The rooney rule is it fair< did the redskins follow the rules

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Kalisto2010

I wish I lived in the world you lived in. Where institutional racism is non existent. However, in the real world where I reside it's still a pervasive problem, despite many falsely claiming that it's no longer a hinderance. Here's some facts to back up my thought processes, I'm getting tired of reading un-verifiable conjecture.

Devah Pager

Princeton University August 9, 2008

Is racial discrimination a thing of the past?

Debates about the relevance of discrimination in today's society have been difficult to resolve, in part because of the challenges in identifying, measuring, and documenting its presence or absence in all but extreme cases. Discrimination is rarely something that can be observed explicitly.

The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.

Racial disparities have been documented in many contexts, but here, comparing the two job applicants side by side, we are confronted with a troubling reality: Being black in America today is just about the same as having a felony conviction in terms of one’s chances of finding a job.

Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire « - Blogs from CNN.com

This is why we need the Rooney rule.

I gotta ask then, how do you feel about affirmative action in the schools/workplace? You think it's wrong (and I agree) that a white man with poor qualifications (i.e. felony conviction) is looked at on the same level as black man who is better qualified for a job. Ok.

So if affirmative action results in college admission to a black kid at the expense of a white kid who is slightly more qualified, is that wrong? Kind of a double standard, no?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I gotta ask then, how do you feel about affirmative action in the schools/workplace? You think it's wrong (and I agree) that a white man with poor qualifications (i.e. felony conviction) is looked at on the same level as black man who is better qualified for a job. Ok.

So if affirmative action results in college admission to a black kid at the expense of a white kid who is slightly more qualified, is that wrong? Kind of a double standard, no?

But how do you measure a more qualified student? In a vacuum, test scores and GPA would be perfectly adequate to determine the best candidate for acceptance into a school, but the problem is that applicants don't come from the same vacuum, they come from different socio-economic backgrounds and levels of education (suburban vs. inner city), and then you have to determine who the most qualified candidate is when it may not be so obvious. Most standards would simply determine the most qualified candidate to be the one most similar to the selectors.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But how do you measure a more qualified student? In a vacuum, test scores and GPA would be perfectly adequate to determine the best candidate for acceptance into a school, but the problem is that applicants don't come from the same vacuum, they come from different socio-economic backgrounds and levels of education (suburban vs. inner city), and then you have to determine who the most qualified candidate is when it may not be so obvious. Most standards would simply determine the most qualified candidate to be the one most similar to the selectors.

Well that's for the admissions committee of each school to determine. I'm sure they all have specific criteria they weigh in different ways, and they are obviously smart enough to consider things like suburbs vs inner-city, income levels, etc etc.

In the end what I'm talking about is, after the admissions committees finish evaluating applicants (including the factors you mentioned), is it not a double standard (compared to Kalisto's comments) to give admission to a black candidate they found to be less qualified than a white candidate simply because he's a minority?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Well that's for the admissions committee of each school to determine. I'm sure they all have specific criteria they weigh in different ways, and they are obviously smart enough to consider things like suburbs vs inner-city, income levels, etc etc.

In the end what I'm talking about is, after the admissions committees finish evaluating applicants (including the factors you mentioned), is it not a double standard (compared to Kalisto's comments) to give admission to a black candidate they found to be less qualified than a white candidate simply because he's a minority?

Well, then I think it's a strawman. I mean, if the assertion is that they've concluded that the white student is more qualified, then no amount of affirmative action is going to change who gets accepted. It sounds like it's already been decided.

Even one step further, though, the Rooney Rule doesn't even go this far. It stops at the interview process. So if I have a problem with the Rooney Rule, it's that it doesn't actually accomplish what it's intended to. Too easy to get around it.

But, I mean, there's only so much the NFL can do if Snyder is going to hire Shanahan. They can't make it illegal for him to do that. At the end of the day, there's no actual meaningful interview process going on here, so the application of the Rooney Rule is not helpful.

[Coff]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, then I think it's a strawman. I mean, if the assertion is that they've concluded that the white student is more qualified, then no amount of affirmative action is going to change who gets accepted. It sounds like it's already been decided.

Even one step further, though, the Rooney Rule doesn't even go this far. It stops at the interview process. So if I have a problem with the Rooney Rule, it's that it doesn't actually accomplish what it's intended to. Too easy to get around it.

But, I mean, there's only so much the NFL can do if Snyder is going to hire Shanahan. They can't make it illegal for him to do that. At the end of the day, there's no actual meaningful interview process going on here, so the application of the Rooney Rule is not helpful.

Not in this case, but that's the beauty of the rule. It doesn't force any team's hand when it comes to actually making a decision, but rather it encourages a more extensive search for qualified coaches. Critics of the rule have to come to grips with the fact that the rule in no way, shape, or form inhibits a team from making a head coaching decision. In other words, at best the rule accomplishes great things, while at worst it causes no damage.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Coff

Not in this case, but that's the beauty of the rule. It doesn't force any team's hand when it comes to actually making a decision, but rather it encourages a more extensive search for qualified coaches. Critics of the rule have to come to grips with the fact that the rule in no way, shape, or form inhibits a team from making a head coaching decision. In other words, at best the rule accomplishes great things, while at worst it causes no damage.

the simple fact is the nfl should let each team hire and fire who it wishes, without forcing (not encouraging) a team to interview someone just becuase of their skin color.
what if the lions decide they want tony dungy to be their next head coach, thats their guy, no ifs ands or buts about it. should the nfl force them to interview a white candidate? why always black and white. why doesn't the nfl go ahead and force each team to interview a hispanic or a female, i mean the whole thing is just a pile of crap. stay outta my buisness.