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

There's that issue of media relations as well. With his decision to stop talking to the media would not be a fit for HC.

It's worked for Billacheat in N.E.

There's that issue of media relations as well. With his decision to stop talking to the media would not be a fit for HC.

True. That was after the "interview" though, from what I recall

I suppose its possible the report could be referring to blache interviewing for the interim coach position; however, i didnt think that coaches usually "interview" for interim positions. in addition, don't minority candidates have to sign some form indicating they felt the interview was "legitimate" in order for the rooney rule to be satisfied? Don't get me wrong - i want Shanahan as our next coach, and I undertand that if Snyder wants Shanahan, he's got to move fast in order to secure him, but this whole thing just smells fishy to me.

I wonerer if Snyder promised to get Shanahan to retain the majority of the defensive coaching staff if Blache agreed to do a sham interview. Blache seems to be eyeing retirement, but maybe he did this to help Jerry Gray and the rest of his coaching staff. Either that or Snyder just bought him another fancy gun.

Whether or not Blache's interview seems real or not, I'm satisfied with it. You can't force the owner to be serious about the interviews, you just hope they would. I think the Rooney Rule is there to give a chance for an opportunity and whether Blache and Snyder took it seriously or not is up to them.

If they found a way around the rule, then it is what it is - but I don't think they would go through this much trouble when they can actually just hold a legitimate interview with someone like Jerry Gray and meet the minority interview quota.

That's the same attitude that was perpetuated during the civil rights movement when the Government forced the schools to integrate. No one likes being told what to do, but fortunately we live in a country governed by laws where discrimination isn't tolerated. I don't understand why people exhibit resentment when we attempt to even the playing field. You should channel your disdain towards the fact that very few Black coaches were interviewed prior to the Rooney rule, not the NFL's attempt to rectify it.


I don't like Police officers telling me how fast I can drive, what substances I can smoke, or how loud I can play my music within the confines of my own vehicle. However, I understand that's it's necessary to have police officers to maintain social order. And you should understand that things like the Rooney rule are necessary to ensure equal opportunity.

well public schools should never be aloud to reject someone from going there based on their race or sex, but a private school should have every right to do so as long as they are not accepting any money from the state. i have no problem with an all white,black,male or female private school or buisness. if i'm the owner of a buisness and all i want working for me is russian females, then that should be my right.


all that other nonsense your talking about with the police telling you how fast to drive and whatnot really doesn't apply to this arguement.

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 (http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/09/study-black-man-and-white-felon-same-chances-for-hire/)

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?

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 (http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/09/study-black-man-and-white-felon-same-chances-for-hire/)

This is why we need the Rooney rule.
So I'm guessing they all got interviewed by white people? Wonder what would have happened if they went to black owned businesses and did the same thing? I'm sure those results would then be flipped.

Has the Rooney rule explicitly allowed a minority to obtain a job as a HC in the NFL? Very likely not. It'd be hard to identify a situation where it's even somewhat conceivable. What the Rooney Rule has done though is draw a line.

Through various management classes as so forth I have asked of my professors/lecturers/trainers, often and in a myriad of ways, how one goes about changing a culture within a business since systemic culture is so very often the cause of inefficiency and failure. Their answers usually boil down to "you have to crack it". Not blow it away but create a situation that forcefully propels an organization to reevaluate and do things differently. Something that actually starts the process of change in a perceptible way. That is what the Rooney Rule has started. It has drawn a line and creates a tiny crack. Teams are now forced to actually consider diversity in their coaching searches. That in it self is a very major step forward in remaking the culture. Progressing the issue from one of largely ignorable rhetoric and blather to something teams actually pay attention to. That is really very important. It may seem small but it is not at all.
Professors just people who fail at doing what they teach and say they know so much about.

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.

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?

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.