boomerjamhead Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Actually go back to the Williams and Mularkey hire and look at the names of the guys who were waste of time ninority tokens. 572787[/snapback] I'm not sure what you mean here. I think Cottrell was interviewed because he was still under contract and was well liked by the players still on the roster. Seems logical that Cottrell gets an interview, no? Token? Hardly. TD also interviews the two DCs from the two super bowl teams, one is black, one is white and niether gets the job unfortunately. Williams gets and interview somehow and eventually gets the job. The common factor of all five candidates interviewed is that they were all DCs and very good ones at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 And, you solution would be? The privileged become privigeled over a long period of time. The wealthy (the REALLY wealthy, for the most part) become wealthy over a very long period of time. I'm assuming you don't want to strip away all of the wealth and power accumulated by some people (often on the backs of those who lived in the "underclass"...or slaves, even). So...how do people who've had little chance over the years get a chance, when chances are not doled-out equally, fairly, based on qualifiications, etc? Qualifications like the color of your skin? You are not being brought in based on qualifications. You are being brought in based solely on your skin color. To get where we need to be, we need to interview based on qualifications, not skin color. This policy, IMO, makes this problem worse because it does not address qualifications. It is only based on skin color. So, here's my final thought on the subjedct (for now). In my mind, affirmitive action (noty quotas, mind you) is "reparations" in a sense. It's a "payment" that can be cashed by effort. The opportunity provided can be used to build a future for many who come after. Is the opportunity sometime demeaned? Sure...but many jobs and opportunities are demeaning. Amnd a demeaning opportunity is better than no opportunity at all. Dontcha think? 572909[/snapback] No, because you are not addressing the root cause of the problem. You are not treating them equally. You are treating them differently. That is my whole point. You cannot force equality through legislation/policies/etc. You have to change mindset. No amount of "reparations" is going to correct the problem because reparations do not address the actual problem. You need to treat the root cause if you expect to solve the problem. If an owner does not want to hire an A-A coach, how does this policy correct that? You are forcing the owner to interview a person he is not going to hire. You have demeaned the interviewee and wasted time and money. In the end, what did you accomplish? The interviewee feels humiliated because it was not about the hard work he has put in over the decades. It is based on his skin color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAL Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 How is this program not a slap in the face to A-A's? Take the Detroit example. They wanted Mooch. Everyone knew they were going to hire Mooch. Now, you need to fine an A-A who was willing to be the token interview or risk a fine. That would be absolutely humiliating to be that person. You are only being interviewed based on your skin color and it has nothing to do with qualifications. Now look at other teams. If you interview an A-A, how could they not possibly think that they are just a token interview? I have always had a problem with programs like this. You cannot stop basing interviewees on skin color by implimenting a program where you interview people based on skin color. 572680[/snapback] Don't we have this stupid debate every year around this time. The only situation where it was obvious that an interview was a token one has been the Detroit/Mooch situation. Several years ago, assistant coaches like Herm Edwards, Ray Rhodes, and Tony Dungy weren't even getting a sniff at a head coaching job. The minority coaching programs as well as the minority interview rule certainly has helped expose more minority coaches to the owners. The owners (save for Al Davis) were obviously not comfortable for what ever reason with having a minority head coach. Even though Art Shell broke some ground, it was a long time between hires. I think Ray Rhodes was next. With Lovie Smith, Herm Edwards, Tony Dungy, and Marvin Lewis as head coaches, maybe the owner discomfort has been forever alleviated, and the minority interview rule isn't needed. I suspect that's probably not the case given how long it took to get where we are today. I recall Ted Cottrel being very pleased with the policy because it gave him the opportunity to prepare and interview for a head coaching job. It also gave him exposure that he otherwise would not have gotten. It always seems to be the people in the majority who deny that discrimination exits in the first place, then say well maybe it did it exist, but that's not the case now. Then they assume the playing field is suddenly level overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAL Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Qualifications like the color of your skin? You are not being brought in based on qualifications. You are being brought in based solely on your skin color. To get where we need to be, we need to interview based on qualifications, not skin color. This policy, IMO, makes this problem worse because it does not address qualifications. It is only based on skin color. No, because you are not addressing the root cause of the problem. You are not treating them equally. You are treating them differently. That is my whole point. You cannot force equality through legislation/policies/etc. You have to change mindset. No amount of "reparations" is going to correct the problem because reparations do not address the actual problem. You need to treat the root cause if you expect to solve the problem. If an owner does not want to hire an A-A coach, how does this policy correct that? You are forcing the owner to interview a person he is not going to hire. You have demeaned the interviewee and wasted time and money. In the end, what did you accomplish? The interviewee feels humiliated because it was not about the hard work he has put in over the decades. It is based on his skin color. 572955[/snapback] How do you change mindset? You change it by forcing a policy like the minority inverview rule, and having minority internship programs. That gets candidates interviewed, and eventually hired. Once you accomplish that, you can really change the owners mindset by the results on the field of the teams coached by minority candidates. Now it's about winning instead of skin color. What owner wouldn't want Lovie Smith or Marvin Lewis now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts