- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Rooney Rule
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:14 pm to Rocket
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:14 pm to Rocket
Sure, you assume that if you see a crowd of a couple hundred low income people in an area with a few hundred thousand people of diverse income and education levels, you're getting a good representation. That's on you, and your point of view is extremely skewed. You assume that black people are monolithic, and that a certain image portrayed on television is an accurate depiction of us. Well, here's a news flash: you're wrong. So please refrain from telling a black person how black people think.
1
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:19 pm to StrongSafety
your personal experiences do not separate fact from fiction.
Please read for your enjoyment and education:
Grutter v. Bollinger - Supreme Court allowed University of Michigan to use race to create a more diverse Law School by accepting minority applicants who were less qualified than majority applicants solely because they were minorities. This does not mean that they weren't qualified for the school. But, it means that the school was able to deny admittance to a more qualified person, solely because that person was white.
Gratz v. Bollinger - a federal judge ruled that the use of race as a factor in admissions at the University of Michigan undergraduate program was constitutional.
United States v. Paradise - Alabama Department of Public Safety is forced by Supreme Court that for every white hired or promoted, one black would also be hired or promoted until at least 25% of the upper ranks of the department were composed of blacks.
I don't have time to list every occurrence in the history of America where an African American that was less qualified was given the spot of a white person. It would take too long. But, these are federal rulings which have allowed it. Can you stop acting like it hasn't happened in the past and still isn't happening?
Please read for your enjoyment and education:
Grutter v. Bollinger - Supreme Court allowed University of Michigan to use race to create a more diverse Law School by accepting minority applicants who were less qualified than majority applicants solely because they were minorities. This does not mean that they weren't qualified for the school. But, it means that the school was able to deny admittance to a more qualified person, solely because that person was white.
Gratz v. Bollinger - a federal judge ruled that the use of race as a factor in admissions at the University of Michigan undergraduate program was constitutional.
United States v. Paradise - Alabama Department of Public Safety is forced by Supreme Court that for every white hired or promoted, one black would also be hired or promoted until at least 25% of the upper ranks of the department were composed of blacks.
I don't have time to list every occurrence in the history of America where an African American that was less qualified was given the spot of a white person. It would take too long. But, these are federal rulings which have allowed it. Can you stop acting like it hasn't happened in the past and still isn't happening?
This post was edited on 1/2/11 at 10:24 pm
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:20 pm to Sophandros
quote:
Sure, you assume that if you see a crowd of a couple hundred low income people in an area with a few hundred thousand people of diverse income and education levels, you're getting a good representation.
Incorrect.
quote:
That's on you, and your point of view is extremely skewed
You are entitled to your opinion.
So, you speak for all blacks now?
quote:
You assume that black people are monolithic, and that a certain image portrayed on television is an accurate depiction of us.
No, I don't. You are just silly now. I even said earlier in the thread that there was to be sure folks outside of New York or Chicago who don't give a damn about either. And there are a lot of folks outside of New York and Chicago that are black.
quote:
Well, here's a news flash: you're wrong. So please refrain from telling a black person how black people think.
The problem is not me. The problem is that you are defensive and you think I'm arguing something that I'm not arguing and I know that but you don't know that.
You still up for calling Sharpton's radio show and telling him that he doesn't care about blacks?
This post was edited on 1/2/11 at 10:22 pm
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:22 pm to Sophandros
quote:
So you are assuming that minority candidates who receive interviews aren't qualified...
No, I'm stating that there is a white guy just as qualified as that minority candidate that the NFL team is not forced to interview.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:25 pm to Sophandros
quote:
No, YOU are assuming that any minority hired is less qualified than all other white potential hires. That's the basis behind all of these debates. shite, look a few posts above. Look at your own post. YOU are assuming that someone is being interviewed solely because of their race and that the white guy (who is not prohibited from being interviewed) is automatically more qualified. That's not the Rooney Rule's fault. It's your own perception.
Yep, if they were consistent they'd suspect all white people of being legacies. The only way to stop that perception is to do away with legacy admissions in colleges.
/cue excuses saying butbutbut that's different.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:25 pm to hashtag
THEY DON'T HAVE TO HIRE ANYONE, WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THIS IMPORTANT AND OBVIOUS POINT?
Honestly? It's an interview
Honestly? It's an interview
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:27 pm to LSUZombie
quote:
I think it is a little rediculous
Rediculous is not a word FWIW FYI.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:29 pm to Sophandros
quote:
Sharpton and Jackson don't care about blacks. They only care about lining their own pockets. In fact, most blacks don't give a frick about either of those guys--the only people who ever mention them and what they say are certain groups of whites...
Soph I'm black and I can't recall the last time any of my family or friends every brought up the name Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, NAACP, etc. I think the last time it was brought up was the Jena 6 case if that. lol. Now I've seen and heard whites mention those names almost every week.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:30 pm to LfcSU3520
quote:
THEY DON'T HAVE TO HIRE ANYONE, WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THIS IMPORTANT AND OBVIOUS POINT?
Honestly? It's an interview
Because. Someone is getting an advantage at getting a job over someone of another race, solely because they are a minority.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:33 pm to hashtag
then that should sort itself out in the interview process and not be an issue. Pretty simple.
If you were going to interview 5 white coaches, now you schedule 6 interviews. You can still hire whoever you want. Why is this an issue again?
If you were going to interview 5 white coaches, now you schedule 6 interviews. You can still hire whoever you want. Why is this an issue again?
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:37 pm to LfcSU3520
quote:
then that should sort itself out in the interview process and not be an issue. Pretty simple.
If you were going to interview 5 white coaches, now you schedule 6 interviews. You can still hire whoever you want. Why is this an issue again?
It is an issue because it is unnecessary. If the black candidate is as equally qualified, then the team should have the same option to interview or not interview him, regardless of race. Not every qualified person deserves an interview. And, one definitely doesn't deserve one just because he is a different color than another man.
This post was edited on 1/2/11 at 10:38 pm
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:41 pm to bayou2003
quote:
Soph I'm black and I can't recall the last time any of my family or friends every brought up the name Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, NAACP, etc
That would mean something if someone had asserted that 100 percent of blacks gave a damn about them. But, I don't recall anyone suggesting that.
But, this implicit notion that Jackson and Sharpton don't have much sway among black America that some of your fellow brothers have perpetuated just doesn't hold up when you consider the activities that both engage in on an annual basis. And Jackson and Sharpton have been doing what they have been doing for a while, Jackson a little bit longer. The problem is that some folks perhaps get a little defensive when a white person talks about Jackson or Sharpton, as if being a fan of one or either is something to be ashamed of and it's really not because there's no telling how many people have jobs because of them.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:45 pm to hashtag
quote:
Someone is getting an advantage at getting a job over someone of another race, solely because they are a minority.
Because that one race hasn't been getting the jobs, for whatever reason. You appear to be someone who is going to try to get folks to prove black coaches have been getting passed over because of their race. For those us not in the NFL, it's hard to say why. We can't prove it.
Why do you think blacks had such a hard time getting jobs up until the past decade? Is it because blacks just can't coach and the NFL teams were justified in not hiring blacks? Because surely it's not because blacks didn't want to be head coaches. I know you won't go there.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:52 pm to hashtag
quote:
, I'm stating that there is a white guy just as qualified as that minority candidate that the NFL team is not forced to interview.
If a white guy who is equally qualified doesn't get interviewed, that's the fault of the leadership of the organization. I don't know there is any limits on how many interviews you can have. As far as I know, there are none. So, it's not the fault of the Rooney Rule if an equally qualified white guy doesn't get an interview. The people who do the interviews are to blame. Your argument doesn't hold up.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:53 pm to hashtag
quote:
the black candidate is as equally qualified, then the team should have the same option to interview or not interview him, regardless of race
As far as I know, they do have that option.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:54 pm to tigermike5
quote:
nah the rooney rule is only 7 years old and the nfl saw it as a problem that black coaches werent getting interviewed so the rule was put in place.
and from 79-03 there were only 7 black head coaches.
as of this year there have been 7 black coaches that have been the head coach at some point in this season. so, it seems like the interview process is working.
Seems like nobody wants to touch that. Out of ALL the teams that kept firing and hiring coaches only 7 black coaches were given the chance during that time period to become a head coach even though they've been assistants and former players just like their white counterparts. And believe me there's been A LOT of terrible teams during that time span. Like the person said it's about getting the chance at being INTERVIEWED and trying to move up instead of getting skipped over and over and over.
Hell I'm having a hard time naming them. Dennis Green, Art Shell, Herm Edwards, Tony Dungy, can't think of the others. Trying not to go to google.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:55 pm to Rocket
quote:
Because that one race hasn't been getting the jobs, for whatever reason. You appear to be someone who is going to try to get folks to prove black coaches have been getting passed over because of their race. For those us not in the NFL, it's hard to say why. We can't prove it.
Why do you think blacks had such a hard time getting jobs up until the past decade? Is it because blacks just can't coach and the NFL teams were justified in not hiring blacks? Because surely it's not because blacks didn't want to be head coaches. I know you won't go there.
They may have been an issue in the past, but it is not anymore.
In regards to the Supreme Court ruling I linked earlier, O'Connor noted that sometime in the future, perhaps twenty-five years from now, racial affirmative action would no longer be necessary in order to promote diversity. It was implied that affirmative action should not be allowed permanent status and that eventually a "colorblind" policy should be implemented. The opinion read, "race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time."
I believe that the NFL has reached the point where they can limit or remove the Rooney Rule.
And, with a black president, more blacks getting degrees than ever, and more blacks getting high level positions at all companies in America, affirmative action needs to disappear.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:56 pm to Rocket
quote:
As far as I know, they do have that option.
No. They have to interview a black guy. So, even though Jerry Jones may think that Jason Garrett is the most qualified person for his job, he's going to be forced to interview a black candidate, regardless of his qualifications.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:56 pm to hashtag
quote:
They may have been an issue in the past, but it is not anymore.
There's no reason to discontinue the rule. And whether or not you like it, no matter how much of a problem you have with blacks getting interviews, the rule is not going anywhere.
quote:
believe that the NFL has reached the point where they can limit or remove the Rooney Rule.
If you don't have a problem with blacks being interviewed, the rule shouldn't bother you.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 10:57 pm to Rocket
quote:
If a white guy who is equally qualified doesn't get interviewed, that's the fault of the leadership of the organization.
I could just as easily say...
quote:
If a black guy who is equally qualified doesn't get interviewed, that's the fault of the leadership of the organization.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News