a goodhearted attempt at equality that winds up in blatant racism. Is this justified?

Racism is racism and it's never okay. Putting it in the rules to try and favor any race, even minorities, is not progress.

 

[Franklin]

So, here we have a goodhearted attempt at equality that winds up in blatant racism. Is this justified?

Racism is racism and it's never okay. Putting it in the rules to try and favor any race, even minorities, is not progress.

Well, it doesn't really favor anyone. It just tries to ensure that qualified minorities get a chance. A foot in the door, that's all. They have to take it from there.
It's an awkward and uncomfortable rule to be sure, but decades of de facto discrimination in hiring by many was awkward and uncomfortable, too.

 

[ThankQ]

So, here we have a goodhearted attempt at equality that winds up in blatant racism. Is this justified?

Racism is racism and it's never okay. Putting it in the rules to try and favor any race, even minorities, is not progress.

Yeah, I can't get on board with this either.

Racism is racism and it's never okay.

That's a absolute view. Nothing is without nuance.