White Makes Right

[Robert Maxwell]

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.

Even with affirmative action there's still a lot of institutional racism out there, and yet we continue to get the same litany of people whining about how unfair it is to the poor, put-upon white man.

I wasn't born into money but I fully recognize that I enjoy "white privilege." I don't have any problem with measures like this. The Rooney Rule doesn't sound like it goes far enough, but at least it's something.

 

[Mr. B]

I wasn't born into money but I fully recognize that I enjoy "white privilege." I don't have any problem with measures like this. The Rooney Rule doesn't sound like it goes far enough, but at least it's something.

It's still discrimination based on race. Perpetuating one form of racism to eradicate another is never going to work. It's morally wrong and absurd in practice.

 

[Misfit Toy]

I wasn't born into money but I fully recognize that I enjoy "white privilege." I don't have any problem with measures like this. The Rooney Rule doesn't sound like it goes far enough, but at least it's something.

It's still discrimination based on race. Perpetuating one form of racism to eradicate another is never going to work. It's morally wrong and absurd in practice.

Do you deny the wrongs that the Rooney Rule was put in place to fight?

 

[Roger Wilco]

It's still discrimination based on race. Perpetuating one form of racism to eradicate another is never going to work. It's morally wrong and absurd in practice.

But clearly it does work. There's a halfway reasonable number of black NFL head coaches now where there wasn't before.

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.

Yes, the goal matters, of course it does.

 

[ThankQ]

I wasn't born into money but I fully recognize that I enjoy "white privilege." I don't have any problem with measures like this. The Rooney Rule doesn't sound like it goes far enough, but at least it's something.

It's still discrimination based on race. Perpetuating one form of racism to eradicate another is never going to work. It's morally wrong and absurd in practice.

Let's try this:

Capital punishment is still killing. Perpetuating one form of killing to eradicate another is never going to work. It's morally wrong and absurd in practice.

That muddies (muddys?) the water a bit.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This is 100% accurate:

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

Yes, but misses the point of affirmative action altogether.

If white guy and black guy are running the hundred yard dash,
and white guy gets to run from the starting line and black guy has to start thirty yards behind the starting line...where's the fairness in having them both begin simultaneously, and where's the unfairness in letting black guy run toward the starting line before white guy starts?

Sometimes, a "simple principle of fairness" is too simple to be fair. As Anatole France put it, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

Now, all of that bilge about "treating people differently based on race is always wrong" has nothing to do with the present question, of course, which is "in this situation isn't the application of the Rooney rule silly and beside the point?" The answer to that question is "Yeah, sounds like it is."

Notably, there is no question in this case of "in this situation isn't the application of the Rooney rule doing an injustice to an individual involved?" If there were, then the debate would be a more urgent one - but then, specific examples in which individual whites in the U.S. have been demonstrably harmed by affirmative action are always real difficult to come up with. It happens - and everyone can cite the few well-known examples, because there aren't many.

 

[Mr. B]

It's still discrimination based on race. Perpetuating one form of racism to eradicate another is never going to work. It's morally wrong and absurd in practice.

But clearly it does work. There's a halfway reasonable number of black NFL head coaches now where there wasn't before.

A small number of black people in head coaching jobs isn't an actual problem. People not having a fair shot at those jobs because of racism is the problem, and a mandate or quota system or whatever doesn't fix the racism.

In a society free of racism, we wouldn't be sitting around counting how many white and black people hold 32 certain jobs. Mandating at least one black guy goes to an interview doesn't get us any closer to that.

 

[Switch]

Nothing is without nuance.

Most notably in this context, affirmative action. When properly designed and applied - i.e. when choosing between two otherwise equal candidates, preference is to be given... - it is fairly unobjectionable and almost invisible.

This NFL business, OTOH, is more like a bludgeon. And it has to be, because there aren't many NFL coaching slots to go around, nor any obvious precursor positions (such as university admissions) to manipulate instead. Given that, the question is whether it's worth bothering with at all. I'd suggest not; sport is racket? Who knew? More importantly, who cares?

Someone obviously does care though, else this practice would never have come about. And unless there's been a sudden expansion of the powers of the US government that I'm not aware of, the practice was likely instituted by league executives in response to consumer sentiment with the aim to further guarantee the long-term profitability of the league. Good for them.

So I guess the question here is why does Mr. B hate capitalism?

 

[Franklin]

When the Rooney Rule first came out, some NFL owners did, parden the word, "token" interviews before hiring the guy they wanted. Then in 2003, the Lions were fined $200,000 for violating the rule. They claimed to have contacted five black candidates about interviews, but all turned them down because it was already known the Lions were going to hire Steve Mariucci. Mariucci was the only candidate interviewed.

I just read in The Dallas Morning News that Cowboys owner Jerry Jones did talk to Ray Sherman about the job, essentially satisfying the letter of the Rooney Rule. The thing here is whether or not that's a little different than other perfunctory executions of the rule since Jones was promoting from within and the job was not technically vacant.
But since the Lions incident in 2003, the NFL said it will crack down on teams that don't take the rule seriously when filling a head coach vacancy.

 

[Roger Wilco]

A small number of black people in head coaching jobs isn't an actual problem. People not having a fair shot at those jobs because of racism is the problem, and a mandate or quota system or whatever doesn't fix the racism.

In a society free of racism, we wouldn't be sitting around counting how many white and black people hold 32 certain jobs. Mandating at least one black guy goes to an interview doesn't get us any closer to that.

But it does work!! There used to be no black head coaches in the NFL, now there are some. That's a fact.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

A small number of black people in head coaching jobs isn't an actual problem. People not having a fair shot at those jobs because of racism is the problem, and a mandate or quota system or whatever doesn't fix the racism.

In a society free of racism, we wouldn't be sitting around counting how many white and black people hold 32 certain jobs. Mandating at least one black guy goes to an interview doesn't get us any closer to that.

But it does work!! There used to be no black head coaches in the NFL, now there are some. That's a fact.

Oh, but that's just proof it wasn't needed in the first place! Look how many black coaches there are now!

And if there still weren't any, AA opponents would justify it by saying there must not be any qualified black applicants.

No matter the results, it somehow confirms what they already believe.

 

[Mr. B]

But it does work!! There used to be no black head coaches in the NFL, now there are some. That's a fact.

I already addressed that in this post.

 

[Guitarded]

If they're going to keep a silly rule like that, they should change it to "interview at least two different races." But that would be racist. Because it has the word "races."

 

[scotpens]

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.

. . . Not complicated at all. If having only 16 female Senators is seen as a problem, more women should run for the Senate.

I wasn't born into money but I fully recognize that I enjoy "white privilege." I don't have any problem with measures like this. The Rooney Rule doesn't sound like it goes far enough, but at least it's something.

I wasn't born into money either, and I would love to be a beneficiary of so-called "white privilege," if such a thing still existed.

A quota by any other name is still a quota. The only way to get past race is to stop treating people as groups and consider them as individuals.

 

[Switch]

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

I incline towards Germaine Greer's view on the matter: that such hierarchical structures are inherently masculine in character.

 

[Roger Wilco]

But it does work!! There used to be no black head coaches in the NFL, now there are some. That's a fact.

I already addressed that in this post.

Well, ok, of course if you think it's perfectly ok to deny black people high-profile jobs such as NFL head coach than it's understandable why you'd oppose this rule.

 

[Cicero]

Racism is racism and it's never okay.

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

Absolutism isn't necessarily incorrect. A tautology is absolute - A is A. The question, then is whether racism is never okay, or whether it is sometimes okay - whether absolutism is correct in this particular case. I think that it is.

Race is nonexistent - a fabrication of persons who would not or could not see themselves in other persons, and other persons in themselves. Any action which furthers this fiction is in itself wrong.

Racist policies can be effective in fighting acts of racism, but they neither address the fundamental problem - the malassumed concept of race - and are ham-fisted, clumsy responses that produce in debris the same evil they seek to combat.

Put simply, racism is an easy response to racism. And, like most easy responses to difficult problems, it is wrong. Mechanisms to combat racism that ignore the construct of race are very difficult to develop, and more difficult to successfully deploy. But they are the only solutions which are just. Racist answers to racism are merely a lesser evil masquerading as a greater good.

(Interesting. I defend absolutism with nuance, you nuance with absolutism. Perhaps Mr. Bohr was right about profound truths.)

But it does work!! There used to be no black head coaches in the NFL, now there are some. That's a fact.

I already addressed that in this post.

Well, ok, of course if you think it's perfectly ok to deny black people high-profile jobs such as NFL head coach than it's understandable why you'd oppose this rule.

I think you've come to that conclusion independent of Mr. B's stated argument. The post linked to in his quote (rightly) points out that the problem has never been that too few coaches are considered to be of any particular race, but that too many persons have been denied a fair shot at those jobs because of racism.

 

[Roger Wilco]

No, the point is that a statistically significant discrepancy between the number of people of a partical social group in the general population and the number of people from this group occupying a specific desirable job absent of other factors is a very strong indication that this group is being discriminated against. In other words racism. That was clearly the status quo before this rule was instituted. And if you say as Mr. B does that that is not a problem at all, than I'm seriously questioning your motives.

Or what's your explanation for the lack of black NFL coaches?
eta: here's a list. Please explain to me the reasons for the gap between 1921 and 1989 and the sudden explosion in numbers in the early 2000s.

 

[Kestra]

It seems like they should always have to interview, whether it's a minority in the position or someone else. Maybe just say that they are require to interview multiple people for the job, and one needs to be from a minority background.

 

[Cicero]

No, the point is that a statistically significant discrepancy between the number of people of a partical social group in the general population and the number of people from this group occupying a specific desirable job absent of other factors is a very strong indication that this group is being discriminated against.

It is, but the phrase "absent other factors" is convenient. It's upsetting to nearly no one that physically small NFL coaches are rare, yet the development system that produces NFL coaches inhibits the ability of those persons to advance to a head coaching position, despite them being, in theory, equally able to coach. Is that structural inhibition a factor to be absented, or a systemic problem?

(Or are small coaches excluded because they aren't taken seriously on the basis of something they can't help, but which wouldn't inhibit their job performance, excepting the reactions of prejudiced players and staff? We don't consider smallness a racial characteristic, despite its heritability, association with ancestry, and propensity to be met with prejudice, but discrimination because of size where it doesn't matter is the same evil as racism.)

That was clearly the status quo before this rule was instituted. And if you say as Mr. B does that that is not a problem at all, than I'm seriously questioning your motives. Or what's your explanation for the lack of black NFL coaches?

I would suppose that there are two problems: racism and educational imbalance (itself caused largely by racism, both historical and current). Some cultural factors regarding the adoption of racial identities may also play a role.

But, again, I think you've misunderstood Mr. B. He doesn't say that there is no racial problem. He says that the problem isn't that there have been - and are - few "black" coaches, but that prejudice is affecting hiring decisions - it is the reason that we see and have seen so few.

It seems like they should always have to interview, whether it's a minority in the position or someone else. Maybe just say that they are require to interview multiple people for the job, and one needs to be from a minority background.

Ideally, a hiring system intended to fight racism would be indifferent to physical prejudices. Perhaps the identities and physical appearances of the candidates might be masked somehow. The Air Force has ceased using promotion photos to avoid unfair advancement of more attractive persons; modern technology offers some possibilities for other appearance-blind promotion systems.

Are we to care whether someone has unattached earlobes or attached earlobes merely because some persons think that the kind of earlobes defines the kind of person? All concepts of race are no less ridiculous.