Broadening its scope and doing away with ‘sham’ interviews will help. Andrew Brandt
The Rooney Rule – spearheaded by Steelers owner Dan Rooney – was passed in 2003 to reverse decades failed opportunities for minorities and mandates that NFL teams in search of head coaches interview at least one minority candidate for the position. The rule has operated for six years with, on the surface, good results, and last summer was expanded to include front-office executive positions. However, in taking a closer look, there are areas for improvement.
There are now seven African-American head coaches in the league. Four of them – Raheem Morris, Mike Singletary, Jim Caldwell and Perry Fewell – were internal candidates already with their respective teams. The Rooney Rule does not require teams to interview minority candidates if they promote a minority from within their organizations. That aspect of the rule seems a bit odd: Isn’t the intent of the rule to uncover more qualified individuals, not just those already known to the teams from having worked there?
As for front offices, there are five African-American general managers in the NFL – Ozzie Newsome (Ravens), Rod Graves (Cardinals), Rick Smith (Texans), Jerry Reese (Giants) and Martin Mayhew (Lions). All were named to their roles prior to the expansion of the Rooney Rule last June to include front office executives.
One problem appears to be the focus at the top. As with anything, problems need to be dealt with in a systematic manner, not just with a focus on one or two positions at the top. The lack of minority leadership at the highest levels of organizations is a symptom of a larger lack of minorities in positions below them. To have qualified candidates for Rooney Rule positions, there needs to be more directed action in “feeder” positions – coordinator positions on the coaching side and director positions on the personnel side. Addressing this infrastructure will not only give the Rooney Rule more teeth but more breadth.
The other problem with the Rooney Rule is the issue of “sham” interviews. It appears to be increasingly often that ownership knows exactly whom they want for top positions in their organization and are not going to be deterred in hiring them. The requirement to comply with the Rooney Rule then becomes a necessary hurdle to overcome. It was clear in the past week that the Browns and Redskins wanted Mike Holmgren and Bruce Allen, respectively, to run their organizations. Any other interviews with minority candidates were done out of compliance rather than true interest.
Understanding the noble intention of the rule, we should have transparency in the process to avoid this charade. When the Colts were looking for a head coach in 2002 and Tony Dungy became available, they pounced. If Dungy had not been a minority, they too would have had to go through the pretense of another interview. Sometimes it’s about knowing whom a team wants, and the rest has become simply fulfillment of a requirement rather than true interest. Perhaps an answer to this problem is to allow teams to dispense with sham interviews as long as they genuinely comply with the rule in other significant positions.
The hiring of Holmgren and Allen – and perhaps more to come with Mike Shanahan and others – illustrate the potential pitfalls of the Rooney Rule. With some tweaking, however, it can be empowered to its full effect.
Follow me on Twitter: adbrandt
For a look at Bleacher Report's NFL Offensive All-decade team, check out this article.
What a load of crap. The Rooney Rule was instituted by the league because they were afraid to face down some racial grievance hustlers. The idea that teams would hire less qualified candidates out of racism is preposterous. The fact that a number of teams hired minority GMs before the rule was expanded to include them illustrates my point. Ultimately, it comes down to money. A team's financial success is directly tied to its success on the field. No owner is going to let racism, subtle or overt, get in the way of his bottom line.
As to the justification of the rule to get these minorty candidates "exposure", most of them are former players who have wide name recognition around the league. As for those who didn't play, they face the same obstacles in getting known as their white counterparts. Why do they deserve an advantage?
To be honest, until we rid ourselves of laws/rules that are aimed at blacks, browns, oranges, greens and any other "minorities", racism will be taught and flourish. Stop telling ppl that there are differences for peete's sake. We are human beings and that should end it, no matter your "race".
"No owner is going to let racism, subtle or overt, get in the way of his bottom line."
It's hard to say really. We don't know the owners personal biases and predjudices. How many times has an owner do something that is beyond logic and common sense? They are human too. So why can't it be possible that they would consider race (maybe subconsciously) as one of many factors to determine who the face of the organization/team will be?
Of course, every owner would take a Tony Dungy to be the coach. But that's far from the norm of what happens. Usually, owners/GMs are looking at a pool of lesser qualified/lesser experienced coaching candidates. So what's not to say that subconscious biases come to play and move the owner/GM to hire a white coach over a black coach (when all other things being equal)?
Rooney Rule = racist.
The best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. The Rooney Rule ostensibly fails this test.
I am totally against positive discrimination, which I feel the Rooney rule is. They should interview the best candidates for the job. I feel rules like this generate racism rather than help to supress and eradicate it. Also, som eof the hirings in recent years are laughable; I live in the UK but it surprises me how limited some teams seem to be when choosing a Head Coach, the same old names keep coming up, even though they do not have successful track records. The appointment in Cleveland springs to mind.
"No owner is going to let racism, subtle or overt, get in the way of his bottom line."
Dan Rooney disagrees with you.
I'm not sure your overall rooney rule makes a lot of sense.... It would just create the same problem... A lot of coaches seem to have control over their staff and seem to have a pretty good idea or short list of who they want to work with. Most of the coaches seem to make the staff decisions and I believe most of them will take who they think will work best for them because its their job on the line. That and it already seems like there are quite a few minority coordinators/position coaches in the NFL.
On the other hand, how many minority coaches and GMs were there before the Rooney Rule was enacted? How many have there been since the rule was enacted? Coincidence? Possibly. More qualified minority candidates? Compared to 1960, sure, compared to 2001, not very likely.
It's not about racism exactly. Study after study has show that everyone, black, white, asian, whatever, is more comfortable with people who are "like them" and that everyone tends to hire people they are comfortable with. Left to their own devices, white men tend to hire white men. It's not racism but it has the same effect.
The only thing the Rooney rule does is force team owners to interview at least one black candidate. It forces owners to speak with coaches who are a little outside of their normal comfort zone. IT IS NOT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. It doesn't force any team to hire anyone.
Meateater: why do you assume a minority candidate who gets an interview through the Rooney rule is "less" qualified? Another way you can look at it is qualified people getting an opportunity to be interviewed when they might not otherwise; in spite of the fact that they are qualified enough to be interviewed.
purple haze,
I made no such assumption. I said the Rooney Rule assumes that owners will hire less qualified whites out of racism, an assumption which I find no support for in teams' actual hiring practices. Owners have such a huge financial incentive to hire the best available that the Rooney Rule is at best silly PC nonsense. At worse it is a slap in the face of qualified minority candidates, who are marginalized as "Rule" candidates when they do get interviews.
I find it amusing that most of the grousing about the "Rooney Rule" are likely white males. You probably have no idea or experience with true discrimination. To assert that the rule has no place in football is short sighted at best. As one previous poster stated, is it purely coincidence that there are now more minority coaches/GMs than before the inclusion of the rule?? I think not. Whenever the status quo is challenged, "reverse discrimination" is the claim. If merit/qualification were the only criteria measured, I'm quite sure that the personnel hired would likely be representative of the league. Clearly, it is not. I'm quite sure one of you respondents will assert that minorities lack the necessary skills to be successful in those positions. Right.... Like so many of the failed majority coaches littered throughout the league and college ranks. Does that prevent them from being rehired?? Of course not. The point of the rule is to offer QUALIFIED individuals an opportunity.
which I find no support for in teams' actual hiring practices. Owners have such a huge financial incentive to hire the best available that the Rooney Rule is at best silly PC nonsense. At worse it is a slap in the face of qualified minority candidates, who are marginalized as "Rule" candidates when they do get interviews.
Cap and cash ramifications of...
Thoughts on Indy, Eli, Wes, Mario...
The numbers behind the game
Real action is week before the...
Signs point to the end of an era
Dec 23, 2009
02:31 PM
I say we have the looney rule, this rule states you round up all you liberal
quota race baiters and send you to the moon with Al Gore as your king.