Comments

1. deb wrote:

   I just heard about this at another site. (Like Marvin said, Oh, make me wanna holler
   And throw up both my hands.) Universities are supposed to be institutions of higher learning. These losers are just wasting their time there, and taking up space.

   Posted 31 Jan 2007 at 12:14 pm ¶

2. Just Wondering wrote:

   I disagree with Diversity Inc.’s position on the Super Bowl and affirmative action.

   The NFL is a private enterprise that was pressured by a core consumer group — African-Americans — to improve its hiring practices.

   In response to the marketplace, the NFL instituted an organizational rule that simply states teams must interview minority candidates.

   It doesn’t dictate that they hire X number of minorities, or that the league as a whole has to have a certain percentage of black coaches.

   It was simply a move to open the window of opportunity for talented, experienced black coaches so that they win jobs on their own merits.

   And it was done publicly, to ensure that everyone knew what was expected of the teams.

   Once that window was open, the best minority coaches were hired and they will continue to be hired, as will new coaches who enter the league and gain the requisite skill and experience.

   We are also seeing this trend extend to positions such as general manager and other front office positions.

   Yes, that window had to pried open. It often does in these kinds of situations. But the NFL’s approach is preferable to mandated diversity.

   Posted 31 Jan 2007 at 12:51 pm ¶

3. bertie wrote:

   Just wondering—I don’t see your point. The Rooney Rule in the NFL mandates diversity in the interview process. Surely, time and money spent interviewing a black coach means less resources spent on recruiting a qualified white coach (this displacement of resources is a common argument against Affirm. Action). So, I don’t see how this rule is fundamentally different from other affirmative action programs. You seem to be distinguishing the procedural aspects of the Rooney rule versus the procedural aspects of a college campuses’ or a business’ diversity policies. But it seems like you agree with the underlying philosphy behind affirmative action programs–as you seem to support the Rooney Rule and its outcome. Which is all I took from the Diversity Inc. piece–basically the underlying philosphy behind Affirm. Action programs is correct, and these programs can, and in the case of the NFL, have openned opportunities to qualified minority candiates to show and prove their talent.

   Posted 31 Jan 2007 at 2:36 pm ¶

4. Just Wondering wrote:

   My point is that the NFL is achieving diversity in its coaching and managerial ranks without government mandate or rules that stipulate what percentage of jobholders must be minority.

   That’s a far cry from what Diversity Inc. seemed to be promoting — the idea of different standards or specified quotas for minority students at universities in states such as Texas and California.

   When the government attempts to “socially engineer” diversity, everyone gets hurt — the deserving who are left out, and the undeserving who are accepted.

   If you look at the NFL’s situation closely, head coaches had no problems hiring black assistants and giving them responsibility and authority. It was the team owners who failed to follow through. Tweaking the interview rule forced the owners to finally consider this large pool of qualified talent for head coaching jobs.

   If that situation were similarly applied to universities, you would have thousands of high performing minority students who were being kept out of colleges.

   But the flip side is true — there aren’t enough minority students (not counting Asian-Americans) with the qualifications to get accepted. In other words, while you might not think college diversity is where it should be, it’s not because the schools aren’t looking hard enough.

   Posted 31 Jan 2007 at 4:14 pm ¶

5. bertie wrote:

   So you’re problem is when the Government imposes an affirmative action program versus when the threat of a private lawsuit by Johnnie Cochrane (and all the potential negative press from that) forces the NFL to institute the policy.

   Again, the distinctions you make don’t challenge the underlying principles supporting affirmative action–you’re merely critiquing the manner in which the affirmative action policy came about. Ward Connerlly argues against the principles of AA, and this article merely points to an affirmative action success story as a counter to his point of view.

   And more to the point, the AA policies in Texas, Michigan, and California were not imposed by the government. The schools voluntarily chose to adopt their policies. It is private lawsuits and ballot initiatives led by Mr. Connerlly and his ilk which challenge these AA policies. Tellingly, there are no challenges to or “repeals” of state or federal laws requiring such AA policies at those schools–because they do not exist. So again, I don’t understand how the NFL’s volutary policy requiring teams to have an interview quota of at least 1 black coach is any different from the school’s voluntary AA policies.

   you said, ” When the government attempts to “socially engineer” diversity, everyone gets hurt — the deserving who are left out, and the undeserving who are accepted.”

   See above regarding the whole “government social engineering thing.” Again, this story debunks the myth that the “undeserving” benefit from Affirm. Action. No matter how you want to dress it up–the Rooney Rule is an affirmative action policy. The fact that it has successfully lead to 2 coaches reaching the pinnacle of success in the NFL just goes to show that DEserving folks benefit from AA.

   *****If that situation were similarly applied to universities, you would have thousands of high performing minority students who were being kept out of colleges. “******

   Um…thats exactly what happened in this country and why Affirm. Action was instituted in the first place.

   It seems like you are really trying hard to cast the clearly succesful Rooney Rule as something other than the affirmative action policy it is, in order to keep in tact whatever arguments you have against such AA policies.

   Posted 31 Jan 2007 at 6:00 pm ¶

6. Chetly Zarko wrote:

   First, Tony Dungee was a head coach BEFORE THE ROONEY RULE WAS IMPLEMENTED. Hence, he needed no assistance whatsoever. Lovie Smith was actually a Dungy assistant, and it is arguable that the Rooney rule helped him (and arguable it did not).

   Most importantly, the Rooney Rule may be “affirmative action,” but it is not “preferential” in the way it awards the position. It is essentially “outreach” on steroids – no preference, unlike the university type and commonly illegal form, is given to the candidate in the actual selection, only a guarantee of access to the interview process. Connerly opposed the rule because it may go pretty far down the road symbolically, and its implementation awfully subject to “tokenism,” (witness the Detroit Lions selection of Steve Mariucci in 2003 – a situation where the timing was obvious and where at least two African American candidates REFUSED interviews because they knew they were not logical candidates for the position [and who'd want the Lion's position anyway?], yet they were invited only because of the Rooney rule, and the Lions were punished because they didn’t actually force/deceive one of the black candidates into a meaningless interview). As such, it is not obvious that the Connerly-led initiatives would ban a Rooney-like rule in state government. It depends onthe operation of the preference.

   Regardless, it is extremely unfair to Tony Dungy especially, and even to Smith, to say he needed affirmative action. It’s a group of people who profit off the “diversity” business who know little about football manipulating facts.

   Posted 01 Feb 2007 at 2:53 am ¶

7. Colin wrote:

   I think this is a policy of affirmative action because it follows the spirit of giving minorities unaccustomed to being even considered a chance at employment. The policymakers, in this case, the commish, from what I know, have indeed mandated this rule and enforced it with stiff fines. If we do consider it an AA policy, and we consider the black coaches employed after its institution, like Lovie Smith, Marvin Lewis, and Romeo Crennel to be experienced, talented head coaches, then why wouldn’t the NFL’s AA policy be considered a success? It gave talented minority candidates a foot in the door, and now they’re making the most of it. I think it’s cause for raucus celebration. With pizza.

   Posted 01 Feb 2007 at 9:23 pm ¶

8. Sewere wrote:

   Just Wondering said,

   the When the government attempts to “socially engineer” diversity, everyone gets hurt — the deserving who are left out, and the undeserving who are accepted

   and

   there aren’t enough minority students (not counting Asian-Americans) with the qualifications to get accepted.

   Every now and then someone trots out the zero-sum misrepresentation of Affirmative Action. What’s even more offensive is using the term undeserving to describe students (from resource limited schools who are predominantly black, Latino, Vietnamese and Native American) I’ve tutored and see work their asses off to get into schools (even State owned schools such as Berkeley and UCLA whose mission it is to educate ALL Californians) that award free admission points (aka, the other affirmative action programs) to students who have the advantages of AP courses, sports that are predominantly upper class and white, and having a parent as an alumni.

   Given the leanings of your recent postings, I don’t think there’s much else to discuss but I will direct you to Addicted To Race’s episode on admission policies.

   Also, for an indepth understanding of how Affirmative Action was actually implemented please see USC’s IJJ’s recently released report. Hint: Grades aren’t the only things that get you into college.

   Posted 01 Feb 2007 at 10:20 pm ¶

9. Chetly Zarko wrote:

   Sewere,

   You write:

   What’s even more offensive is using the term undeserving to describe students (from resource limited schools who are predominantly black, Latino, Vietnamese and Native American)…

   If your beef is “resource limited schools”, why not race-neutral socio-economic affirmative action, rather than racial preference. 86% of racial preference goes to wealthier, suburban minorities, doing nothing for those you are concerned about. Don’t use race as a proxy for economic disparity. Since there are disportionate numbers of minorities in economic disparity, economic measures would have a side-effect of disportionate help to those races, but be self-correcting if that imbalance ever changed. And its legal, and ethical.

   Posted 16 Feb 2007 at 3:04 am ¶