HawkShack.com

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/302 ... y-measures

I wonder how long it will be before every team's staff experiences white out conditions?

White out?

Holy paranoia Batman!

They're not going to award 2 third round pick for each coach or executive they promote. There will be plenty of room for qualified white folk.

trents wrote:https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/30292901/nfl-owners-approve-playoff-diversity-measures

I wonder how long it will be before every team's staff experiences white out conditions?

Not a bad idea, but it doesn't really encourage teams to hire minorities, which would be better. I wonder if it works if you hire from within?

I don't agree with it. How do you make a determination as to whether or not a candidate is a minority? My two nephews are bi racial (my brother married an Ethiopian). Are they black or white? If we go by what Native American tribes use in determining race, then all it would take would be 1/16 blood, ie your great-great grandmother or grandfather.

RiverDog wrote:I don't agree with it. How do you make a determination as to whether or not a candidate is a minority? My two nephews are bi racial (my brother married an Ethiopian). Are they black or white? If we go by what Native American tribes use in determining race, then all it would take would be 1/16 blood, ie your great-great grandmother or grandfather.

They're Ethiopian and American.

There has never been a black and white race save in a concept created by some scum a long time ago who wanted to divide and control people. There is no scientific basis for race. I hope idea dies the death it so richly deserves. I have read on race. I have found zero scientific basis for it. It's solely based on skin color and does not at all align with history or genetics save in those areas where race was used as justification for slavery and subjugation based on race. It needs to go as an idea.

Aseahawkfan wrote:They're (my bi racial nephews) Ethiopian and American.

No, they're American. Period.

RiverDog wrote:No, they're American. Period.

Per our law, they are American. Do you know if having an Ethiopian mother makes them Ethiopian citizens? You wouldn't want to much deny them citizenship in another nation if they have it. I wonder if their mom teaches them much about Ethiopian culture or food. That is one interesting nation. So many different tribes and languages.

Ethiopia is an ancient land. Them people been there a long time. They were never enslaved by Europeans. Talking with East Africans reinforces how stupid our identity system is. There is this presumption that if you're African, then you've suffered from European colonialism and/or slavery. But not Ethiopia. Ethiopians learn about Africa's history with America here. Their culture didn't have that kind of contact. Not everyone is the same based on this ridiculous skin color as race idea. This one East African kid I know had to take African-American studies because he knew almost nothing about America and slavery other than what he was taught in High School. His parents are Eritrean, which is next door to Ethiopia. Italians made it to Eritrea much later, but never enslaved Eritreans or any of that trash. He learned about it and was surprised. East Africans are kind of clueless about what happened in West Africa.

RiverDog wrote:No, they're American. Period.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Per our law, they are American. Do you know if having an Ethiopian mother makes them Ethiopian citizens? You wouldn't want to much deny them citizenship in another nation if they have it. I wonder if their mom teaches them much about Ethiopian culture or food. That is one interesting nation. So many different tribes and languages.

We're getting a little off topic here, but to answer your questions, Ethiopia does not allow dual citizenship. Should my nephews want to become citizens of Ethiopia, having an Ethiopian birth mother would qualify them. Their mom has taught them some about the culture and, of course, the food, but they've never been to the country or on the African continent. They understand a few random words of the language, but they could never hold a conversation. I'm not even sure what language it is that their mom speaks. Bottom line is that for all intents and purposes, they are American, not Ethiopian.

Back to the OP. I object to the NFL's latest attempt to achieve diversity in their head coaching ranks. I do think it's a worthy cause, but I would much rather such diversity be achieved by organic means. If the league or any other organization wants to somehow help fledging minority candidates by padding a resume or do something to help certain individuals get their foot in the door, like the Rooney Rule, then I'm usually good with it. But once they're on the 'playing field', ie in competition with others for a job, there is no place for race, and by giving an incentive to a team by awarding them draft choices, you're placing a weight on one side of the balance beam and encouraging an organization to engage in a discriminatory act. You're not ending discrimination, you're displacing it from one group/person to another.

I'm wondering if this proposal would be upheld in a court of law if a person decided to sue the league on the basis of civil rights violations. They are putting in writing that they favor one person over another based on race.

They are trying to break through the glass ceiling. Sometimes it's warranted, and this might be one of those times.

NorthHawk wrote:They are trying to break through the glass ceiling. Sometimes it's warranted, and this might be one of those times.

The problem is that break through would be at the expense of an otherwise qualified candidate. You're offering a competitive advantage to encourage teams to engage in discrimination.

Personally I don't think the NFL would want to run the risk of being sued in federal court. I'm no lawyer, but a written policy like that would seem to invite a lawsuit, not exactly the type of image the league wants to present to the public.

But they also have to be seen as not being stuck in the current rut where there are few upper management and head coaches that are black.
I'm no lawyer either, but affirmative action has been around for a while in various forms in other areas of society.

NorthHawk wrote:But they also have to be seen as not being stuck in the current rut where there are few upper management and head coaches that are black.
I'm no lawyer either, but affirmative action has been around for a while in various forms in other areas of society.

And there's been a number of SCOTUS decisions related to Affirmative Action that have limited what the initiative can do, such as with quotas.

But we'll see. My guess is that even if they felt they'd prevail in court, that just the potential for legal action would discourage them from adapting such a policy.

On the one hand I understand the need to give a person a chance for them to become the most qualified man for the job, but on the other hand I see quite a few coaches of African descent training up in the ranks like most other coaches are expected to do. It may be much like QB, the situation may work itself out naturally as the QB situation did. I tend to not favor attempts at social engineering when a clear trend is emerging that over time the situation will solve itself naturally.

No one's answered my question as to how are they going to make a distinction as to whether or not an applicant is a minority. Patrick Mahomes has a black father and a white mother. Would a team that hired him as a HC qualify for the league's incentive? And are we talking about just African Americans or are we talking about all minorities? Would hiring Ron Rivera qualify a team for an incentive? Teddy Bruschi is part Filipino. Would he be considered a minority by the league? Or how about Sam Bradford, who is considered by tribal law to be a Native American, but has just 1/16th blood?

This could get hugely complicated to the point of absurdity.

It'll only get absurd if the try to commit it all to a written document that spells out every bloody detail. If they just take it on a case by case basis and make a common sense ruling in good faith on each individual case they'll be fine.

RiverDog wrote:No one's answered my question as to how are they going to make a distinction as to whether or not an applicant is a minority. Patrick Mahomes has a black father and a white mother. Would a team that hired him as a HC qualify for the league's incentive? And are we talking about just African Americans or are we talking about all minorities? Would hiring Ron Rivera qualify a team for an incentive? Teddy Bruschi is part Filipino. Would he be considered a minority by the league? Or how about Sam Bradford, who is considered by tribal law to be a Native American, but has just 1/16th blood?

This could get hugely complicated to the point of absurdity.

Maybe you are overthinking this a bit? I understand what you are saying but I would imagine they would work those details out the same way they worked out the details to the Rooney Rule.

c_hawkbob wrote:It'll only get absurd if the try to commit it all to a written document that spells out every bloody detail. If they just take it on a case by case basis and make a common sense ruling in good faith on each individual case they'll be fine.

If they're going to award draft choices to a team based on some sort of criteria, they're going to have to document a very specific policy/procedure. The league is going to have to define what a minority is, and that will require putting in writing some very specific definitions.

Let's assume that the incentive was in place at the end of last season. Do you give the Washington Football Team a draft choice because they hired Ron Rivera? He is obviously a minority.

mykc14 wrote:Maybe you are overthinking this a bit? I understand what you are saying but I would imagine they would work those details out the same way they worked out the details to the Rooney Rule.

The Rooney Rule required teams to interview minority candidates. There's nothing illegal about requiring a business to consider certain applicants, and I support that initiative. What is possibly illegal (again, I'm not a lawyer) is offering an incentive for teams to engage in a discriminatory act. Big difference.

Oh come on, so it has to be written out for one but not the other? Even though both specify minorities in exactly the same context? I'm glad they don't write their rules based on your logic.

c_hawkbob wrote:Oh come on, so it has to be written out for one but not the other? Even though both specify minorities in exactly the same context? I'm glad they don't write their rules based on your logic.

Oh, come on yourself!

Not sure what "one" or the "other" you are referring to. The Rooney Rule?

If someone doesn't get hired for a position they felt they were qualified for and they suspect that the deciding factor was that they did not have the incentive of a draft choice paper clipped to their application, they have the right to sue for damages. A judge is going to want to see...in writing...what the league's policy is regarding the awarding of draft choices related to the hiring of personnel.

RiverDog wrote:
The Rooney Rule required teams to interview minority candidates. There's nothing illegal about requiring a business to consider certain applicants, and I support that initiative. What is possibly illegal (again, I'm not a lawyer) is offering an incentive for teams to engage in a discriminatory act. Big difference.

My point about the Rooney Rule wasn't to suggest the two rules are similar but instead to point out that however they use the term 'minority' in the Rooney Rule could be the same for this rule.

As to your second point, I don't know there is no incentive for the team that hires the minority as head coach. In other words you're not rewarding the team that hires the head coach you are rewarding the team that put that candidate in a position to become a head coach. It seems like it would be hard to prove that a team is promoting minorities internally simply based on race to get draft picks when there would be years between the internal promotion and that coach possibly being hired to be a Head Coach somewhere else. I would imagine it would take a minimum of 3 years for most OC/DC's to go from a coordinator position to a Head Coach.

RiverDog wrote:The Rooney Rule required teams to interview minority candidates. There's nothing illegal about requiring a business to consider certain applicants, and I support that initiative. What is possibly illegal (again, I'm not a lawyer) is offering an incentive for teams to engage in a discriminatory act. Big difference.

mykc14 wrote:My point about the Rooney Rule wasn't to suggest the two rules are similar but instead to point out that however they use the term 'minority' in the Rooney Rule could be the same for this rule.

As to your second point, I don't know there is no incentive for the team that hires the minority as head coach. In other words you're not rewarding the team that hires the head coach you are rewarding the team that put that candidate in a position to become a head coach. It seems like it would be hard to prove that a team is promoting minorities internally simply based on race to get draft picks when there would be years between the internal promotion and that coach possibly being hired to be a Head Coach somewhere else. I would imagine it would take a minimum of 3 years for most OC/DC's to go from a coordinator position to a Head Coach.

The Rooney Rule was not likely to have ever ended up in court as there is no aggrieved party. It was simply a working guideline for teams. It had no requirements specific to the actual hiring decision. However, if it ever did end up in court, then a judge would want the league to define a minority.

If you are not awarding the hiring team a draft pick, then you're probably OK. But if, as someone suggested, you're hiring from within or hiring from outside the NFL and awarding the hiring team a draft pick, then you are most definitely giving something of significant value to a team to hire/promote certain individuals over others.

The other thing here is that even if the incentive is limited to a non hiring team, something like this could backfire and have the reverse effect. If you're the Seahawks, would you want to hire Candidate A from the 49'ers staff knowing that the Niners would end up with more draft picks than if you were to hire Candidate B that would not have that consequence?

c_hawkbob wrote:Oh come on, so it has to be written out for one but not the other? Even though both specify minorities in exactly the same context? I'm glad they don't write their rules based on your logic.

RiverDog wrote:Oh, come on yourself!

Not sure what "one" or the "other" you are referring to. The Rooney Rule?

If someone doesn't get hired for a position they felt they were qualified for and they suspect that the deciding factor was that they did not have the incentive of a draft choice paper clipped to their application, they have the right to sue for damages. A judge is going to want to see...in writing...what the league's policy is regarding the awarding of draft choices related to the hiring of personnel.

Yes of course I'm referring to the Rooney Rule. it calls for a qualified minority candidate to be interviewed or there are penalties. This one calls for incentives for teams that hire/promote minority candidates. But you seem to think there needs to be a written delineation for what constitutes a minority for one rule but not the other.

The Rooney Rule is doing just fine without such a defined specification, so will this new rule.

c_hawkbob wrote:Yes of course I'm referring to the Rooney Rule. it calls for a qualified minority candidate to be interviewed or there are penalties. This one calls for incentives for teams that hire/promote minority candidates. But you seem to think there needs to be a written delineation for what constitutes a minority for one rule but not the other.

The Rooney Rule is doing just fine without such a defined specification, so will this new rule.

There is a big difference between the Rooney Rule and the proposed incentive. The Rooney Rule does not apply to the actual hiring decision, only the interviewing process. There is little chance that it would ever be challenged in court and hence no need for specific definitions.

The incentive applies directly to a decision to hire and is subject to an aggrieved party filing a lawsuit if someone's civil rights are violated. The league could be placed in a situation to where they have to defend their policy, which would require that policy be reduced to writing, including specific definitions of what the league considers a minority applicant.

Like somehow I couldn't tell the difference?

One has penalties, the other has incentives. Lawsuits could be brought in either case, I don't get why you see incentives as more important than penalties.

I know what you are saying, I just completely disagree with your conclusion.

c_hawkbob wrote:One has penalties, the other has incentives. Lawsuits could be brought in either case, I don't get why you see incentives as more important than penalties.

The aggrieved party in a potential lawsuit vs. the Rooney Rule is a very limited field, one out of 32 teams. There are no labor laws involved. Teams do not have civil rights that could be violated. The chances of a team suing the league (especially now that Al Davis is gone) is extremely remote. Additionally, the Rooney Rule has never been tested in court, so it could be illegal.

The aggrieved party in an incentive lawsuit is an individual that is Constitutionally protected from discrimination. There are both state and federal laws that could come into play. There are hundreds if not thousands of potential HC candidates, and the odds of one person with a chip on his shoulder making it into the final states of an interview then losing out to a candidate that had an incentive attached to his resume taking his case to court is quite a bit riskier than a corporation aggrieved by the Rooney Rule.

c_hawkbob wrote:I know what you are saying, I just completely disagree with your conclusion.

I am not necessarily against this incentive so long as they are not giving it to the hiring team. My preference is that this happen organically, that we get beyond separating individuals into categories like race and nationality. As a group of owners/GM's, I'd be a little put off by this proposal as it's suggesting that collectively they're a bunch of racists that can't be trusted to act responsibly without some sort of incentive.

The aggrieved party in a potential lawsuit vs. the Rooney Rule is a very limited field, one out of 32 teams. There are no labor laws involved. Teams do not have civil rights that could be violated. The chances of a team suing the league (especially now that Al Davis is gone) is extremely remote. Additionally, the Rooney Rule has never been tested in court, so it could be illegal.

The exact same as this new incentives rule. There is no difference.

c_hawkbob wrote:The exact same as this new incentives rule. There is no difference.

There's no difference between a corporation and an individual. Got it!

Affirmative action hires have been upheld in courts for years. I don't think the courts would look any differently on hires to comply than on incentives given for compliance.

Whether a team or an individual were to bring the suit I don't really think does matter.

c_hawkbob wrote:Affirmative action hires have been upheld in courts for years. I don't think the courts would look any differently on hires to comply than on incentives given for compliance.

Not always:

Alan Bakke was rejected twice from the medical school at the University of California, Davis. Mr. Bakke, who is white, argued that the school’s affirmative action policy to reserve 16 out of 100 spots for qualified minority students violated the equal protection clause as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Supreme Court ruled that the racial quota system used by the university did violate the Civil Rights Act and that Mr. Bakke should be admitted. But Justice Lewis F. Powell acknowledged in his opinion that a state had legitimate interests in considering the race of applicants, and that a diverse student body could provide compelling educational benefits.

Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both white, were denied admission to the University of Michigan. They argued that a point system in use by the admissions office beginning in 1998 was unconstitutional. Students who were part of an underrepresented minority group automatically received 20 points in a system that required 100 points for admittance, which meant that nearly every applicant of an underrepresented minority group was admitted.

In a 6-3 opinion led by Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Supreme Court ruled that the point system did not meet the standards of strict scrutiny established in previous cases. The Grutter and Gratz cases provided a blueprint for how schools could use race as a factor in admissions policies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/us/a ... court.html

c_hawkbob wrote:Whether a team or an individual were to bring the suit I don't really think does matter.

It makes a huge difference. A team would not be protected by the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. An individual would be. A team does not have civil rights that could be violated. An individual does.

Private employers have much greater latitude. However, they also must remain cognizant of the directives of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when drafting and implementing affirmative action plans. Title VII prohibits employment decisions based on race (among other factors) and affirmative action plans could be interpreted as violations of Title VII. The U.S. Supreme Court held, in United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, that such plans are lawful if they are consistent with the intent of Title VII.[ix] Specifically, a private employer’s affirmative action plan is not unlawful if it also advances the employer’s general business interests and is temporary in nature.[x] The Court made it clear that Title VII was not intended to prohibit all race-based programs under circumstances where the employer demonstrates a clear need for remedial action and the affirmative action plan is narrowly drawn to advance the protected class. So, for example, an employer who hires more minorities in order to achieve better public relations in minority communities is generally within its rights under the Civil Rights Act.

https://lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontent ... dmissions/

I am not saying that an incentive policy would not withstand legal scrutiny. But it is vastly different than the Rooney Rule, which does not affect the actual hiring decision as it only requires that teams consider minority applicants.

There's a difference between AA as it applies to school admissions and as it applies to labor. And I still disagree with you on how a court would handle a legal challenge, irrespective of your quoted precedent (which is not a direct parallel but I'm done with this line of questioning). I guess we'll just have to see when the first challenge comes.

And when it does happen, I'll betcha the Rooney Rule is at the very least referred to if not actually put forth as a precedent.

c_hawkbob wrote:There's a difference between AA as it applies to school admissions and as it applies to labor. And I still disagree with you on how a court would handle a legal challenge, irrespective of your quoted precedent (which is not a direct parallel but I'm done with this line of questioning). I guess we'll just have to see when the first challenge comes.

The last quote did apply directly to labor. And school admissions, particularly the aforementioned medical and law schools, are very similar to labor in that they both have a direct effect on an individual's earning capacity. In both school admissions as well as hiring/promotion decisions, the potential damages to the affected individual have a measurable monetary value.

I doubt that it ever makes it to court. An applicant that has a legitimate head coaching future is IMO unlikely to rock the boat by suing a very limited group of potential employers and playing the victim of a rule meant to increase diversity might not serve him well in a league where 70% of the players are minorities. My point is that just the numbers of potential HC applicants alone, vs. the 32 NFL teams subject to the Rooney Rule, might make the league hesitant.

I'll lay down my sword if you want to lay down yours.

I already did man.

I agree with River that diversity needs to happen in an organic way rather than through instituting rules and regulations. Discrimination is really a matter of the heart and it takes time to change hearts. Rules and laws that force change often create resentment and pushback. There has been tremendous progress with regard to diversity/discrimination in the land and in the NFL in the past 60 or so years. Not saying that we have arrived but the progress is seldom acknowledged. Look at the large number of non Caucasian QBs there are now in the league. And there are now three or four non Caucasian head coaches. One thing that needs to happen is for wealthy black businessmen to get into the franchise ownership arena. It's happened already in the NBA and now it needs to happen in the NFL. Then they would have more say in picking a head coach of color if that was their desire. And there are non Caucasian businessmen out there with that kind of money.

trents wrote:I agree with River that diversity needs to happen in an organic way rather than through instituting rules and regulations. Discrimination is really a matter of the heart and it takes time to change hearts. Rules and laws that force change often create resentment and pushback. There has been tremendous progress with regard to diversity/discrimination in the land and in the NFL in the past 60 or so years. Not saying that we have arrived but the progress is seldom acknowledged. Look at the large number of non Caucasian QBs there are now in the league. And there are now three or four non Caucasian head coaches. One thing that needs to happen is for wealthy black businessmen to get into the franchise ownership arena. It's happened already in the NBA and now it needs to happen in the NFL. Then they would have more say in picking a head coach of color if that was their desire. And there are non Caucasian businessmen out there with that kind of money.

Nice post

Actually there are currently 6 non Caucasian NFL head coaches: Romeo Crennel (Texans), Mike Tomlin (Steelers), Anthony Lynn (Chargers), Raheem Morris (Falcons), Ron Rivera (Washington) and Brian Flores (Dolphins). It should be noted that Morris and Crennel are interim, and it's debatable whether or not Rivera and Flores are Caucasian (they're Hispanic).