NFL says all teams must add minority offensive coach, expands Rooney Rule to include women

Then help reverse racism by embracing diversity. Yes, I used that phrase intentionally to indicate my disagreement with its typical usage.

 

So what?

 

Alabama hired a coach named Cornelius Williams to be an "offensive analyst".

That was a racial hire. Alabama hired 2 other offensive analysts. Former LSU QB Zach Mettenberger and former Tennessee coach Derek Dooley. Why would they need 3 new offensive analysts?

Williams was the WR coach at Auburn and after a season of poor productivity was replaced, fired.
https://auburnwire.usatoday.com/2021/09/26/auburn-fires-wide-receivers-coach-cornelius-williams/

An analyst is a quality control person who usually scouts the team's own offense or defense for weaknesses and issues. Why would Bama need 3 of those guys?

I'm not pissed or anything they will find something for this guy to do but this was not a hire based on merit.

 

I see both sides. This offensive coach rule is very specific and odd. I don't like anything about it.

That said, around Super Bowl time, there was discussion that there were nine available coaching spots and not one of the new hires was black. Does this really indicate that there exists no qualified black coaches? I dunno; maybe, but I find it highly unlikely.

 

Yeah I get it. Use a euphemism for racism to make it more palatable. People are individuals and should not be discriminated for the sins of other people who happen to have their same skin color.

 

It would be racism if you could not be hired due to your race. It's not racism to consider a number of factors, including diversity, when making decisions.

 

Which is exactly what Biden did. He said if you're white or asian or hispanic you will not be hired - clear example of racism.

 

Equal and fair shot is reasonable. Someone telling me I have to hire x over y or z is an absolute NO GO! Even if I agree x is better than y and z, the decision to hire based on merit was removed from me so why do the interviews at all. I mean, it is only a multi-billion dollar industry.

 

How far back in history should anyone go to 'air grievances'...? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 remedied the past wrongs and made ALL U. S. citizens completely EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW. Nothing else matters!

Query: My Germanic ancestors were taken into slavery by the Roman Empire. Does that mean that today, although I have never been a "slave", I should be justified in an attempt to put the Italian Government on some kind of 'guilt-trip' and tell them that it should give me some kind of compensation or 'reparation' because of what happened back then? If not, then why (WHY) are we in the United States still entertaining all this unending bitching and complaining from the 14% of our national population which is Black, that the rest of us, and our government, and all our institutions, including professional sports, owe them something beyond being forever EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW...?!

Besides... what percentage of players making multi-millions of dollars in both the NFL and the NBA is Black...?! . And, does that mean that people in the other two races of humanity are being 'discriminated against'...?!

 

Sure, and if I had two wheels I'd be a bicycle also.

Well, if it violated our hiring laws because it's racist and no one is going to pursue that (no one also including the people that make laws) then maybe it's not racist. Why don't you also get on the gender cart, I'm OK with the fact that Biden was going to specifically choose a woman. Because I'm ok with both of those things doesn't make me a racist nor does it make me a misogynist. What it makes me it one that understands that the highest court in the land will be more representative of the people they represent. I didn't say being racist is illegal but performing racist acts towards others is which you think Biden is doing. If he is, then don't you think that should be pursued. If it's not pursued than I guess it's not racist and my agreeing with it doesn't make me a racist or supporting racism or anything else for that matter.

 

If the Italian government of today was treating people with a german ancestry by making laws that make it harder for them to vote or the law enforcement there target people with german ancestry and things of that nature then your example would make sense but that doesn't happen so your example doesn't make sense.

 

Semantic games but excluding people from hire based upon the color of their skin is the very definition of racism. Because you have justified it in your own mind does not make it any less racist.

 

Yet you had no problem with all the other SC justices nominations.

 

But, Roy, you have forgotten the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965! Prior to 1965, which was FIFTY-SEVEN YEARS AGO, there definitely was discrimination against Blacks (any many of us White teenagers marched in the streets of American cities in favor of civil rights back then).

Today? Nobody is making it hard for ANYBODY to vote -- and if they did, the matter would swiftly be taken up in the courts, with harsh punishments for anyone who broke the law. But today? It's no harder to register to vote than it is to register to get on government welfare programs! Why is it all of a sudden so hard for anybody in this country to vote?! That's just cooked-up nonsense!

 

First off, that was a long ass way of not replying to our point at all. It had nothing to do with her qualifications. The statement was made supporting eliminating candidates based on race and nothing else...ie racism.

No mention was made of her qualifications or if she's equally qualified etc. You decided to go of on that tangent all on your own.

 

Yet you're against CTR being taught in schools (it's not but you're on record as being against it in other threads) which is odd given this post (#16
"because there was racism in the past that makes it acceptable to be racist against people in the present who were never themselves racist. As long as we keep making excuses for and justifying racism it's gonna keep hanging around no matter how noble you think your reasons to support racism are."
CRT is an argument that goes to prove how the "system" in inherently racist.
:"One tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals."
How do you fix a problem if you don't accept it's there,

 

Roy, this is silly! Ketanji was chosen -- flat-out -- because Biden said he would only appoint a SCOTUS Justice that was BLACK and FEMALE... and that's ALL there was to that, period!

This NFL edict about hiring offense coaches is equally dictatorial and unfair on its face to any and all people who aren't minorities and/or female.

It's all part of a plan -- first there was the 'raised fist', then there's the 'kneeling' instead of honoring the National Anthem... and now it's proclamations that baldly discriminate against anyone who is not Black and/or female. Do you on the 'woke'-Left really imagine that the rest of us don't see this for what it is...?

I was all set to 'let bygones be bygones' with the Denver Broncos. This year has promised to be an improvement, now that the team has a new coach, and a new quarterback. And, I was going to ignore the fact that it looks like the team will continue to put political slogans on their helmets, too. But now this latest tactic just 'rubs the whole thing in our faces' again. And a lot of us are way-past fed up with all this endless 'guerrilla-theater' nonsense in professional sports....

 

No, it is your own "blatant lie (if we are going to speak thusly to one another)," that it is racism, to chose someone who is best qualified to fill an open SCOTUS seat. You claim, in your reply, that you accept that Jackson is equally qualified, from a legal perspective. Your error is in believing that this can be the only criteria, and that the whole person, who has those legal qualifications, cannot be considered. We are, after all, getting an individual's perspective, when we appoint a Justice.

Now, you needn't agree with him, but President Biden believes that having a broad range of life experiences and perspectives on the Court, more reflective, and so more understanding, of the impact of their decisions, regarding the entire society which they are intended to serve, is an ADVANTAGE. Therefore, Jackson's "diversity," is something extra that the Court is wanting, which she can bring. There is no dearth, on the Court, of white male perspectives. So, if she's equal, in legal expertise, then her unrepresented perspective, makes her a better choice, than someone without it. At least, this seems to be the President's thinking with which, as I said, you may disagree, but you cannot truthfully call "racist."

No one denies that there are differences between the experience of being a woman and being a man; acknowledging this does not make one sexist. Likewise, most realize that it is a different experience, being black in America, than being white. The minority who do deny this fact, tellingly, are all, themselves, white. What this indicates, if you are one of those, dimmer, bulbs, is that they don't know anything about what the black experience is truly like. This is all the more reason that it is of benefit to the Court, to have members on it who can enlighten their fellows, of topics on which-- as learned as they are on the law-- still, they remain ignorant.

As my last post explained, merely pretending to ignore racial factors, will not dispel racism from a system, of which it has proven to have thoroughly infested. To dispense with the other, utterly erroneous, assertion, of your analysis: acknowledging that racism exists, is not what is going to keep it, "hanging around."

 

CTR is teaching racism ffs.

 

Any that were made on the basis of racism, then I absolutely would.

 

My objection to CRT is that it divides our children on the basis of race. I oppose racism in CRT and I oppose racism in hiring practices.

 

A long-winded way of justifying racism. I have never discussed Jackson's qualifications so no clue how you claim I'm lying about them.

 

Sure they do. Here is an example from the new law in Georgia

• Voters will now have less time to request absentee ballots.
• There are strict new ID requirements for absentee ballots.
• It’s now illegal for election officials to mail out absentee ballot applications to all voters.
• Drop boxes still exist … but barely.
• Mobile voting centers (think an R.V. where you can vote) are essentially banned.
• Early voting is expanded in a lot of small counties, but probably not in more populous ones.
• Offering food or water to voters waiting in line now risks misdemeanor charges.
• If you go to the wrong polling place, it will be (even) harder to vote.

 

... just when I was enjoying football again after a long lay off, the stupid league gets all racist and sexist again.

 

I suggest the NFL start by replacing the commissioner with a black female.