Quote: @jargomcfargo said:
@ Waterboy said:
@ jargomcfargo said:
It's about opportunity. Black ownership would be a good start toward achieving the diversity the NFL desires.
Affirmative action rules don't seem to be very effective but you have to start someplace. Like it or not, it's the right thing to do.
Source??
History.
So, you have nothing?
Quote: @medaille said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ medaille said:
There's no requirement to interview women. They have to hire from the pool of minorities, of which women are now included. So in practicality, there's probably not going to be much difference given the small pool of women coaches, but if you do interview a woman, you just have to interview one less person based on race or skin color.
Forgive me for not reading the article lol......teams are "forced" to hire from the pool of minorities?
Isn't that the definition of the token black guy?
edit....no shit. They have to hire someone for the color of their skin. So in the 2040's when white people are no longer the majority, do we qualify for all these minority programs?
I must have been without enough coffee this morning. They are forced to have at least one minority assistant coach on the offensive side of the ball. That is new. They are forced to at least interview a certain number of minorities (I think 2) before making a hire for high level coaches. This is the same as it's always been, it's just now they can include women to meet the requirement for interviewing a certain number of minorities before hiring.
Correct. I might have quoted the wrong post. But the tread went into ownership. You can’t get ownership to whatever diversity level you want without said diverse candidates having the resources to purchase a hypothetical franchise.
Quote: @Waterboy said:
@ jargomcfargo said:
@ Waterboy said:
@ jargomcfargo said:
It's about opportunity. Black ownership would be a good start toward achieving the diversity the NFL desires.
Affirmative action rules don't seem to be very effective but you have to start someplace. Like it or not, it's the right thing to do.
Source??
History.
So, you have nothing?
Yes, links from Brietbart or FoxNews trumps history.
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Whatever happened to just hiring the best person for the job (regardless of anything) without having to worry about being branded as a racist or bigot? The NFL is now telling teams they MUST hire a female or minority candidate to work a coaching position that works closely with the head coach. I'm sure that will go over great in the coaching community.
Because you can't trust corporations/teams to do that. You act like its common sense and is happening. It isn't. Bias comes into play. So you have horseshit rules like this one. Yes, I don't agree with forcing anyone to do anything like this in principle. But its been proven time and again certain peoples will be prejudiced against time and again if you don't enact these kinds of rules. How do you explain women doing exactly the same job as men and getting paid less? The explanation is because there is inherent bias. And who gives a shit what the coaching community thinks? They'll adapt.
Again, I don't like rules like this. Because IMO for sure some women that don't necessarily deserve it will get hired to fill the quota. But if you don't think that some white men that get these opportunities also don't deserve it over black candidates, you're fooling yourself. So now they enact rules that I hate because of this. Give them a shot.
What statistical data or evidence can you point to that supports racist or bigoted hiring practices are going on in the NFL today?
It's not racism or bigotry the NFL is trying to defeat. It's preconceptions, prejudgements. Something we're all guilty of to one degree or another.
Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ Waterboy said:
@ jargomcfargo said:
@ Waterboy said:
@ jargomcfargo said:
It's about opportunity. Black ownership would be a good start toward achieving the diversity the NFL desires.
Affirmative action rules don't seem to be very effective but you have to start someplace. Like it or not, it's the right thing to do.
Source??
History.
So, you have nothing?
Yes, links from Brietbart or FoxNews trumps history.
There you go.... LOL So if we're going to fix these management issues for one race through specialized quotas, are we going to make sure that whites, Latinos (larger % of population than blacks) and especially white women are proportionately represented on the playing field as well? Seems there is a large and disproportionate number of millionaires running around on the field each Sunday that are not representative of those races / genders. How about transgenders, shouldn't they be represented as well?
Yeah, let's get rid of this thread
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Whatever happened to just hiring the best person for the job (regardless of anything) without having to worry about being branded as a racist or bigot? The NFL is now telling teams they MUST hire a female or minority candidate to work a coaching position that works closely with the head coach. I'm sure that will go over great in the coaching community.
Because you can't trust corporations/teams to do that. You act like its common sense and is happening. It isn't. Bias comes into play. So you have horseshit rules like this one. Yes, I don't agree with forcing anyone to do anything like this in principle. But its been proven time and again certain peoples will be prejudiced against time and again if you don't enact these kinds of rules. How do you explain women doing exactly the same job as men and getting paid less? The explanation is because there is inherent bias. And who gives a shit what the coaching community thinks? They'll adapt.
Again, I don't like rules like this. Because IMO for sure some women that don't necessarily deserve it will get hired to fill the quota. But if you don't think that some white men that get these opportunities also don't deserve it over black candidates, you're fooling yourself. So now they enact rules that I hate because of this. Give them a shot.
What statistical data or evidence can you point to that supports racist or bigoted hiring practices are going on in the NFL today?
It's not racism or bigotry the NFL is trying to defeat. It's preconceptions, prejudgements. Something we're all guilty of to one degree or another.
I know, and what better way then to require all teams to hire a token black guy. I bet that other guy that missed out on the position will have zero resentment.
Quote: @medaille said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ medaille said:
There's no requirement to interview women. They have to hire from the pool of minorities, of which women are now included. So in practicality, there's probably not going to be much difference given the small pool of women coaches, but if you do interview a woman, you just have to interview one less person based on race or skin color.
Forgive me for not reading the article lol......teams are "forced" to hire from the pool of minorities?
Isn't that the definition of the token black guy?
edit....no shit. They have to hire someone for the color of their skin. So in the 2040's when white people are no longer the majority, do we qualify for all these minority programs?
I must have been without enough coffee this morning. They are forced to have at least one minority assistant coach on the offensive side of the ball. That is new. They are forced to at least interview a certain number of minorities (I think 2) before making a hire for high level coaches. This is the same as it's always been, it's just now they can include women to meet the requirement for interviewing a certain number of minorities before hiring.
Interestingly the forced one minority coach on the Offensive side is paid out of a league fund not the individual team ownership. Goodell now has a little more power..great but he is nothing but a water boy to ownership anyway. I really think this a way for ownership to save some face in the midst of the Flores debacle. Notice how fast the whole Gruden thing disappeared with all the connections to the Redskins/Snyder who is also known for very bad behavior (mostly against women). This is a Billionaires club that is very adept at PR that makes you look over there while they are operating for their own benefit over here  Sleight of hand and a twist of fate - U2
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Whatever happened to just hiring the best person for the job (regardless of anything) without having to worry about being branded as a racist or bigot? The NFL is now telling teams they MUST hire a female or minority candidate to work a coaching position that works closely with the head coach. I'm sure that will go over great in the coaching community.
Because you can't trust corporations/teams to do that. You act like its common sense and is happening. It isn't. Bias comes into play. So you have horseshit rules like this one. Yes, I don't agree with forcing anyone to do anything like this in principle. But its been proven time and again certain peoples will be prejudiced against time and again if you don't enact these kinds of rules. How do you explain women doing exactly the same job as men and getting paid less? The explanation is because there is inherent bias. And who gives a shit what the coaching community thinks? They'll adapt.
Again, I don't like rules like this. Because IMO for sure some women that don't necessarily deserve it will get hired to fill the quota. But if you don't think that some white men that get these opportunities also don't deserve it over black candidates, you're fooling yourself. So now they enact rules that I hate because of this. Give them a shot.
What statistical data or evidence can you point to that supports racist or bigoted hiring practices are going on in the NFL today?
It's not racism or bigotry the NFL is trying to defeat. It's preconceptions, prejudgements. Something we're all guilty of to one degree or another.
I know, and what better way then to require all teams to hire a token black guy. I bet that other guy that missed out on the position will have zero resentment.
People have been saying such things for 70 years. But we never get anywhere unless we challenge our preconceptions.
Let me give you an example. I hired a designer a couple years ago. 5 or 6 resumes were filtered through HR. I dismissed one without even looking at her book because, based on when she graduated college, I knew she was older. My unwitting assumption was that an older designer couldn't give me that fresh, edgy kind of design my team was looking for. I interviewed the others. Unimpressed, I brought her in. She blew me away, I hired her and she's been my best designer ever since.
What I did was bullshit. And wrong. It's why companies put measures in place to avoid this kind of discrimination. We all discriminate. All the time. Based on age, gender, race, religion, politics, disability, the minivan in the left lane with the Trump sticker....hell, even the sound of one's name. I'm for whatever measures can help us challenge our preconceptions and help us determine the best candidate regardless of those factors.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Whatever happened to just hiring the best person for the job (regardless of anything) without having to worry about being branded as a racist or bigot? The NFL is now telling teams they MUST hire a female or minority candidate to work a coaching position that works closely with the head coach. I'm sure that will go over great in the coaching community.
Because you can't trust corporations/teams to do that. You act like its common sense and is happening. It isn't. Bias comes into play. So you have horseshit rules like this one. Yes, I don't agree with forcing anyone to do anything like this in principle. But its been proven time and again certain peoples will be prejudiced against time and again if you don't enact these kinds of rules. How do you explain women doing exactly the same job as men and getting paid less? The explanation is because there is inherent bias. And who gives a shit what the coaching community thinks? They'll adapt.
Again, I don't like rules like this. Because IMO for sure some women that don't necessarily deserve it will get hired to fill the quota. But if you don't think that some white men that get these opportunities also don't deserve it over black candidates, you're fooling yourself. So now they enact rules that I hate because of this. Give them a shot.
What statistical data or evidence can you point to that supports racist or bigoted hiring practices are going on in the NFL today?
It's not racism or bigotry the NFL is trying to defeat. It's preconceptions, prejudgements. Something we're all guilty of to one degree or another.
I know, and what better way then to require all teams to hire a token black guy. I bet that other guy that missed out on the position will have zero resentment.
People have been saying such things for 70 years. But we never get anywhere unless we challenge our preconceptions.
Let me give you an example. I hired a designer a couple years ago. 5 or 6 resumes were filtered through HR. I dismissed one without even looking at her book because, based on when she graduated college, I knew she was older. My unwitting assumption was that an older designer couldn't give me that fresh, edgy kind of design my team was looking for. I interviewed the others. Unimpressed, I brought her in. She blew me away, I hired her and she's been my best designer ever since.
What I did was bullshit. And wrong. It's why companies put measures in place to avoid this kind of discrimination. We all discriminate. All the time. Based on age, gender, race, religion, politics, disability, the minivan in the left lane with the Trump sticker....hell, even the sound of one's name. I'm for whatever measures can help us challenge our preconceptions and help us determine the best candidate regardless of those factors.
I agree with you, you are guilty of being sexist and judgmental in this case, and it is probably something you need to address on an individual level by getting some type of help to deal with your personal issue. It's not something I have done in the past as I have always made sure to at least phone screen any candidate with qualifications that meet the criteria of what I'm looking for. I also try to involve others in the process and ask them pointedly to give me their opinions candidly. In environment where I have gained my team's trust, the issue of who to hire has almost always ended with a nice diverse team with diverse talents. You can pass every dam law in the book, but they tend to screw over others because no law can be written specifically enough to not end up screwing over somebody. There are many white males being left behind because laws such as these have went overboard, and it's now cool to put it to the white man. That doesn't work over the long-term and we'll see just how popular this crap has been come November. People can only be screwed over so much. Once again, are we also going to level the field of "millionaires" in the player pool that are disproportionately not white? Aren't white men, females, and even Native Americans underrepresented on the playing field? It has proven over time not to work when you're punishing people due to their race and most of these actions today have taken on the form of doing just that. Cherry picking management jobs in the NFL may be an easy target. Unfortunately, it's far from the only one, and other attempts have went off the deep end in terms of supposedly being "fair". Look at the Ivy League swimming results as the extreme in this case. lol
|
