Rooney Rule: Minority Coaches getting shut out yet again.

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, y2k8 said:

The minute an owner starts to look at potential candidates to replace the current HC, you probably have about 4 hours before it's being reported in the media. The NFL is a gossip tsunami.

Good point.  Hard to keep that stuff under wraps.

[Spoot-Face]

2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

So you're saying old, rich, white billionaires practice some level of discrimination?  No way.  

[jetstream23]

16 minutes ago, BUM-KNEE said:

Because Woodhead was short, just like Dortch the Torch.

Short people never get a fair shake....

lol....he goes on to play in Super Bowls with the Patriots.  Figures!

Some people can't even get his name right!

 

[JTJet]

41 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Breitbart?

This is exactly the type of response that shows your own inherent bias and deeply flawed grasp of the situation. The shaming of another's viewpoint, purely to prop your own argument up. That's how a child goes about debate.

I would give you a response to the dig, but its clear you are basing your opinion off of your feelings and selective statistics and not actual facts. I'm not going to get political because I would rather this thread not get locked nor you or I get banned. 

However, anything I've stated has been purely based off of the Census and math, simple as that. My argument comes from a numbers standpoint. It is without question that the number of black coaches compared to white is exactly proportionate to the US population demographic. This isnt an opinion I just created for the sake of argument.

Would you rather a fire department have a quota of Latino men for the sake of representation, or the best fire fighters possible? How would you feel if your daughter died in a fire because the underqualified Latino firefighter failed at his job, when he got on the department simply to fill a quota? I'm actually expecting an answer to this. 

A Racial diverse Fire Department because you want equal representation, even though that means allowing underqualified candidates on the department? 

Or 

B Best firefighters for the job, regardless of demographic? 

Remember, facts dont care about your feelings. Just because something rubs you the wrong way and you dont agree with it, doesnt mean you're right. 

[y2k8]

3 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

One of the issues with hiring NFL coaches, is that it's a situation where the interviewer typically knows far less than the interviewee.  Head coaches aren't being hired by more experienced HC, like you or I may be hired by someone more senior in our field.  They're hired by people who may be former scouts, or accountants, or frankly, just rich people, who couldn't do the Xs and Os if their life depended on it.  So, it begs the question, what does Christopher Johnson really ask Adam Gase?  You may not like Gase, but if you're being fair, you must acknowledge that he knows significantly more about football than Johnson.

All the more reason not to make the single most important hiring decision for your organization in such a compressed time line.

But I would push back a bit. 

CFOs and heads of marketing are not being hired by accountants or people who know the difference between earned and shared media.  They are by people who do not have that expertise and are seeking to find some one that does.

Either way, the rush to hire is the biggest problem. It inevitably devolves into what the Giants did yesterday.

[BornJetsFan1983]

5 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

We all know the Rooney Rule was created to protect the NFL from a lawsuit and really not much more.  But even having said that, it's quite clear that teams are seemingly going out of their way to hire white coaches.  Ron Rivera got hired by the Redskins almost immediately, but the pipeline of white HC's and white assistants has continued throughout the league and is reflected in the latest round of hires.  

You can always argue "the best candidate should get the job", and you'd be right.  But that's pretty clearly NOT what has been going on in the NFL for years.  Consider that 14 % of the time when a white HC gets fired, he gets another HC job in the NFL.  Only 7 % of the time do fired African American HC's get that 2nd head coaching opportunity.  The Bills just had a tremendous season but DC Leslie Frazier couldn't even get an interview.  Eric Bieniemy has been a high profile interview the last 2 years, but can't get a HC job.  Meanwhile, a ST coach for the Pats gets the Giants job.  At the very least, Bieniemy was just as qualified as Joe Judge, but more accurately was MORE qualified.  But we know the Giants have been resistant to minority HC's and QB's over their history, and that might not be a coincidence.  

The problem starts with a lack of minority OC's and QB Coaches.  Byron Leftwich is one of the few hot young names that might eventually parlay his current role into a HC role down the road.  Otherwise the pipeline is dry.  

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/01/07/the-rooney-rule-still-isnt-working/

 

The Rooney Rule (still) isn’t working

Posted by Mike Florio on January 7, 2020, 2:01 PM EST

 

To say that the Rooney Rule isn’t working is to presume that it ever did. It never truly did, at least not in the way it was intended.

Ideally, the rule requiring at least one minority candidate to be interviewed for every head-coaching vacancy will prompt owners to engage in a deliberate, patient, inclusive search, one that doesn’t have the destination selected before the journey begins. That’s not how it worked in the decades before the rule was created, and that’s definitely not how it has worked in the 18 years since the rule was put in place.

The Rooney Rule was never about forcing an owner to hire a minority candidate. It was about requiring owners to give fair consideration to a diverse set of qualified candidates before picking the next coach. But even though the league can mandate at least one interview of a minority candidate, the league can never force owners to not make decisions about the coaches they want to hire.

And so the practical value of the rule comes only from the fact that requiring interviews of at least one minority candidate per vacancy places into the media pipeline names that otherwise wouldn’t be mentioned, and gives minority candidates opportunities to get experience with the interview process. There’s value in that, although less value when (for example) the Cowboys choose to interview not an up-and-coming assistant but Marvin Lewis, who needs no boost in name recognition or job-interview experience.

Regardless of its intended purpose, the Rooney Rule has become an exercise checking a box. If that’s what it’s going to be, the requirement should be that the candidate interviewed will truly benefit from the box-checking: No NFL head-coaching experience, for example. An age or years-of-experience limit, possibly.

But it still should be something more. In a very brave move given the entity that signs his paycheck, Jim Trotter of NFL Media shared via social media this observation, via an unnamed black assistant coach: “NFL has finally shown it’s not the place for black men to advance. It’s ridiculous, it’s disgusting. We can sell tickets and make plays, but we can’t lead.”

Trotter calls the problem not a league issue but an ownership issue. But there’s no difference; the owners are the league. And the league adopted the Rooney Rule via vote of the owners.

Instead of using the threat of litigation to squeeze the league into adopting the Rooney Rule, maybe Johnnie Cochran and Cyrus Mehri should have persuaded someone to file a lawsuit alleging discrimination on the basis of race. Sometimes, that’s the only way to truly alter behavior and, more importantly, attitudes.

But that will never happen, because coaches simply want to coach. Whoever takes that stand will never coach again, at least not in the NFL.

 

 

https://foxsportsradio.iheart.com/content/2020-01-07-nfl-disgraces-rooney-rule-by-giving-token-interviews-to-black-candidates/

NFL Disgraces Rooney Rule By Giving 'Token Interviews' to Black Candidates

 

posted by Wil Leitner -  Jan 7, 2020

 

Rob Parker: “Get rid of the ‘Rooney Rule’. It’s garbage, it’s boulder dash, it’s poppycock – IT AIN’T REAL. These guys already knew who they were going to hire and they parade the black coaches past the media like a dog and pony show.”

Chris Broussard: “Do you think Dallas seriously considered Marvin Lewis?”

Rob: “NOT AT ALL. They brought him in for a cup of coffee and a sweet roll, and to take pictures and let people know ‘Marvin Lewis came to Dallas! We checked the box!’ They had no intentions of hiring Marvin Lewis and it’s embarrassing and wrong. There is no way we should be treated like that and going on token interviews that don’t matter. Years ago when I was in Detroit, the Lions were going to hire Steve Mariucci and the NFL said they couldn’t do it until they followed through with the 'Rooney Rule'. You know what they did? They called up all these black guys to interview and to their credit, NONE of them went to Detroit, because everyone in the league knew Mariucci already had the job. They didn’t want to show up to no dog and pony show to pacify some damn league rule that isn’t doing the job that it’s supposed to.”

Chris: “If I’m an African-American coach and I know I’m just being brought in to fulfill some Rooney Rules, I’m not going.” (Full Audio at Bottom of Page)

Listen to Rob Parker explain to co-host Chris Broussard why he’s not happy with the direction of the NFL’s well-known ‘Rooney Rule’ and why he believes that it has become a laughably predictable charade at this point.

The landmark rule named after former Steelers owner Dan Rooney was instituted in 2003 requiring NFL teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching jobs.

Its main goal was to make sure the league always had a handful of minority head coaches around the NFL, but the rule only requires teams to offer interviews to minority candidates.

Rob thinks many NFL teams have made a mockery of the rule and have simply checked their boxes by bringing in African-American candidates for ‘token interviews’ with no real desire of ever hiring them.

For this reason, Rob thinks it’s nothing short of disgraceful when he hears that even candidates the likes of weathered former Bengals head coach Marvin Lewis was being interviewed by the Dallas Cowboys, despite his name appearing like a complete longshot for the coveted position.

Kansas City Chiefs offensive coordinator Eric Bieniemy has been one of the top candidates for a head coaching position the last few years, but has yet to make the jump to head coach, despite countless interviews. Many believe that some of Bieniemy's interviews were offered only to suffice the 'Rooney Rule'.

Mike Tomlin of the Steelers, Anthony Lynn of the Chargers, and Ron Rivera of the Redskins are the league's only minority head coaches at the moment.

Check out the audio below as Rob says the league needs to think about getting rid of the rule altogether, and details why it’s become embarrassing to minorities at this point.

gee a dumnb rule didnt work, who would have thought doing something based on skin color was stupid. 

Coaching like everythign else should be merit based. Everyone is so concerned about race its stupid. Should teams be required now to draft at least xxx White players? its stupid. 

You can fix stupid for every todd bowles hire their is going to be Adam Gase. Neither HQ sucks because skin color it because they are bad HC..

[Jetsfan80]

6 minutes ago, JTJet said:

This is exactly the type of response that shows your own inherent bias and deeply flawed grasp of the situation. The shaming of another's viewpoint, purely to prop your own argument up. That's how a child goes about debate.

I would give you a response to the dig, but its clear you are basing your opinion off of your feelings and selective statistics and not actual facts. I'm not going to get political because I would rather this thread not get locked nor you or I get banned. 

However, anything I've stated has been purely based off of the Census and math, simple as that. My argument comes from a numbers standpoint. It is without question that the number of black coaches compared to white is exactly proportionate to the US population demographic. This isnt an opinion I just created for the sake of argument.

Would you rather a fire department have a quota of Latino men for the sake of representation, or the best fire fighters possible? How would you feel if your daughter died in a fire because the underqualified Latino firefighter failed at his job, when he got on the department simply to fill a quota? I'm actually expecting an answer to this. 

A Racial diverse Fire Department because you want equal representation, even though that means allowing underqualified candidates on the department? 

Or 

B Best firefighters for the job, regardless of demographic? 

Remember, facts dont care about your feelings. Just because something rubs you the wrong way and you dont agree with it, doesnt mean you're right. 

 

Hey while you're obsessed with the "facts", you gonna respond to @TeddEY's request for the "mountains of evidence" suggesting institutional racism doesn't exist in a country that only abandoned Jim Crow laws in 1965?

Thanks in advance.

[CTM]

59 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

My point is that this stuff occurs within boundaries which are not impenetrable, but fairly fixed.  You are able to 'work hard' at the level you're at because of some advantages you had, that other's did not.  No need to apologize for those, but you didn't start from nothing.  You're not fully self-made, and so your ability to pass those advantages on to your children through hard work is not just because of hard work.

Yes, I agree, people should focus on that, it would help.  But, that doesn't diminish that meritocracy in most of life simply isn't true.

It relates because the poster I was responding to is suggesting that everyone is where they should be because of how hard they worked/no one should be promoted for any other reasons.

Clearly we dont live in a pure meritocracy but chalking it up to luck is also reductive and I worry about the implications. There seems to be this counter narrative becomming pervasive that suggests you are stuck on your floor so to speak with little hope of moving up (econmically) which is defeating some people before they even try imo. (Why bother?) Not sure that's good for society. 

 I do believe there is still opportunity if people are willing to delay gratification and parents are thinking about giving thier kids a leg up rather than getting this years model iphone and 4k tv. Generational wealth building used to be a real phenomenon, now house hold debt increases seem to be the only thing growing as people operate in an instant gratification mindset. Consumer culture / marketing / access to debt plays a huge role here as well but culture is what we are really talking about.

Also fwiw, I grew up in the poor area of a lower middle class town, 5 people in a 2 bed room condo, single mother, alcoholic/ verbally abusive father and was a latch key kid from 4th grade on*. By any statistic I'm aware of these are all predictors of negative life outcomes (legal issues, low earnings, poor health, substance abuse issues, etc) so any successes I have or havent had are largely my own doing.

 *Obviously I'm well aware many have had it much much worse.

[LockeJET]

I'd rather have Jack Black over Gase. 

[ZachEY]

7 minutes ago, JTJet said:

Remember, facts dont care about your feelings.

So... Daily Caller.

Also, firefighter is closer to NFL player than NFL coach.  It’s not analogous here.

I asked you before for your evidence base.  Mine is empirical research, including scientific experimentation, subject to peer review.  If I’m understanding correctly, yours is proportionality to census data?

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, TeddEY said:

That my great-grandparents worked harder than yours, or vice versa, is, yes, in fact luck.  You and I did nothing at all to deserve that.

That doesn't diminish it, and it's great that it happened, but it's not your accomplishment.  It's luck that you, personally, were born into that situation.

There is no response I can craft to this that doesn't start infringing on the explicit "no politics" rules, so I'll simply respectfully disagree with your characterization, and move on.  

[BornJetsFan1983]

51 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Breitbart?

no probably just common sense

[BornJetsFan1983]

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

There is no response I can craft to this that doesn't start infringing on the explicit "no politics" rules, so I'll simply respectfully disagree with your characterization, and move on.  

lol good call. nothing you could write would help that poster anyway.

[JTJet]

7 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

Hey while you're obsessed with the "facts", you gonna respond to @TeddEY's request for the "mountains of evidence" suggesting institutional racism doesn't exist in a country that only abandoned Jim Crow laws in 1965?

Thanks in advance.

And again, dodged the question all together and called for someone to swing in and save you. 

What year is it? 2020 or 1965?

[ZachEY]

Just now, Warfish said:

There is no response I can craft to this that doesn't start infringing on the explicit "no politics" rules, so I'll simply respectfully disagree with your characterization, and move on.  

I struggle to understand the disagreement.  You believe you earned your parents, grandparents, or lineage in some way?  The biological truth, as I learned, and saw first hand by becoming a parent x2, is that two people had sex, and you came out 40 weeks later.  Whether they were good, bad, loving, honest, abusive, rich, poor, and so on, had nothing to do with you.  So, the only thing I might be missing here isn’t politics, it’s a biology lesson wherein you establish how the child has choice in his parents?

[Jetsfan80]

3 minutes ago, JTJet said:

And again, dodged the question all together and called for someone to swing in and save you. 

What year is it? 2020 or 1965?

So you're actually suggesting all the institutional racism/discrimination went away in 1965?  It was done at that point?  That's barely 2 generations away.  

And actually you're the one dodging my man.  The onus isn't on the side I'm arguing to prove it.  And even if I provided the mounds of evidence, you'd dismiss it all, so there's no point.  I'm at least willing to entertain the idea that maybe things are getting significantly better, but that's on you to prove it.

[Jetsfan80]

9 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

no probably just common sense

"Common sense" suggests there since there were clearly racist policies in this country from its founding, that there is still a lingering impact.  We didn't go from hundreds of years of Slavery to decades of Jim Crow to racism/discrimination (at both the personal and institutional level) simply dying a quick death.  "Common sense" is not on that side of the argument at all.

[Green DNA]

4 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

But this is exactly what's been happening.  If Owners really cared about this stuff, Eric Bieniemy would have a HC job right now.  He's more than qualified.  

You would think with so many black QB's, there'd be more black QB Coaches and OC's.  But that progress has been slow.  Hue Jackson, who I at least like as a person, brought this up during his hiring press conference with the Browns.  

If this was a true meritocracy there would be no complaints.  But it's very clearly not.  This stat alone that I mentioned in the first post proves that there's at least some form of bias towards white coaches in the NFL:

 

 

Bienemy has some sort of sexual assault issue in his past.  I am sure that is a concern for some owners.  

[JTJet]

8 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

So... Daily Caller.

Also, firefighter is closer to NFL player than NFL coach.  It’s not analogous here.

I asked you before for your evidence base.  Mine is empirical research, including scientific experimentation, subject to peer review.  If I’m understanding correctly, yours is proportionality to census data?

Again as someone stated before, player or coach doesnt make a difference, the basis of the argument is the same. Is the representation of coaches equal to the same demographical representation of the population of the US. The answer is yes. This isnt my opinion man lol. 

I will state it a different way. 

A - Would you rather have a racially diverse fire CHIEF, for the sake of diversity and fairness, even though he may be underqualified? 

Or 

B- A fire CHIEF that's going to make the best decisions for your fire department and save more lives?

You are on an internet forum, if I had the time to systematically get every link, to every bit of research I want to display to you, I would. Yet, it still wouldnt change your mind what so ever. 

Every bit of information I have at my disposal may or may not be worse/better than yours. We can volley back and forth for days, you wont change your mind and I dont intend to try do so. 

[CTM]

10 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

Hey while you're obsessed with the "facts", you gonna respond to @TeddEY's request for the "mountains of evidence" suggesting institutional racism doesn't exist in a country that only abandoned Jim Crow laws in 1965?

Im going to be arguing with my post above here which I think points to the complexity of these issues but a very clear and understandable case for most people can be made for the lack of ability to build generational wealth in the AA community. This directly relates to historic institutional racism and very clearly makes the path to prosperity much much harder today in the aggregate. So even if you believe that instutional racism no longer exists theres it's very obvious how its presence in the past impacts today.

Where I think we need to be careful is talking about this situation as if there is 0 mobility so why bother trying 

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, Green DNA said:

Bienemy has some sort of sexual assault issue in his past.  I am sure that is a concern for some owners.  

Thing is, Vance Joseph (also a coach at Colorado during their sexual assault scandal coming from the players) had some issues in his past too but got a HC job.  The sexual assault was coming from the players, not the coaches, but of course the coaches are responsible for oversight.

Aside from that, Bieniemy's last issues came in his freshman year of college (altercation at a bar), and a DUI in 2001.  He's had a clean record since then.  

Seems like a weak reason.  

[JTJet]

5 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

So you're actually suggesting all the institutional racism/discrimination went away in 1965?  It was done at that point?  That's barely 2 generations away.  

And actually you're the one dodging my man.  The onus isn't on the side I'm arguing to prove it.  And even if I provided the mounds of evidence, you'd dismiss it all, so there's no point.  I'm at least willing to entertain the idea that maybe things are getting significantly better, but that's on you to prove it.

So what you're saying, if I understand. 

Is that the United States hasnt moved the needle on racism in any significant way since 1965? And you want me to make an argument to prove that it has?

Correct? 

[ZachEY]

13 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

no probably just common sense

Common sense isn’t a real thing.  It’s an ambiguous construct created by biases and preconceived notions.  I can also provide receipts on this one... but yeah, I’m the one beyond help.

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, CTM said:

Im going to be arguing with my post above here which I think points to the complexity of these issues but a very clear and understandable case for most people can be made for the lack of ability to build generational wealth in the AA community. This directly relates to historic institutional racism and very clearly makes the path to prosperity much much harder today in the aggregate. So even if you believe that instutional racism no longer exists theres it's very obvious how its presence in the past impacts today.

Where I think we need to be careful is talking about this situation as if there is 0 mobility so why bother trying 

 

Yep.  I mentioned earlier in the thread the Suburban redlining, which prevented people from predominantly African American communities from obtaining favorable home loans, even while they were readily available to people in predominantly white communities.  That had a direct impact on an inability to build wealth.  

[CTM]

9 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

I struggle to understand the disagreement.  You believe you earned your parents, grandparents, or lineage in some way?  The biological truth, as I learned, and saw first hand by becoming a parent x2, is that two people had sex, and you came out 40 weeks later.  Whether they were good, bad, loving, honest, abusive, rich, poor, and so on, had nothing to do with you.  So, the only thing I might be missing here isn’t politics, it’s a biology lesson wherein you establish how the child has choice in his parents?

Depends on perspective,  no?, maybe its "luck" for the baby to be born to them (even though they are a combination of parents genes and can only be born to those parents)  but it's also a direct result of effort on the parents part and therefore they are not lucky thier kid has better opportunities than they did.

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, JTJet said:

So what you're saying, if I understand. 

Is that the United States hasnt moved the needle on racism in any significant way since 1965? And you want me to make an argument to prove that it has?

Correct? 

Neither of us are arguing over that.  We would both agree things have gotten better.  But what you're arguing is that institutional racism no longer exists.  You're basically saying racist policies went from a 10 down to a 0.  I'm saying they've gone from a 10 down to, say, a 6 or 7.  

[CTM]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

Yep.  I mentioned earlier in the thread the Suburban redlining, which prevented people from predominantly African American communities from obtaining favorable home loans, even while they were readily available to people in predominantly white communities.  That had a direct impact on an inability to build wealth.  

Theres a million such examples. You have to be willfully ignorant to ignore it 

[JTJet]

2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Neither of us are arguing over that.  We would both agree things have gotten better.  But what you're arguing is that institutional racism no longer exists.  You're basically saying racist policies went from a 10 down to a 0.  I'm saying they've gone from a 10 down to, say, a 6 or 7.  

Please re-read our conversation. Not only am I saying institutional racism doesn't exist, its quite the opposite in this day of age and the Rooney Rule itself is an exact example of that. Racism doesnt see color. Yet theres a rule explicitly stating minorities must be interviewed, which in itself is racist. 

Companies bend over backwards to ensure racial/sexual harrassment doesnt happen in the workforce this day in age, and immediately weed out anyone that comes remotely close to doing so. The threat of litigation is too high. 

And again, you didnt answer the fire fighter question because you know the example proves your flawed logic. 

I'm never going to change your mind, so as WarFish said earlier, we are going to have to agree to disagree. 

[Jetsfan80]

13 minutes ago, CTM said:

Theres a million such examples. You have to be willfully ignorant to ignore it 

And you just described about a third of the people posting in this thread.  It's all just willful ignorance based on an unwillingness to deal with an uncomfortable topic.  With side helping of cognitive dissonance and symbolic penis.  

[ZachEY]

30 minutes ago, JTJet said:

Again as someone stated before, player or coach doesnt make a difference, the basis of the argument is the same. Is the representation of coaches equal to the same demographical representation of the population of the US. The answer is yes. This isnt my opinion man lol. 

I will state it a different way. 

A - Would you rather have a racially diverse fire CHIEF, for the sake of diversity and fairness, even though he may be underqualified? 

Or 

B- A fire CHIEF that's going to make the best decisions for your fire department and save more lives?

You are on an internet forum, if I had the time to systematically get every link, to every bit of research I want to display to you, I would. Yet, it still wouldnt change your mind what so ever. 

Every bit of information I have at my disposal may or may not be worse/better than yours. We can volley back and forth for days, you wont change your mind and I dont intend to try do so. 

But people involved in football is not demographically mirrored to the census, nor are the people deciding who will rise.  The point may be best illustrated by 80s data suggesting that a white HC is 2x as likely as a black HC to get a 2nd chance.

As for the Fire Chief, it’s still the wrong question.  I’m not arguing pro-quota, nor pro-Rooney rule.  I want the best fire chief.  What I’m arguing, which I tried very hard to both thoroughly and politely engage you in in the 1st post I responded to you, is that the question of who’s the best fire chief is subject to a number of biases which will afford some better opportunities to prove they are the best Fire Chief than others.  Again, no one is saying the black guy is the best candidate, but I won’t hire him.  They’re not giving the black guy the same opportunity to become or prove he’s the best candidate.  I struggle to understand why anyone would think this is impossible, especially in a group of 70-year-old rich white men.

Lastly, I am very open to changing my mind.  To me, the highest form of intelligence is the ability to learn and adapt as new information becomes available.  So, good data would compel me.  But, my ‘views’ are formed on this topic, as on others, with information that is empirically based, often peer reviewed, and holds up to criticism.  It’s not formed on opinion pieces masquerading as fact.  So, again, I LOVE to learn, so I have no problem being proven wrong, if someone has the receipts, but the bar is high, because I actually do my homework.

[ZachEY]

18 minutes ago, CTM said:

Depends on perspective,  no?, maybe its "luck" for the baby to be born to them (even though they are a combination of parents genes and can only be born to those parents)  but it's also a direct result of effort on the parents part and therefore they are not lucky thier kid has better opportunities than they did.

We’re not talking about the parents.  The conversation is about advantages conferred at birth.  You are lucky to have those which you have.

[Jetsfan80]

6 minutes ago, JTJet said:

Please re-read our conversation. Not only am I saying institutional racism doesn't exist, its quite the opposite in this day of age and the Rooney Rule itself is an exact example of that. Racism doesnt see color. Yet theres a rule explicitly stating minorities must be interviewed, which in itself is racist. 

Companies bend over backwards to ensure racial/sexual harrassment doesnt happen in the workforce this day in age, and immediately weed out anyone that comes remotely close to doing so. The threat of litigation is too high. 

And again, you didnt answer the fire fighter question because you know the example proves your flawed logic. 

I'm never going to change your mind, so as WarFish said earlier, we are going to have to agree to disagree. 

 

The Rooney Rule isn't racist.  Giving a minority coach an interview doesn't block a white coach from getting the job.  And the numbers back that up.  

The Rooney Rule was created to avoid litigation.  That doesn't mean it overturned discriminatory practices/biases.  They just go further underground.  There's always ways to be discriminatory/biased without getting in trouble for doing so.  

The fire chief question was directed to EY, not me if I'm not mistaken.  But I'll answer it:

 

A - Would you rather have a racially diverse fire CHIEF, for the sake of diversity and fairness, even though he may be underqualified? 

Or 

B- A fire CHIEF that's going to make the best decisions for your fire department and save more lives?

 

I choose B.  But that doesn't factor in all of the variables.  What if there are unwritten policies/biases in place preventing firefighters of color from getting the opportunity to prove themselves and move up the ladder (no pun intended) to, say, Assistant Fire Chief?  If those practices are proven to be taking place, then you're never rarely going to have a situation where the firefighter of color as the experience, resources and training necessary to BECOME a fire chief in the first place.  

THAT'S what we're talking about here.  There are unwritten biases in place that prevent a pipeline of black/minority QB Coaches and OC's.  

[Jetsfan80]

3 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

 the question of who’s the best fire chief is subject to a number of biases which will afford some better opportunities to prove they are the best Fire Chief than others.

 

F*cking ninja'd

[ZachEY]

2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

and move up the ladder (no pun intended) to, say, Assistant Fire Chief? 

[T0mShane]

59 minutes ago, JTJet said:

This is exactly the type of response that shows your own inherent bias and deeply flawed grasp of the situation. The shaming of another's viewpoint, purely to prop your own argument up. That's how a child goes about debate.

Yeah but Breitbart?