On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Judah McAuley<[email protected]> wrote: > > But that is not inequality either. You are conflating equality with sameness.
Anytime you do one thing for one race and not for others, its inequality. Would a rule stating that Def Jam records must audition white artists or BET must consider shows with only white people be viewed as 'equality'? I doubt it. > > The Rooney rule says that you have to interview at least one minority > candidate. Doesn't say you have to hire a minority candidate. If the > management is set on a particular dude, the outcome is not in doubt. > If they are set on a minority guy, then a minority guy is going to > interview and get the job. If the management is set on a white dude, > they'll interview a white dude and a minority guy and then the white > dude will still get the job. If the outcome is predetermined, then the > process is largely moot but does still have the benefit of providing > experience for the guys who interview but don't get the job. Yea, you pretty much proved the Rooney Rule for what it is...bullshit. > > Where the rule does come into play is in situations where the > management is not already set on someone. If the situation is such > that the process matters, then the Rooney rule makes it so that at > least some non-white dude makes it into the process. And by getting > minority coaches into interviews, talking to owners and GMs, etc, they > start becoming taken more seriously, they gain experience and become > more likely to become head coaches. This would be a very small minority I think. Maybe for 'lesser' coaching positions, but for the GMs, HC, DC, AND OC, teams pretty much know who they want long before they open the door for interviews. I would be extremely surprised if a candidate for one of these jobs (regardless of skin color) ever went into an interview as an underdog and got the job (unless the guy the team really wanted declined the position). > > It is true that the Rooney rule allows for the possibility that every > single interview for a coaching position might be non-white. We might > be able to reword the rule so that it treats racial diversity in the > interview process in such a way that it doesn't set up a white versus > non-white paradigm but instead mandates that at least one candiate not > be of the same race as all the others or something. But you know what? > That's not an issue. Why is it not an issue? Why is it OK to say you must interview a non-white, but not OK to say you must also interview a white? > > You are kevetching about some theoretical disparity that might > possibly happen under the Rooney rule. The Rooney rule was put in > place because of *actual real disparity*. Not some theoretical shit. > If we start running into situations where white dudes are being denied > opportunities for head coaching jobs in the NFL because of their race, > lets revisit. But that ain't happening. I understand that there was a real disparity, but the 'solution' was half-assed. I agree with the spirit of the rule, I just think that the way it was written is also discriminatory - which is what it was supposed to eliminate. I think guys like Tony Dungee Lovey Smith, Jerry Reese, Mike SIngletary have proven that being successful in the front office on any professional sports team has nothing to do with the color of your skin. > > Judah > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Scott Stroz<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The problem I see with affirmative action, or other type >> programs/philosophies (such as the Rooney Rule in the NFL) is a simple >> one: >> >> If it is wrong for one person not to get a job solely because they are >> black/hispanic/asian/etc, it should also be wrong for me not to get a >> job solely because I am not black/hispanic/asian/etc. >> >> For those who do not know, the Rooney Rule states that for any >> management position on an NFL Team (such as head coach, general >> manager, defensive coordinator, etc) the team MUST interview at least >> one minority candidate. However, they are not required to interview a >> 'non minority' candidate. So, if they interview a white guy and they >> know he is the guy they want, they have to interview someone else who >> is a minority, but if they interview a minority and they know he is >> the guy they want, they can just hire him and not interview anyone >> else - that is not equality. >> >> The way to get to equality is not to exhibit the same behavior against >> the majority that which you fought to end against the minority. >> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Gruss Gott<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> RoMunn wrote: >>>> Do you really suck at U.S. history that much? >>> >>> I do. >>> >>> >>>> As for the "system of the father", I personally want all Americans have the >>>> opportunity to make good lives for themselves, provide for their families, >>>> and see their children do better than they did. That's what America is all >>>> about. >>>> >>> >>> It is, but it used to be MUCH easier for whitemale than everyone else. >>> >>> That will soon no longer be the case and that's why it's threatening. >>> >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:300566 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
