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

Exactly

 

There's LOTS of white linemen who won't become coaches either. What percentage of each even WANT to be coaches?

 

Give me a reason to assume otherwise. What coach has ever won a national title because he could relate to people rather than he was a brilliant coach?

 

Don't change course now. YOU said you were ok with it. This isn't about what can or can't be proven in a court. That's clearly not what either of us were referring to.

YOU said you were ok with it. We're simply calling out you for openly supporting racism.

 

If it's such a blatant racist act, that would be against the law.....correct. Wouldn't such an egregious act be settled in court? Or, maybe it wasn't racist.

 

Kaepernick was hired to play football. He played that night. He didn't do anything during the game at all like the examples of talking politics at work and such. What's your point?

 

I didn't change course. My point is (which I said in another post) is that if this is racism and as you are saying a blatant act of racism........why isn't illegal. I guess it's not.

 

You keep couching it with "during the game", it's just a game it is an event, lots happens in that event before the game starts with the kickoff. He is a paid employee, member of that team, representing that team and it's organization and it's owners the minute he arrives. My point is quite clear he has no right to engage in any social or political statement while under the direction of his employer on the job.

 

Mudman>> No, it's not. Excluding people based on race is racist. You just said you were ok with it. It's pretty clear really. You made it very clear.

It would take a court decision to convince you excluding people based on race is racist? Hasn't the court and the Congress already said that?

 

LOL

You are trying to change the subject away from what you specifically said. You specifically supported excluding people based on race. Lefties always do this so I'm not sure why you're running away from those comments. You said it, you meant it, move on.

 

Except that the NFL disagrees with you.
Your assertion that one's 1st amendment right end when you clock in is absurd.
When do the other amendments rights stop?

 

Then I guess you have a case......or you don't.

 

I supported it in the case of Jackson, the one we are talking about.

 

Well it may have violated our hiring laws but no one is going to pursue that. But are you under the false impression that racism is against the law in this country? It is perfectly legal to be a racist in this country, which you have gone on record as supporting.

 

It's not clear what point you are trying to make-- that ex- players do not become coaches? I would want to see some actual data supporting your assumption. I would think that, among the full coaching staff, there would be a decent percentage who had at least played, in college.

But if you don't think that having played the game is relevant to a coach's value, that should add to the reason why there should be more female coaches, no?

 

This thread is not supposed to be about the SCOTUS, but since you two are making this ridiculous argument, I will point out it's fallacy. For most of the history of the Supreme Court, one needed to be a white man to even be considered for the Court; which kind of makes sense, since you had to be a white man, to even be considered for a judgeship; and nearly so, to be a lawyer, or even be accepted into law school. Since you two have such a sensitivity to issues of discrimination, your heads should be near bursting with alarm bells over this. In fact of 115 Supreme Court Justices, how many would you guess have been white men? Answer: 108.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...reme-court-justices-minorities-cec/index.html

Now, obviously racism, and sexism, are bad things. Few would contest that; even you two appear to agree. Where your calculations go way off the rails, is in your ludicrous, seeming belief, that after all these years, with this clear pattern of anti- female, and anti- minority bias, we could just say, "OK, we'll start being fair, from this point, on." Human beings don't work that way. The reasons for those biases, do not disappear, overnight, so that we can justify promoting yet another white male to the Court, without calling it racist or sexist. There are a backlog of candidates, in the categories which have been, systemically, under- valued.

Further, since it is all of our goals to eliminate discriminatory attitudes, so that we can focus on simply the candidates' qualifications-- right?-- a necessary step towards getting people to accept the idea of minority and female Justices, is having them SEE female and minority Justices, doing the job, as a normal thing. If we pay no mind to the long- standing bias, there is no reason to assume anything other, than that it will continue-- meaning that any white man that would be chosen, would likely have benefitted from racist and sexist sentiments. IOW, there is just as much reason to assume that Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, were chosen because of their sex and race, as there is for you to assume that Ketanji Jackson's color or gender makes her any less- qualified, than anyone else who might otherwise have been chosen.

So, if she is equally- qualified, why is it racist or sexist to see her perspective-- that of a black woman-- as an ASSET, a bonus, in her favor, as it provides the Court with a WIDER perspective, which it currently, as well as historically, has lacked?


What do you suggest as a fairer, alternative method-- flipping a coin?

 

I'll be like Limbaugh and say ditto to this entire post.

 

No one has suggested that her race or gender makes her any less qualified, so you can drop that blatant lie. To sum up your argument, 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.

 

I could go on a long diatribe about the legacy of scientific racism channeled by your comment, but I don't have the time and I'm not in the mood. Racism and nepotism are not secret hiring barriers. Given the job discrimination that minorities have encountered when seeking leadership positions, for generations, the reason for the disparity is obvious and it's not genetics.

 

Individual racism is the personal belief that certain races are inherently inferior, which sometimes results in oppression. Systemic racism is the power to keep groups of people from advancing, in society, based on their race. Within this context, attempts to diversify are not racism.

 

More stupidity by the NFL. Which is why I don't pay for tickets to games nor do I buy NFL merchandise.

Did Todd Bowles get the job as Head Coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers or did he "earn it" by his performance. Damn right he "EARNED IT" and then some.

If Todd Bowles, who let us not forget earned the job to be the head coach of this NFL team, was white, should they have given the job to another person with a different skin color or a female; neither of which earned it?

It is simple common sense people!

 

Rejecting people for advancement based upon the color of their skin is racism.

 

I agree about Bowles! He used to be an NFL player and there are likely many more Todd Bowles' out there who would be great coaches if hired. Let's ensure that we're giving black candidates an equal shot at coaching positions !

 

Hiring people who are qualified and seeking diversity is not racism.

 

Sorry, I'm never going to embrace racism as somehow a good thing.