General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsdo men, who do not believe in white male privilege/entitlement oppose affirmative action?
i ask this because last night my teenage son came to me telling me about the NFL discussing no african american was hired as a coach this year. that it is wrong. they need to hire black coaches every year to get a balance or something.
he was telling me in his view, that if no black coach was as capable as a white, that they should not have to hire a black coach.
he said they are for the win, for the money and they would naturally hire the best person for the job. that it was not about racism.
i had to explain to him, again, about privilege and entitlement. that men who are not racist are still raised in a culture of privilege and entitlement and that they do not always recognize they are denying blacks jobs. but, through those two conditionings, they automatically go to the white person. and that is why we have affirmative action.
i gave him examples and one was a study done on names written on applications. white sounding names got call backs over 50% of black sounding names even when a black sounding name was more qualified.
so, this has me thinking. if you do not believe in privilege and entitlement, i would think you would have to oppose affirmative action.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)I also find it interesting how often I hear a white male decry the fact that unqualified blacks are taking their jobs. If I point out that 12% of the population (demographics for my state) is not physically able to take 100% of the jobs, I am met with blank stares.
Beyond that, when I mention that 50% of Affirmative Action hires are white women...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)in the democratic party.
that being said, most of us are not single issue voters. so one can oppose affirmative action, what the democratic party stands by, yet still vote democratic, for sure.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If there were a way to actually objectively measure and compare people's job performances, this wouldn't be an issue. There's not, and we have boatloads of evidence that race does influence the judgements people do make about job performance, that we can't just passively try not to be racist, we have to take, you know, affirmative action to compensate for what we empirically know is already happening.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)are things on an app that allows a comparative. still, as you say, much is just guessing/choosing regardless what is on the app, and ....
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Or at least tries to.
Without it, we're stuck with just negative action (aka "last hired, first fired"
without even an attempt to balance it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And come to think of it at least racially that's one of the more diverse fields, if the salespeople I meet are any example. It's not remotely gender-neutral, though.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)If one year 100% of coaches hired was African American, then I would have no problem with that either. In the NFL when a coach is hired, he is not unknown, its easy to see what they have accomplished and hire the best, regardless of what color their skin is.
MattBaggins
(7,898 posts)There are as in ANY job, a large pool of people all qualified for the position. The job will go to the person who best clicks with the decider on a personal level or the one they know from the golf courses and personal life.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)field? 
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that would be like looking at a corporation and saying, but look at all the employees on the lower tier that is of minority. forget all the management, upper management and owners are white males.
and that would be 65% and that includes mixed race. i assume that a drop of black blood makes one black and not white. saying, it seems if it is a biracial person they are catagorized as black when they have equal white in them. so i think i will step back from the 65%.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)WHY is there a "big difference"? If you think racism is the reason, I think an explanation of how and why is in order.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)positions of power and authority out of entitlement that is more subconscious than conscious.
hence the need for affirmative action
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Good point.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)It looks like White people are underrepresented in football, probably basketball (although I'll admit, overrepresented in hockey). Should affirmative action require more white people to be hired?
I'm going to stand by my previous comment, and say I want the best person for the job. If that means 100% black people, I'm fine with it. If it means 100% white people, I'm fine with it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)player, firstly. while coach and front office is qualitative/subjective. shoot off a gun for a race and the person at the end of the race with best time, has nothing subjective in the win.
secondly, that thinking totally ignores a history of an oppressed group vs a non oppressed or oppressive group.
your argument does not stand.
MattBaggins
(7,898 posts)If blacks make up the largest number of players, and those numbers of skilled players start from high school, college and professional level then wouldn't they be the largest pool of potential future coaches?
As in any job, the best leaders are people who have had years of experience playing and understand the game from doing it. Why aren't these players being recruited for coaching positions?
How does the system work at the lower levels? Pro level teams look for coaches from the college level, and college level will recruit from high school level. This is the start of the pool and where the issue needs to be looked at. How many black coaches are in the high school system where they could be begin working their way up? Are high school teams hiring coaches who were former players and if so are they passing over blacks in favor of whites? If predominately black high school teams have black coaches leading them to victories why aren't they following their players up to the college level as new coaches?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)in fact, it kinda like shows that the inequality is present.
MattBaggins
(7,898 posts)Given that many players will start as young as 10 or so playing pee wee, summer camps, middle school, high school, college and then the NFL. Just say they made it to 35 and had to retire, that actually means they have had 25 years of playing, living and breathing; football, but they don't have any qualifications to coach, yet an old white dude does?
And there is no inherent racism in that?
dawg
(10,622 posts)would be pretty evenly distributed across racial lines. It requires a totally different skill-set from those required of good football players.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to believe, thru out history examples, that whites are inherently more capable....
like for example. women are emotional and not capable of decisive decision making. not a reality. but how we label women.
dawg
(10,622 posts)I think there is still a historical expectation that the quarteback of a football team is usually white. Of course there have been some exceptional black quarterbacks, but I believe they had to overcome a systematic bias in order achieve what they did.
There are lots of places in our society where strong biases and prejudices still exist.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)at the pro level. At lower levels (college, high school, pee wee) the demographics of participation would look much more like the demographics of the overall populace.
What is the logic that says coaches should be disproportionately black, simply because NFL players are? I'm not sure what the basis of this approach is. 
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)win.
That should be the baseline assumption.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)That their perception of quality in coaches, which cannot be measured in 40 yard dash times or passer ratings, is some sort of instinct?
We have seen success among Black coaches, so the baseline assumption is that they cannot coach would be wrong.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)I agree with you. Thanks for making this point.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)That means a little less than 10% of head coaches are black in a country with roughly a 12% black population.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)MindPilot
(12,693 posts)"why isn't there a National Association for the Advancement of White People?"
"Because the rest of the world is already yours, white man."
Have to explain that they have good educations, decent incomes, and live in nice neighborhoods because all us white folks are still enjoying the wealth created on the backs of slaves.
pennylane100
(3,425 posts)to a poor white homeless family with not job prospects and no medical care. The schools that serve the working poor give the same education to all the students. When they apply for college, they are all at somewhat of a disadvantage when competing for admittance. Children from the better public schools and the elite private systems nearly always test higher. If we want to give run a program that helps these disadvantaged children, we must offer that opportunity to all of them.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)It is the concept of institutionalized racism I try to get across to solid middle-class white guys who are in a "I never owned slaves, so what's the problem?" mode. The institutionalized discrimination against the working poor is a whole 'nother discussion in this context. But, yeah, you're right.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and free ride tuition in colleges, if they have the grades. my son does not qualify for financial help. whereas a person with a lower income will. so there is that source, that i absolutely support, to help those that cannot otherwise afford.
also, with how college cost has risen in the last decade, the person at my income cannot afford college either, but we do not have the same opportunity.
and still... i get it and support free ride scolarships to low income. it does not matter race and gender. it is all in parental income.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)
theKed
(1,235 posts)I DO believe in hiring the best candidate for the job, regardless of race or gender. In lieu of an accepting, egalitarian society at large, it sufficrs - but its a clumsy legislative answer to a cultural problem that, in some ways, hinders progress.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)subconsciously?
theKed
(1,235 posts)The part whete I said that in lieu of an egalitarian society, it suffices.
MattBaggins
(7,898 posts)are you a white male?
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)in all our progressive discussion about affirmative action we fail to notice that the guy doing the hiring is still white.
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)MattBaggins
(7,898 posts)a meaningless phrase. It is an empty platitude.
It describes the person most suited to the position. Not meaningless at all. Unless qualifications are latgely illusionary.
MattBaggins
(7,898 posts)It comes down to how well you click with the one doing the hiring.
For any job you will get dozens of people all equally qualified for the position. The selection will ultimately be a gut feeling.
theKed
(1,235 posts)miss that very important qualifier "in lieu of an egalitarian society'? That's very important to my initial point.I against Affirmative Action because irt is a clumsy way to deal with it. I am FOR society not giving a shit what colour your skin is and whether you have a penis.
MattBaggins
(7,898 posts)I was basing my considerations on what we have at hand.
Affirmative action programs are the best program for the model we have at hand and contrary to popular belief they work better than the right wind manipulators want you to believe.
The meme that AA is a complete failure is an example of tell a lie often enough and people will believe it.
AA is a failure
SS is responsible for the deficit
All Canadians hate their health care and are clamoring to come to America
The "Sosholust Yourpean" system is going to crash at any moment (they have been saying that since at least the 80s)
theKed
(1,235 posts)you'rr not attempting to put *those words in my mouth. Really. Most noticeably i have never, and will never call it a failure. Could it be better? Yeah. So could plenty of things. In lieu of discussing what I say, however, you talk about things I hadn't brought up.
It does disappoint to see you've given up hope for a fair,equal society at all though - relegating it to the domain of unicorns.
uponit7771
(90,323 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)...men, who do not believe in white male privilege/entitlement and enter this discussion and identify themselves.
I agree with you, so my contribution is worthless. (I'm a white guy who has likely benefited from white male privilege)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)but, being on a democratic board and having this conversation with entitled/privileged often lately,.... and then conversation with son, it feels like there cannot be one without the other.
though, i can see how we manipulate our thinking on this and a person could not believe in privilege and still support affirmative action. or vice versa.
my son and i were also talking yesterday about people that are the hugest sexist pig, or racist or homophobic, YET the fools will be friends with any individual. as a group the will make 'ism slurs, but with individual people will not see it at all. we were talking about how people can do that with their brains.....
example. hubbys best friend is just a sexist pig. he is also the most giving person i know. he defends women in his job going after dead beats. he is totally appalled by that behavior.
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)as doing their job? Going after dead beat dads (I assume it's dads or x husbands) could be very sexist. It's reinforcing the traditional family roles and could be at the very heart of his sexism. Many traditional males believe it's the man's role to be the breadwinner in the family. Deadbeat dads are the antithesis of traditional patriarchy. While almost any human is appalled by deadbeat dads/ex husbands, is he similarly appalled when a women is discriminated against in the workforce? It's clearly worse when a parent abdicates responsibility for supporting their families, but if your hubby's friend has a non-sexist side it would probably be evident in other cases he chooses to support. Just my opinion
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)but, i get what you are saying. that was a quick example. but yes, he would stand up for a women rights. he raised his daughter as a person, not a gender role. she is at school now to get her degree and become a pilot. he does not believe in gender roles. his grandmother who died recently was the voice in the family. everything about him is new age man. and he is a sexist pig.
(i really see it more a miss up in his own vulnerabilities and low self esteem and when he is feeling that he attacks women more to be superior.)
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)President Obama has been criticized a lot recently for hiring "too many white males". But I don't think that he is a racist.
As another example, only 17% of NBA players are white. But I am not concerned that this is a symptom of endemic anti-white racism in basketball. It does seem that NBA recruiters have somehow figured out how not to "inherently and subconciously" favor the white guys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_NBA
Also, 14 out of 30 NBA head coaches are black. Somehow the rich team owners have reached a comfort level with these guys.
http://www.nba.com/2012/news/04/26/minority-coaches-NBA.ap/index.html
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #14)
OneTenthofOnePercent This message was self-deleted by its author.
dawg
(10,622 posts)I definitely believe white males continue to enjoy significant unfair advantages in the workplace and elsewhere. And I agree that government should intervene in order to compensate for that advantage. But I believe affirmative action measures should be based primarily on economic background rather than race. This would still result in programs that primarily helped minorities, but it would alleviate some of the perceived unfairness that makes these programs vulnerable to political attack.
Of course, that approach can't work for gender issues, so I do think good old fashioned preferences should be built into the system to counteract the existing societal bias towards males. But even so, common sense must not be abandoned, as there are some jobs where one sex or the other has a distinct physical advantage.
dawg
(10,622 posts)I guess my post above doesn't really answer your question.
Personally, I think if someone didn't believe in white male privilege, they would be horribly inconsistent and nonsensical if they supported affirmative action. Why give an unfair advantage to one group over another one if the playing-field is already level? It makes no sense!
Of course, from my perspective, I can't imagine how anyone can be deluded into thinking white males don't have significant advantages over other groups. There may be some individual white males who are disadvantaged compared to certain individual members of other groups. But on the whole, there is a tremendous benefit, and I doubt a week goes by that I don't get some kind of personal advantage or leg up because I am a white male.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)as i said in another post
example. hubbys best friend is just a sexist pig. he is also the most giving person i know. he defends women in his job going after dead beats. he is totally appalled by that behavior.
wrapping the mind around the inconsistencies is both fun and interesting.
dawg
(10,622 posts)They cease to be black, or gay, or foreign, or female. They turn into "Rosalyn" and "Rob" and "Juan" and "Michelle". And no one is going to mess with them!!
But it is a shame that people can't see everyone as individuals to begin with, and not be prejudiced in the first place.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I have to say that I am split about affirmative action. I am not a strong supporter, but I can see a point to it, so I am not a strong opponent either.
But I will also say that "more qualified" is a judgement call. Ten years ago, in 2003, I was working as a part time janitor when a full time janitorial job opened up where I work. I applied for it, and they hired somebody else. Supposedly he was "more qualified". On paper, he had fifteen years of experience to my three years. Yet in actual practice, he was not a good worker. He was lazy and he stole from the workplace and his wax job on the lobby was a disgrace. In about three months he got fired because he was skipping work every Friday. So "more qualified" is not just a question of what is on paper. Presumably his references checked out too.
To me the problem with affirmative action is that it does NOT end poverty or unemployment. Which basically means that for every black person who gets lifted up by affirmative action, a white person gets bumped down. So we still have 40 million poor people, but now the poor have the same racial mixture as the general population. That is some sort of victory?
I prefer solutions that end poverty for everybody, that will raise up all of the downtrodden, and not "solutions" that will raise up some while pushing others down.
As far as coaches. you sorta have to be kidding me. Coaches and perhaps even assistant coaches are members of the top 1%, and they work in the frigging entertainment industry. Again, I am far more concerned with helping the bottom 20% than I am about who is getting a seat in ultra first class on the gravy train. Far less concerned about Lovey Smith maybe being "stuck" as an $80,000 a year assistant coach than I am about some other guy working as a roofer or breaking his back on the garbage truck. My heart just does not bleed for people making $80,000 (or especially those making much more).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)MindPilot
(12,693 posts)ETA: I used to make almost that working in IT; I think NLF coaches make a LOT more.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but if some black people were trapped by a glass ceiling as assistant coaches, they might not be making nearly as much money as a head coach.
My point of view is that even $80,000 a year is far, far more than I have ever made, and far far more than most people make in this country. (50% of HOUSEHOLDS, often with two paychecks, make less than $55,000 a year) If even my own brother said to me "boo hoo hoo, I am trapped in an $80,000 a year white collar, high status job because of discrimination". My reaction is not going to be "this is an OUTRAGE, working men to arms, to arms!!!" I am gonna say something like "dude, I make $32,000 a year for doing back breaking grunt work, as such I think you sorta have it made, so I cannot really feel sorry about your frustrations. Try looking at the big picture and maybe count your blessings. Most of my people would love to be in your shoes. Or to even have shoes."
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)I do not believe that the lack of NFL head coaches that are black has a lot to do with overt racism at THAT level, but rather institutional racism lower down the ranks. Let me digress.
In today's NFL, most of the head coaches are former offensive coordinators that came up through the ranks. Offense sells tickets, offensive minded teams are exciting. Offensive coordinators get promoted to head coaches a lot. Who makes up most of the offensive coordinators? Either ex high school, college, or NFL quarterbacks who ran passing-attack style of offenses.
Most quarterbacks who played the game in a true air-attack style of play were white. You rarely, ever, see a black quarterback sitting there as a pure pocket passer. They all get labeled the running-quarterback. The only pure passing black quarterback I can think of is Warren Moon (and boy was he good). The other black quarterbacks who had some NFL success were all "running-types" including: a few off the top of my head include Randall Cunningham, Steve McNair, Kordell Stewart, Charlie Batch, and Donavan McNabb (but he probably more noted as a passer than runner), Dante Culpepper, and now Cam Newton and Robert Griffin.
I think the blatant racism in football starts at the high school level where coaches in the big football states of Ohio and Texas make their black quarterbacks run the option and let the white kids stand back there and learn to throw.
I see this as institutional racism, not a "we cannot have the CEO be black". Just my opinion.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)stuff i will be able to take back to son. (i understand much mroe than they think i do). and he will be knocked on his ass with my smartness. always a good thing for a mom of teens.
thanks.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)If you have a quarterback who can scramble, why wouldn't you let him?
As a white quarterback in the back yard, my best play ever was the intentional bootleg that I ran. It went for about 40 yards. Of course, we were playing 3 on 3 touch football, but I could have run that play every time and they could not have stopped it. Not without double teaming me, which, of course, would leave a receiver wide open. I only ran it the one time though, because running it every play did not seem sportsmanlike.
Most of the best white quarterbacks, except perhaps Dan Marino and Peyton Manning, were also much more dangerous because they were mobile, starting with Fran Tarkenton, but Staubach, Danny White, Brett Favre, John Elway and now that dude for the Niners. Granted many of them were likely to throw on the run, but often they did also run for first downs or touchdowns.
McNair, for example has a career of 662 rushing attempts and 37 TDs. Favre has 602 rushing attempts and 14 tds. He ran some, but he didn't have the running speed of McNair.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)of the institutional racism against letting a black quarterback be a pocket passer in the NFL?
Look at the top 25 quarterbacks in the NFL for the last 20 years. I only see a handful of the "scramble" guys, and to that, I would add, Elway did not win his rings until his knees were shot and he QUIT trying to run for first downs unless he had to and Tarkenton never did win the ring.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_yds_career.htm
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)amd Tarlemton played in two more superbowls than Marino did.
Elway ran for four touchdowns in five Superbowl appearances, including one in each of his last two appearances. Moon ran for over 1500 yards.
I see a lot of mobile quarterbacks on that list. Manning and Brady each have over 700 yards rushing. Of the top 15 or so, the only non-mobile ones seem to be Marino, Fouts, and Brees.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)while white quarterbacks are coached to stand in the pocket, maybe scramble and buy some time, and then run only when necessary? I am not talking about scrambling and mobility, i.e. buying time to complete the pass. I am talking about running first and passing second which
1) shortens their career
2) Never really forces them to completely understand defenses
1500 yards rushing over a 20 year career is 75 yards per season of rushing for Moon. Elway, McNair, and Tarkenton all have about 3500 rushing yards BUT Elway played 18 years, Tarkenton played 18 years, McNair only 12.
Poor Randall Cunningham played 16 years and has over 5000 rushing yards in a 16 year career. Look what Shanahan did to RGIII. All you had to do was watch a few games and you could see that injury coming a mile away. Used him right up he did. Did Shanahan EVER use Elway like he did RGIII? and do not tell me that Elway was older when he was coached by Shanahan because Mike was Elway's OC for many years under Dan Reeves.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Cunningham signed a five year deal in late 1998 giving him $5.5 million a year for five years.
Considering that he got benched 7 games in to 1999, I am not sure how much of that he got paid, and then he got traded.
But considering that $5.5 million over 30 years is $183,000 a year, I am guessing that many people would love to be that kind of "poor".
Tarkenton played 18 years of shorter seasons, and may not have made $5.5 million for his whole career. If RG3 is used UP, he is still walking away with $21 million.
Things are tough all over.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)As women not as qualified continue to get the promotions.
Sorry, but I don't support policies that have personally affected me.
If two people have the same qualifications, then I say hire the minority.
But if one is more qualified than the other... the most qualified should get it every time.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)She's been there for 25 years and has sat on numerous search committees. She comes home with horror stories about how some candidates got hired! And it's not just "privileged white males" doing the hiring...
MattBaggins
(7,898 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)The job. Affirmative action only gives one the opportunity. If they don't perform they are replaced. My brother and uncle have both claimed they were victims of affirmative action missing out on jobs others got because of their white maleness. Personally I think their both making excuses.
I think affirmative action and things like desegregation have been a success. And a few more generations of following those policies will create the more fair and equal world we all seek where they will be unnecessary.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)was when I saw an employer immediately dismiss the idea of hiring a candidate because of their weight. There's a lot of discrimination out there that people don't immediately think of (and a lot that they do). Laws can help rectify some of this, but in the end the only answer is for people to be more open and compassionate in general.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)attractive regardless of "more capable". smoker vs non smoker. young vs old
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Why would I want to hire someone who is going to go outside for a smoke break several times a day, then come back in reeking of smoke and leaving a foul smelling trail behind them as they walk around?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)people too that need to eat and put a roof over their head. and because they may be able to offer a company more than a non smoker.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)between people who are in favor of race-based affirmative action and class-based. There's been a massive shift in just one or two generations about our view on race. I myself didn't fully appreciate the reasoning behind keeping race-based affirmative action until I did research both into the it's history and the history of the opposition to it. I think for people who have grown up in an era where racism is generally considered a social taboo, it can be hard to understand just how entrenched it was not too long ago (of course, the environment one grows up in will also affect this).
As for other forms of discrimination, passing laws to protect people can help, but it's difficult to enforce. For instance, where I am they already have very progressive human rights laws that includes protection against personal appearance discrimination, but it can be tough to even realize that's happening when you're one of thirty applicants that aren't chosen.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)years of seeing the old times step forward not only socially but politically and legally. so has been an eye opener for many youth that the fight is not over.
very good point
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)for instance, I came across an episode of the TV show "Happy Days" the other day, where one of the boys to attempted to sexually assault his date, and the whole thing was treated as a joke ("You're an animal!" **laugh track**). This in the late 70's.
You're right, the fight is not over at all. But it's difficult sometimes to deal with the changing nature of the beast. It's always easy to look back at what we've decided is bad and tell people how horrible those things were (look at people that expect to get brownie points from saying that slavery was horrible). It's much more difficult to look at our own actions and to think about which of them would be viewed as barbaric by people 30 or 80 years from now (assuming we don't slide backwards).
uponit7771
(90,323 posts)...people that sound, look and act like you or I do.
creon
(1,183 posts)I am not sure how effective it has been.
I do remain in favor of it.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)The rule is named for Dan Rooney, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers and the chairman of the league's diversity committee, and indirectly the Rooney family in general, due to the Steelers' long history of giving African Americans opportunities to serve in team leadership roles.
The Rule was established to ensure that minority coaches, especially African Americans, were considered for high-level coaching positions. Until 1979, Fritz Pollard was the only minority head coach in NFL history (which was during the league's early years in the 1920s) and by the time the Rule was implemented, only Tom Flores, Art Shell, Dennis Green, Ray Rhodes, Tony Dungy, and Herman Edwards had ever held head coaching jobs (Only Dungy and Edwards were actively head coaching at the time of the Rule's implementation, though Shell and Green would later return to the sidelines as head coaches). Dungy in particular had struggled for years before getting a head coaching job; he was often promoted as a head coaching candidate by Chuck Noll when Dungy was an assistant under Noll in the 1980s with the Steelers, but he would not become a head coach until 1996 when he took over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
Since the Rooney Rule was established, several NFL franchises have hired African American head coaches, including the Steelers themselves, who hired Mike Tomlin before their 2007 season[2] (The Steelers, however, had already interviewed Ron Rivera who is a Hispanic minority to fulfill the Rule before interviewing Tomlin, and Rooney himself contends that Tomlin's hiring did not result from the Rule).[3] At the start of the 2006 season, the overall percentage of African American coaches had jumped to 22%, up from 6% prior to the Rooney Rule.[4]
The rule does not apply if an assistant coach has language in his contract guaranteeing him the head coaching job in case of an opening.[5] For example, this was the case when Mike Martz took over as head coach of the St. Louis Rams before the 2000 season. Also, the rule does not apply if the assistant coach taking over the head position is a minority, as was the case with Mike Singletary and the San Francisco 49ers in late 2008.[6] As of 15 June 2009, Rooney Rule requirements now apply to all searches for senior football operations positions within the NFL, regardless of a team's title for that position. It now also includes all ethnic minorities, not just African Americans. Recently, legal scholars have advocated for extending the Rooney Rule to college football, where the number of minority head coaches hovers around 6%.[7] [edit] Detroit Lions Case, 2003
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)I don't know if people around where you live kinda thought that maybe he was aff action hire and good, but not really a Super Bowl winning caliber coach. I live in TN and that was some of the whispering going around here. I love the fact that he went on w/Indy and became Super Bowl champs. I think he also had a record playoff appearance streak.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I think if he can't get a winning rec record in 10 years, and is 0-4 in the post season, he needs to be fired.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)we will be a truly color-blind society. Is it unreasonable to think that some segments of our society will get there faster than others? I'd submit the idea that football would more likely be one of those areas, as we've gotten past the point where a quarterback or a coach could be said to be a token hire, or there to appeal to a heavily African-American fan base in a particular NFL city.
I'm certainly not saying that racism has in any way disappeared, but I do believe that those parts of American society that were among the first to integrate (i.e., the military) would at some point be among the places where 100% merit, in terms of character, dedication and talent would completely supercede skin color as a factor in hiring or promotion. Football produces clear winners and losers every year in a way that no other non-sport activity would, and would allow it the possibility of shedding the insanity of racial prejudice way ahead of other parts of American society.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)because it doesn't work. The point of affirmative action is to close gaps among demographic groups that exist for a whole slew of reasons, historical prejudice and discrimination chief among them, and some present as well. But affirmative action doesn't solve this problem. Gaps are still just as bad now as they were when affirmative action was first put in place.
The reason why is fairly obvious. By the time affirmative action kicks in, it is already too late. Yeah, you can artificially boost a person into a position, but that won't take away the fact that that person, despite that position, is still underprivileged in every other way, except now maybe for salary (maybe). You might see affirmative action first kick in in college. Well, that's far too late by that point. If you want to solve those gaps in achievement, you have to go to the source of the problem: poverty. Especially areas of concentrated poverty. That's a much tougher sell politically and a lot harder to do though, so we have this affirmative action band-aid that doesn't really do anything to the inherent problem but make people feel good.
Also, I'm kinda sick of all white males as always being portrayed as the most privileged. They aren't always, a large percentage of people of different colors and women do indeed have more overall privilege than many white males, and white males themselves indeed are the recipients of affirmative action in some cases, especially when it comes to class. I don't like the stereotype for a lot of reasons, but mainly because it gives the right ammunition to feel like a victim and to ignore the fact that affirmative action even helps white males indvidually (but does nothing to solve our income inequality, among other inequalities, for example). I rarely hear about white female privilege, or any other sort of privilege really. We all have privileges (hell, being an American is one hell of a privilege at the expense of many others in the world, for example), but it seems the ONLY privilege ever discussed is of the white/male/straight variety, which is pretty limiting. ESPECIALLY when you consider that privilege from money is the most powerful of the privileges today in most areas of life. I don't think that particular privilege should be ignored when it is central to what privilege is today.
I definitely think we need to educate people on how the US is NOT a perfect meritocracy, because if you believe that, then you will oppose ALL government actions to close gaps, including ones that actually work, like poverty reduction. Affirmative action is one that doesn't work and which gives easy ammunition to the right, after all, progressives are all about merit and NOT privilege, and having to betray this philosophy for "the greater good" of a policy that doesn't even work doesn't seem rational or consistent, because it's not.
Do I really care that much about affirmative action though? Beyond it being an ineffective political strategy and policy, not really, I'd rather get poverty reduction and discussion going than opposing affirmative action, that is my priority, and it involves a de-mythifying of the US as a perfect meritocracy, which helps all around anyways, and a discussion and understanding of privilege. Many white straight males in the Republican Party are underprivileged compared to their party leaders in many many ways, but getting them to recognize that, or even swallow their pride to see reality, is the hard part.
mzteris
(16,232 posts)people "like themselves".
The more commonality, the greater the chance of being picked. Same sex, same race, same school, same sport (do you play golf?), same fraternity, same home town/state, same likes/dislikes, same religion, same political stance/views, etc. . .
It's been studied and proven over and over in the HR field. That's why HR should always be involved in the hiring process. (Well, a well-trained HR anyway.)
Used to have a plant manager who wouldn't even consider someone with a "foreign sounding name" because they might "talk funny", etc... We finally had to strip down the resumes to nothing but experience/education to keep him from automatically discarding a candidate for anyone to speak with about a job. Even then, after a person proved their expertise and ability to do the job, he would block hiring - even if they DIDN'T "talk funny". Finally had to fire the guy for "poor job performance".
Anyone who doesn't believe racism and discrimination doesn't occur every damn day is delusional. The "best person for the job" is often overlooked or passed over or not even considered BECAUSE of who they are. We HAVE to make a very concerted EFFORT to have those who have been traditionally discriminated against even CONSIDERED for a job.
People don't understand Affirmative Action, how it works, the intention. None of it. The person still has to be QUALIFIED to DO the job. But yeah, if you have an "all white male" department, and the minority and/or woman is at least as EQUALLY QUALIFIED, then - well you do hire them. Diversity improves a company's performance and then improves the probability of increased diversity. Besides, all those other "white male" candidates not hired there, have an exponentially higher chance of being hired at almost any job for which they apply. Why? Because most managers, CEO's, etc - are all white males. Who play golf.
BTW -tell your son that they used to think "blacks" weren't smart enough to be a quarterback, much less a coach (unfortunately, it's not even "used to" - there's a whole damn lot of people who still think that.) And there was a time, AA's weren't even allowed to PLAY on the same team as white folks in any sport!!! Does he really believe there wasn't a QUALIFIED African American or other minority coach out there - Anywhere? Really? Especially considering the percentage of AA who even play the damn game is considerably higher than non-African Americans. And how many minorities OWN a sports team?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that is a huge plus. he recognizes the history. just had to be reminded of privilege and entitlement again. then he understood. there are some other excellent points in this thread that will reinforce what i said.
thanks.
mzteris
(16,232 posts)I wasn't trying to be judgmental against your son at all! Hell, I still have problems with my sons. My oldest one, who should DEFINITELY know better!, and I were - ah - discussing affirmative action just the other day. I'm afraid he's missed some of the point, as well. We'll definitely be revisiting the topic.
I'll have to ask my younger one, who is a minority, what he thinks about affirmative action. Not sure if we ever really discussed it.
Though he will tell you about the assumptions made about HIM nearly every day. It makes me weep the injustice he has to endure. He shrugs and says he's "used to it". I'm glad he feels above feeling hurt by other people's behaviour, but I'm not sure he understands how much he IS being hurt by it. The evaluation of his behaviour and/or performance is colored by others' beliefs (unconscious though they may be). His future. His opportunities. They are all affected.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i would be interested in your sons POV. another poster above said that because of his generation, he did not get it. he had to do research to see how not so long ago, what it was like, since so much has changed. and why it was needed and still needed.
as i said, we saw it with womens issues. many young women did not get. the last couple years of political and legal attack has woken them up also.
and... i did not take your comment to my son personally, lol. it is all good
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Perhaps that should be your first question.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)We need to not worry filling quotas and checking boxes. I think we need to combat the remnants of historical racism through social programs aimed at equalizing home environment and culture.
Nikia
(11,411 posts)I am sure that some HR types do try to assign point vales for certain things and try to make it objective, but even giving more weight to certain things is subjective. The longer I have worked, the more that I know that it is true.
Of course I'd say something like that as I now supervise a department that includes two guys with master's degrees when I only have a bachelor's.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I like that idea.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)systematically get more help.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)at the study how call backs are about the "sound" of a name.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)But over the course of years, blacks are underrepresented as NFL coaches, just as they are in pretty much any position of power or good job. White male privilege absolutely exists.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)There are 30 head coaches in the NBA. There are 32 in the NFL. Both are jobs that pay millions of dollars and are nearly impossible to obtain. In any given year the racial composition of head coaches in an American professional sports league doesn't indicate much about racial privilege. Larger samples and patterns do, however.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)But if you looked at years worth of data on key positions on NFL teams, not just the head coaches, but the assistants, general managers, and other key personnel, I suspect you would begin to see a meaningful discrepancy.
Nikia
(11,411 posts)Encourages other qualified women and minorities to join the organization and succeed. I suppose that it is possible to see diversity as a good thing and be in favor of affirmative action for this reason and not believe in white male privilege.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Got no dog in this fight, BUT...
... having read some the responses (not all, as they are quite repetitious in content) what seems to be being ignored, is that there are literally hundreds of million$ riding on these choices, made by billionaire owners. Good luck forcing them bend to your wishes as to who they can hire and who they can't.
Ain't gonna happen. Period.
Which actually shows where the real world privilege/entitlement lies. It's the Golden Rule hard at work. If you have the Gold, you make the Rules. Is it "fair?" Nope. Is it "right?" Nope. Is it reality? Yep.
Tilting at windmills isn't a lost art.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)were the best people to hire. I don't think the billionaire NFL owners are any more racist than the NBA owners.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)They are simply biased in their choices by forces they may not even appreciate.
Another interesting phenomenon is the inability of fired Black head coaches to find another head coaching job. Andy Reid gets canned by the Eagles and get another job almost instantly. Jim Caldwell is languishing as a position coach.
Racism is far to difficult to prove, but the lack of Black head coaches in the NFL speaks for itself.
uponit7771
(90,323 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Get back to me when it happens. I don't think I'll hold my breath, if that's okay by you.
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)If I recall correctly Affirmative Action is the requirement to seek out pools of underrepresented groups. It was presumed that the best person for the job would be hired regardless of demographics.
Quotas are generally frowned upon if not illegal
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)In 2003 the NFL adopted the Rooney Rule... Rep Tom Rooney, (R FL) is Dan Rooney's nephew...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,336 posts)Anyway, I'm sure none of the NFL coaches or their assistants are hired by anonymous "HR Types" poring through names on applications. I'd bet every one of them got the job through networking. There may be a bias built into that method.
I'd also maybe ask your teenage son to check the list of assistant coaches, trainers, etc. See if there are african americans,etc, working their way up the organizations. Then see which ones are running the best stats on offense, defense, kickoff returns, etc. That should predict which assistants will rise, not their race, religion, etc.
If I owned an NFL team, I think I'd want to hire the coach who can get me the most wins. But what do I know? I'm a Lions fan 
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)I still think there are industries and sectors of the workforce where AA is needed to achieve diversity, which in the long run is a net positive for everyone.
BUT, governments and private companies do not have a constitutional obligation to practice AA.
If Fisher v. University of Texas results in a ruling for Fisher later this year, then it must be complied with, with no complaining.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Coaching is mostly mental while playing has extremely difficult physical barriers to entry in playing NFL football. It doesn't matter how smart a player is if he doesn't have the physical ability to measure up, while the reverse is not true in coaching. Black players, due to their physiological differences, have a disproportionate occurrence of the trait that get them past the barrier: the muscle fibers that dictate maximum speed and explosiveness. The occurrence of this genetic trait is the same reason Jamaican sprinters dominate. So I wouldn't expect players to necessarily become coaches considering the natural trait that allowed them to play NFL football has no benefit in coaching.
Also NFL coaches don't always come from NFL players. Many NFL coaches never played in the NFL, some have never played football at all.
The Rooney Rule requiring blacks to get an interview for head coaching positions has been a success. It's not a quota, it's just a rule that forces owners to give blacks a look, not a job. 3 black coaches have gone to the Super Bowl and two have won it since 2003 when the rule was brought in, suggesting that black coaches are just as capable as whites. Not sure about this whole white entitlement stuff, but the rule broke up the old boy networks (IE institutionalized racism).
They don't need to hire black coaches every year, just hire the person who they think will help them win. There are so few positions for coaches in some years that a black hiring may not happen. The turnover is high enough that with the Rooney Rule, qualified black candidates will be considered. Truth is, there is simply too much money at stake and too few competent coaches available for owners to ignore someone with ability, and if they do, their rivals will not.