The Rooney Rule

[J. Kapp 11]

I know this is Vikings Talk, but I think it applies here.

The Rooney Rule has been in the news a lot this week. Obviously if the allegations Brian Flores is making about the Giants and Broncos are true, then it’s a pretty significant black mark (no pun intended) against the league.

The Vikings did about as well as an organization can do, short of actually hiring a person of color. Two of their four HC finalists were persons of color, and they gave the same exhaustive interview to all candidates. And let’s not forget that they did hire a person of color as their GM.

However, it really should come as no surprise that some teams may have engaged in “sham interviews.” It doesn’t necessarily have to be racially motivated. It’s highly possible that a team sets their sights on a particular coach who happens to be white, but they’re forced to interview a black man because of the Rooney Rule.

The question I’d like to pose today is this: Does the Rooney Rule achieve its desired intent? Or is there a better way?

For a brief time, I used to work for a conservationist magazine. It mainly covered fishing, hunting, camping, etc., but it also had the occasional story about things people and companies were doing to make a positive impact on the environment. I was the writer who did those stories.

During that time, I met a professor named Donald Cell. Dr. Cell had a fairly uncommon field of study: Environmental Economics. The premise, to greatly simplify it, is that companies don’t recycle because it’s more expensive. Given a choice between the expense of recycling against the relative inexpense of sending their waste to the landfill, they’ll choose the landfill. Dr. Cell spent his life’s work developing ways to INCENTIVIZE organizations to recycle. By incentivize, I mean money.

What does environmental economics have to do with the Rooney Rule?

Instead of imposing a rule that’s punitive to teams who don’t interview persons of color, what if there were a way to reward teams that do hire a person of color?

That reward could certainly be financial, and that might be a draw to some teams. But what else could be used as a carrot? Maybe draft picks? If a team got, say, an extra pick at the end of the first round, would that be incentive enough for people to take it seriously?

I don’t know the answer. This is America. Teams should be able to hire who they want. But gosh, if interviewers can show up hung over to talk to a guy they have no intention of hiring (not saying that’s what happened, but it’s hard to deny that it could) … does that really move the Equality Needle?

One time, I was brought in for an interview to be a Creative Director at a big advertising firm. Big job, big money. To be honest, I had no idea how I got the interview. I knew there were dozens of people far more qualified who likely applied. When I got to the interview, I quickly realized why. I had listed an Art Director as a reference, and they wanted to hire HIM, and they were trying to use my friendship to get him to take their calls. The only things they asked me were questions about him. It was so humiliating and insulting. A complete sham. After about 10 minutes, I ended the interview and left. All that to say, I know what it feels like to be the victim of a sham interview. If that was done to Brian Flores or any other candidate, then those teams have only themselves to blame for any punishment that comes down.

But again, is there a better way than The Rooney Rule? I’m interested in your thoughts.

[fiestavike]

I know this is Vikings Talk, but I think it applies here.

The Rooney Rule has been in the news a lot this week. Obviously if the allegations Brian Flores is making about the Giants and Broncos are true, then it’s a pretty significant black mark (no pun intended) against the league.

The Vikings did about as well as an organization can do, short of actually hiring a person of color. Two of their four HC finalists were persons of color, and they gave the same exhaustive interview to all candidates. And let’s not forget that they did hire a person of color as their GM.

However, it really should come as no surprise that some teams may have engaged in “sham interviews.” It doesn’t necessarily have to be racially motivated. It’s highly possible that a team sets their sights on a particular coach who happens to be white, but they’re forced to interview a black man because of the Rooney Rule.

The question I’d like to pose today is this: Does the Rooney Rule achieve its desired intent? Or is there a better way?

For a brief time, I used to work for a conservationist magazine. It mainly covered fishing, hunting, camping, etc., but it also had the occasional story about things people and companies were doing to make a positive impact on the environment. I was the writer who did those stories.

During that time, I met a professor named Donald Cell. Dr. Cell had a fairly uncommon field of study: Environmental Economics. The premise, to greatly simplify it, is that companies don’t recycle because it’s more expensive. Given a choice between the expense of recycling against the relative inexpense of sending their waste to the landfill, they’ll choose the landfill. Dr. Cell spent his life’s work developing ways to INCENTIVIZE organizations to recycle. By incentivize, I mean money.

What does environmental economics have to do with the Rooney Rule?

Instead of imposing a rule that’s punitive to teams who don’t interview persons of color, what if there were a way to reward teams that do hire a person of color?

That reward could certainly be financial, and that might be a draw to some teams. But what else could be used as a carrot? Maybe draft picks? If a team got, say, an extra pick at the end of the first round, would that be incentive enough for people to take it seriously?

I don’t know the answer. This is America. Teams should be able to hire who they want. But gosh, if interviewers can show up hung over to talk to a guy they have no intention of hiring (not saying that’s what happened, but it’s hard to deny that it could) … does that really move the Equality Needle?

One time, I was brought in for an interview to be a Creative Director at a big advertising firm. Big job, big money. To be honest, I had no idea how I got the interview. I knew there were dozens of people far more qualified who likely applied. When I got to the interview, I quickly realized why. I had listed an Art Director as a reference, and they wanted to hire HIM, and they were trying to use my friendship to get him to take their calls. The only things they asked me were questions about him. It was so humiliating and insulting. A complete sham. After about 10 minutes, I ended the interview and left. All that to say, I know what it feels like to be the victim of a sham interview. If that was done to Brian Flores or any other candidate, then those teams have only themselves to blame for any punishment that comes down.

But again, is there a better way than The Rooney Rule? I’m interested in your thoughts.

I think there already is a carrot to go along with the stick, which is why the Browns are getting compensatory picks in return for KAM. If KAM were white, the browns would not get those compensatory picks, as I understand it. If that's right, NFL teams are encouraged to hire black executives by this program. I'm not sure if the same applies to coaches, though I don't think it does.

I see all of these attempts as ultimately self-defeating, the goal of hiring more 'people of color', and concept of 'people of color', rather absurd. Still, if that is the goal, the Rooney Rule is no answer. It invites sham interviews which are really insulting and request that black coaches sacrifice their dignity in order to cover for the league's lack of diversity. It's a painful and cringeworthy attempt to address the problem. I don't think there is a great option. If you make the incentive strong enough to actually produce the desired result, its just going to compound the insult and destruction of dignity.

[VikingsVictorious]

deleted.

[J. Kapp 11]

I know this is Vikings Talk, but I think it applies here.

The Rooney Rule has been in the news a lot this week. Obviously if the allegations Brian Flores is making about the Giants and Broncos are true, then it’s a pretty significant black mark (no pun intended) against the league.

The Vikings did about as well as an organization can do, short of actually hiring a person of color. Two of their four HC finalists were persons of color, and they gave the same exhaustive interview to all candidates. And let’s not forget that they did hire a person of color as their GM.

However, it really should come as no surprise that some teams may have engaged in “sham interviews.” It doesn’t necessarily have to be racially motivated. It’s highly possible that a team sets their sights on a particular coach who happens to be white, but they’re forced to interview a black man because of the Rooney Rule.

The question I’d like to pose today is this: Does the Rooney Rule achieve its desired intent? Or is there a better way?

For a brief time, I used to work for a conservationist magazine. It mainly covered fishing, hunting, camping, etc., but it also had the occasional story about things people and companies were doing to make a positive impact on the environment. I was the writer who did those stories.

During that time, I met a professor named Donald Cell. Dr. Cell had a fairly uncommon field of study: Environmental Economics. The premise, to greatly simplify it, is that companies don’t recycle because it’s more expensive. Given a choice between the expense of recycling against the relative inexpense of sending their waste to the landfill, they’ll choose the landfill. Dr. Cell spent his life’s work developing ways to INCENTIVIZE organizations to recycle. By incentivize, I mean money.

What does environmental economics have to do with the Rooney Rule?

Instead of imposing a rule that’s punitive to teams who don’t interview persons of color, what if there were a way to reward teams that do hire a person of color?

That reward could certainly be financial, and that might be a draw to some teams. But what else could be used as a carrot? Maybe draft picks? If a team got, say, an extra pick at the end of the first round, would that be incentive enough for people to take it seriously?

I don’t know the answer. This is America. Teams should be able to hire who they want. But gosh, if interviewers can show up hung over to talk to a guy they have no intention of hiring (not saying that’s what happened, but it’s hard to deny that it could) … does that really move the Equality Needle?

One time, I was brought in for an interview to be a Creative Director at a big advertising firm. Big job, big money. To be honest, I had no idea how I got the interview. I knew there were dozens of people far more qualified who likely applied. When I got to the interview, I quickly realized why. I had listed an Art Director as a reference, and they wanted to hire HIM, and they were trying to use my friendship to get him to take their calls. The only things they asked me were questions about him. It was so humiliating and insulting. A complete sham. After about 10 minutes, I ended the interview and left. All that to say, I know what it feels like to be the victim of a sham interview. If that was done to Brian Flores or any other candidate, then those teams have only themselves to blame for any punishment that comes down.

But again, is there a better way than The Rooney Rule? I’m interested in your thoughts.

I think there already is a carrot to go along with the stick, which is why the Browns are getting compensatory picks in return for KAM. If KAM were white, the browns would not get those compensatory picks, as I understand it. If that's right, NFL teams are encouraged to hire black executives by this program. I'm not sure if the same applies to coaches, though I don't think it does.

I see all of these attempts as ultimately self-defeating, the goal of hiring more 'people of color', and concept of 'people of color', rather absurd. Still, if that is the goal, the Rooney Rule is no answer. It invites sham interviews which are really insulting and request that black coaches sacrifice their dignity in order to cover for the league's lack of diversity. It's a painful and cringeworthy attempt to address the problem. I don't think there is a great option. If you make the incentive strong enough to actually produce the desired result, its just going to compound the insult and destruction of dignity.

Fair enough. Appreciate your point of view.

I think you’re right that there isn’t an incentive programs for hiring coaches. For what it’s worth, there are now 5 black GMs in the NFL, which at 15% is almost exactly representative of the population. So maybe that incentive program is having an effect. Of course, the counter-argument is that people of color make up 70% of the players in the NFL, so that figure should be more closely represented in the coaching ranks.

I don’t know. How do you solve something like this? Does it even need to be solved? No matter one’s point of view, I think you’re right. The Rooney Rule doesn’t work.

[fiestavike]

I think there already is a carrot to go along with the stick, which is why the Browns are getting compensatory picks in return for KAM. If KAM were white, the browns would not get those compensatory picks, as I understand it. If that's right, NFL teams are encouraged to hire black executives by this program. I'm not sure if the same applies to coaches, though I don't think it does.

I see all of these attempts as ultimately self-defeating, the goal of hiring more 'people of color', and concept of 'people of color', rather absurd. Still, if that is the goal, the Rooney Rule is no answer. It invites sham interviews which are really insulting and request that black coaches sacrifice their dignity in order to cover for the league's lack of diversity. It's a painful and cringeworthy attempt to address the problem. I don't think there is a great option. If you make the incentive strong enough to actually produce the desired result, its just going to compound the insult and destruction of dignity.

Fair enough. Appreciate your point of view.

I think you’re right that there isn’t an incentive programs for hiring coaches. For what it’s worth, there are now 5 black GMs in the NFL, which at 15% is almost exactly representative of the population. So maybe that incentive program is having an effect. Of course, the counter-argument is that people of color make up 70% of the players in the NFL, so that figure should be more closely represented in the coaching ranks.

I don’t know. How do you solve something like this? Does it even need to be solved? No matter one’s point of view, I think you’re right. The Rooney Rule doesn’t work.

I think there would be 5 black GMs whether the incentive program was there or not. I think NFL teams want to win, and aim to do so. There may be some cultural bias against black people in leadership positions as there has been against black QBs in the past. Performance will ultimately be the thing that demolishes those ceilings, not incentive programs.

[40for60]

Does the Rooney Rule work? It doesn't seem like it as there is currently only one head coach in the NFL.

However, that one coach supposedly became the coach due to the Rooney Rule. Ironically by the team whose owner the rule is named after. The Steelers were all set to hire a white coach, I don't remember the name, I just heard it recently. They had an interview with Tomlin to satisfy the rule but he blew them away such that he got the job and has been there since. Is it just coincidence? I tend to believe it as Tomlin was a one year DC with the Vikings without a lot of coaching experience.

For those of you that are of an older generation like me, do you remember when there were no black QBs? There was a big deal made when a team would have one, and when Doug Williams won the SB. Now there are many black QBs.

I am not sure where I am going with this, but I don't think the Rooney rule is going away. I do think there will be some further tweaks, but I don't think anyone has the answer. If anyone does I'm sure the NFL would pay them big bucks to solve the problem.

[J. Kapp 11]

Does the Rooney Rule work? It doesn't seem like it as there is currently only one head coach in the NFL.

However, that one coach supposedly became the coach due to the Rooney Rule. Ironically by the team whose owner the rule is named after. The Steelers were all set to hire a white coach, I don't remember the name, I just heard it recently. They had an interview with Tomlin to satisfy the rule but he blew them away such that he got the job and has been there since. Is it just coincidence? I tend to believe it as Tomlin was a one year DC with the Vikings without a lot of coaching experience.

For those of you that are of an older generation like me, do you remember when there were no black QBs? There was a big deal made when a team would have one, and when Doug Williams won the SB. Now there are many black QBs.

I am not sure where I am going with this, but I don't think the Rooney rule is going away. I do think there will be some further tweaks, but I don't think anyone has the answer. If anyone does I'm sure the NFL would pay them big bucks to solve the problem.

I do remember when there were no black quarterbacks. I also remember the conversations at the time, and I'm not talking about message boards and social media, which didn't exist. I'm talking about the national media, which at the time were mainly magazines, radio talk shows in large markets, and large daily newspapers. The thinking, which seems absolutely absurd now, was that blacks didn't have the mental capacity to be quarterbacks. It was discussed openly and barely debated. Then Doug Williams did his thing.

You're right, it's doubtful the Rooney Rule is going away, if only because it makes the bigwigs in the NFL office feel good about themselves. But other than the Steelers hiring Mike Tomlin, which is only anecdotal evidence, I don't think it actually works for the league as a whole. And even in that case, is it coincidence that the organization whose owner came up with the rule would say it led them to their coaching hire? And even if what the Steelers are saying is completely true, there have likely been close to 150 head coach positions come open since it was instituted in 2003. Yet here we are, with Mike Tomlin as the only black head coach.

Seems like there must be a better way — if the league really is serious about hiring black coaches.

[J. Kapp 11]

Fair enough. Appreciate your point of view.

I think you’re right that there isn’t an incentive programs for hiring coaches. For what it’s worth, there are now 5 black GMs in the NFL, which at 15% is almost exactly representative of the population. So maybe that incentive program is having an effect. Of course, the counter-argument is that people of color make up 70% of the players in the NFL, so that figure should be more closely represented in the coaching ranks.

I don’t know. How do you solve something like this? Does it even need to be solved? No matter one’s point of view, I think you’re right. The Rooney Rule doesn’t work.

I think there would be 5 black GMs whether the incentive program was there or not. I think NFL teams want to win, and aim to do so. There may be some cultural bias against black people in leadership positions as there has been against black QBs in the past. Performance will ultimately be the thing that demolishes those ceilings, not incentive programs.

Winning is what it's all about, isn't it?

As it stands, Tony Dungy and Mike Tomlin are the only black coaches to win a Super Bowl. Only four (Dungy, Tomlin, Lovie Smith and Jim Caldwell) have ever made it to the Super Bowl. Maybe when more black coaches win it, more will get hired. But how can you win it if you don't get hired?

It's a predicament.

[CharVike]

Fair enough. Appreciate your point of view.

I think you’re right that there isn’t an incentive programs for hiring coaches. For what it’s worth, there are now 5 black GMs in the NFL, which at 15% is almost exactly representative of the population. So maybe that incentive program is having an effect. Of course, the counter-argument is that people of color make up 70% of the players in the NFL, so that figure should be more closely represented in the coaching ranks.

I don’t know. How do you solve something like this? Does it even need to be solved? No matter one’s point of view, I think you’re right. The Rooney Rule doesn’t work.

I think there would be 5 black GMs whether the incentive program was there or not. I think NFL teams want to win, and aim to do so. There may be some cultural bias against black people in leadership positions as there has been against black QBs in the past. Performance will ultimately be the thing that demolishes those ceilings, not incentive programs.

I agree with what you post here. Incentives throw a monkey wrench into the whole hiring process. If upon your initial search criteria there are no Asians that meet the qualifications why should one need to be interviewed? We interviewed that woman from Philly but I highly doubt there was much interest. Not because of female but it was done only to satisfy an outside must have. You post black QBs, well that goes for speed WRs, it goes for RBs, punters are white and it keeps going.

[J. Kapp 11]

I think there would be 5 black GMs whether the incentive program was there or not. I think NFL teams want to win, and aim to do so. There may be some cultural bias against black people in leadership positions as there has been against black QBs in the past. Performance will ultimately be the thing that demolishes those ceilings, not incentive programs.

I agree with what you post here. Incentives throw a monkey wrench into the whole hiring process. If upon your initial search criteria there are no Asians that meet the qualifications why should one need to be interviewed? We interviewed that woman from Philly but I highly doubt there was much interest. Not because of female but it was done only to satisfy an outside must have. You post black QBs, well that goes for speed WRs, it goes for RBs, punters are white and it keeps going.

Totally respect your opinion.

But here's what I know from living a long time on this earth and working in marketing for a couple of decades. Incentives ALWAYS work. The only question is how much of an incentive it takes, and how much you're willing to offer.

[StumpHunter]

Nothing will end racism faster than treating someone differently because of their race.

[J. Kapp 11]

Here's an interesting fact.

In the entire history of the NFL, there have only been 24 black head coaches.

I seriously did not know that until just now.

Now consider this. Four of those have coached their team to a Super Bowl. Since one of those black coaches was Fritz Pollard in 1921, or 46 years before the first Super Bowl, the percentage of black coaches who have reached a Super Bowl is 17.4% (4 out of 23).

I suspect that percentage compares relatively well to the percentage of white coaches who have made it to a Super Bowl.

Probably means nothing. I just thought some of you might find it interesting.

[Cliff]

I think it's a way for people to at least get the opportunity. I know a lot of people that aren't "racist" in any overt way but still have some ingrained prejudices that can lead to potential candidates not even being interviewed.

The Rooney Rule (ideally but, of course, not always) forces teams to take a closer look at candidates of color. If you have to interview them, why not at least bring in the best? It then gives said candidates the *chance* to come in and "wow" people. Of course a racist that was never going to hire a person of color still wouldn't but it might help overcome those kind of "subtle" ingrained prejudices that most people have and don't realize.

For example, most of these NFL owners are older white men who likely grew up around mostly white people, went to school with mostly white men, and as they got into the business world probably had most of their business and executive level dealings with white men. It's not a stretch to think they may be more "comfortable" interviewing (and then subsequently having routine dealings with) white men. That comfort zone, probably to some degree unknowingly, would potentially lead to qualified candidates not being interviewed in the first place.

If the goal is to simply allow more people of color to get their foot in the door then that part is at least working.

[40for60]

Winning is what it's all about, isn't it?

As it stands, Tony Dungy and Mike Tomlin are the only black coaches to win a Super Bowl. Only four (Dungy, Tomlin, Lovie Smith and Jim Caldwell) have ever made it to the Super Bowl. Maybe when more black coaches win it, more will get hired. But how can you win it if you don't get hired?

It's a predicament.

To bring it back to the Vikings, it would have been 5 (add Denny) if not for the first missed FG all year by Gary Anderson in 1998.

I think the NFL missed out on solving the problem. They should have had the zebras throw a flag on that kick to give Anderson another chance. Hopefully we would have won the SB, and there you have it. Not only did a black coach lead a team to the Super Bowl, it was the Vikings!

Note: I am joking of course.

[Tark]

I know this is Vikings Talk, but I think it applies here.

The Rooney Rule has been in the news a lot this week. Obviously if the allegations Brian Flores is making about the Giants and Broncos are true, then it’s a pretty significant black mark (no pun intended) against the league.

The Vikings did about as well as an organization can do, short of actually hiring a person of color. Two of their four HC finalists were persons of color, and they gave the same exhaustive interview to all candidates. And let’s not forget that they did hire a person of color as their GM.

However, it really should come as no surprise that some teams may have engaged in “sham interviews.” It doesn’t necessarily have to be racially motivated. It’s highly possible that a team sets their sights on a particular coach who happens to be white, but they’re forced to interview a black man because of the Rooney Rule.

The question I’d like to pose today is this: Does the Rooney Rule achieve its desired intent? Or is there a better way?

For a brief time, I used to work for a conservationist magazine. It mainly covered fishing, hunting, camping, etc., but it also had the occasional story about things people and companies were doing to make a positive impact on the environment. I was the writer who did those stories.

During that time, I met a professor named Donald Cell. Dr. Cell had a fairly uncommon field of study: Environmental Economics. The premise, to greatly simplify it, is that companies don’t recycle because it’s more expensive. Given a choice between the expense of recycling against the relative inexpense of sending their waste to the landfill, they’ll choose the landfill. Dr. Cell spent his life’s work developing ways to INCENTIVIZE organizations to recycle. By incentivize, I mean money.

What does environmental economics have to do with the Rooney Rule?

Instead of imposing a rule that’s punitive to teams who don’t interview persons of color, what if there were a way to reward teams that do hire a person of color?

That reward could certainly be financial, and that might be a draw to some teams. But what else could be used as a carrot? Maybe draft picks? If a team got, say, an extra pick at the end of the first round, would that be incentive enough for people to take it seriously?

I don’t know the answer. This is America. Teams should be able to hire who they want. But gosh, if interviewers can show up hung over to talk to a guy they have no intention of hiring (not saying that’s what happened, but it’s hard to deny that it could) … does that really move the Equality Needle?

One time, I was brought in for an interview to be a Creative Director at a big advertising firm. Big job, big money. To be honest, I had no idea how I got the interview. I knew there were dozens of people far more qualified who likely applied. When I got to the interview, I quickly realized why. I had listed an Art Director as a reference, and they wanted to hire HIM, and they were trying to use my friendship to get him to take their calls. The only things they asked me were questions about him. It was so humiliating and insulting. A complete sham. After about 10 minutes, I ended the interview and left. All that to say, I know what it feels like to be the victim of a sham interview. If that was done to Brian Flores or any other candidate, then those teams have only themselves to blame for any punishment that comes down.

But again, is there a better way than The Rooney Rule? I’m interested in your thoughts.

So why don’t we hire coaches based on their qualifications not skin color? Black, white or otherwise?