The Rooney Rule

[scous3r]

There might be a disabled person with a perfect football brain, but scous3r wouldn't even want them to get interviewed - what a wasted opportunity, all because of bigotry.

 

Are you stupid?

 

I suggest you read all of my posts and learn to understand context before accusing someone of being a racist bigot.

 

I clearly stated that the best candidates should be given an interview regardless of race/religion/disability

 

The post your referring to implied that if you make a compulsory rule for skin colour then what about other minorities i.e disabled persons or women?

 

Gobshite

[Guest TK-421]

Are you stupid?

 

I suggest you read all of my posts and learn to understand context before accusing someone of being a racist bigot.

 

I clearly stated that the best candidates should be given an interview regardless of race/religion/disability

 

Am I stupid? Often, yes.

 

I have read all of your posts and contextualised matters but before I move on I want to say I didn't accuse you of being a racist, just a bigot.

 

Now the bit in bold - I can't find where you've said this. You just said that the best candidates should be given an interview, but didn't mention the "regardless" bit. That being the case, why do you disagree with the rule? Because at the moment black people aren't getting interviewed when they do merit it and the numbers back my view up.

[Lucky Pierre]

Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

 

I know as a fan I would rather have the right man than be able to appease the 'quota'.

[scous3r]

Am I stupid? Often, yes.

 

I have read all of your posts and contextualised matters but before I move on I want to say I didn't accuse you of being a racist, just a bigot.

 

Now the bit in bold - I can't find where you've said this. You just said that the best candidates should be given an interview, but didn't mention the "regardless" bit. That being the case, why do you disagree with the rule? Because at the moment black people aren't getting interviewed when they do merit it and the numbers back my view up.

 

can't be arsed getting into tit for tat

 

Why do i disagree with the rule? Because it's discrimination. simple really

[Guest TK-421]

It's not discrimination, it simply imposes a duty to interview. There's no obligation to select the person interviewed on the back of the rule.

 

Let me put it this way: who would the rule be discriminating against?

Edited September 15, 2011 by TK-421

[Seamus]

Won't someone think of the Chinese?

[scous3r]

It's not discrimination, it simply imposes a duty to interview. There's no obligation to select the person interviewed on the back of the rule.

 

Positive discrimination or affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group

 

A compulsory interview for black or persons of an ethnic minority is positive discrimination. Discrimination none the less.

[Guest TK-421]

That's the Wooney Rule.

[Guest TK-421]

But positive discrimination is only considered to be necessary where there is evidence that there are existing discriminatory policies or practices in place. So if you're down on discrimination you should be big on the Rooney rule, there being existing evidence that ethnic minorities are not being selected for interview regardless of their ability and experience.

[scous3r]

who would they be discriminating against? - Clubs will draw up a 'short list' of candidates to interview.

 

The majority of the time clubs would not interview ALL candidates (lets say 50 people apply for the role) so they choose the 5 best applications but wait........ they're all white!

 

so they have to lose the fifth best candidate and choose a black candidate who was actually the 17th best candidate due to a silly rule.

 

and there you have it... discrimination in its full glory.

 

Far fetched i know, but the principal remains the same. It's discrimination

[Mr T]

Am I stupid? Often, yes.

 

I have read all of your posts and contextualised matters but before I move on I want to say I didn't accuse you of being a racist, just a bigot.

 

Now the bit in bold - I can't find where you've said this. You just said that the best candidates should be given an interview, but didn't mention the "regardless" bit. That being the case, why do you disagree with the rule? Because at the moment black people aren't getting interviewed when they do merit it and the numbers back my view up.

By what criteria is scous3r being a bigot? Please use the definition of the OED as reference.

[scous3r]

But positive discrimination is only considered to be necessary where there is evidence that there are existing discriminatory policies or practices in place. So if you're down on discrimination you should be big on the Rooney rule, there being existing evidence that ethnic minorities are not being selected for interview regardless of their ability and experience.

 

and where is this evidence? the fact that there is not many black managers doesn't prove anything. Ever considered that they just weren't qualified enough? Can you really imagine the majority of chairman thinking 'he got an excellent CV and his experience is second to none but FUCK that, the man is black.

[PestiRed]

who would they be discriminating against? - Clubs will draw up a 'short list' of candidates to interview.

 

The majority of the time clubs would not interview ALL candidates (lets say 50 people apply for the role) so they choose the 5 best applications but wait........ they're all white!

 

so they have to lose the fifth best candidate and choose a black candidate who was actually the 17th best candidate due to a silly rule.

 

and there you have it... discrimination in its full glory.

 

Far fetched i know, but the principal remains the same. It's discrimination

 

For this type of process & decisions of this importance, clubs don't limit themselves to a set number of interviews. They look at who they want to interview, be it 2 candidates or 6 candidates. They don't say "well, we like the CVs of 7 candidates but we're not going to interview 2 of them because we decided on a shortlist of 5"

So adding one more interview doesn't prevent anyone else from getting an opportunity

[scous3r]

For this type of process & decisions of this importance, clubs don't limit themselves to a set number of interviews. They look at who they want to interview, be it 2 candidates or 6 candidates. They don't say "well, we like the CVs of 7 candidates but we're not going to interview 2 of them because we decided on a shortlist of 5"

So adding one more interview doesn't prevent anyone else from getting an opportunity

 

It was hypothetical but point remains the same

 

It doesn't matter how many they interview, 10 or 10,000. Its discrimination because 1 will always HAVE to be black or ethnic minority. That is not equality its discrimination

[PestiRed]

But surely it only matters if someone else suffers as a result? If it doesn't cause a negative effect on anyone else, then what's the problem?

[scous3r]

But surely it only matters if someone else suffers as a result? If it doesn't cause a negative effect on anyone else, then what's the problem?

 

problem is its not equal opportunities. What about women. Do we then make it compulsory for a woman to be interviewed if one should apply? Deaf, Blind, Asian, French, Spanish, Jewish, Muslim, under 21, over 65???? where does it stop? compulsory interviews for everyone bar white males?

 

Should be based on merit alone, nothing more nothing less

[PestiRed]

Do you really believe that would happen? Anyone who flicked through any copy of the Daily Mail from any time over the last 20 years would be under the impression that this is where these policies lead, but the reality is that the country is still run by white males.

I don't think we need to panic about the plight of the majority

[Il Fenomeno]

But surely it only matters if someone else suffers as a result? If it doesn't cause a negative effect on anyone else, then what's the problem?

 

Its going to cause a negative effect everywhere. Boardrooms will have to waste their time interviewing someone who isn't suitable for the job and not qualified enough to manage the club, and black coaches will be going to 90% of their interviews knowing that they're being used and have no chance of actually getting the job. That could make them even more disillusioned than they currently are, and put them off the idea of management all together.

[PestiRed]

Its going to cause a negative effect everywhere. Boardrooms will have to waste their time interviewing someone who isn't suitable for the job and not qualified enough to manage the club, and black coaches will be going to 90% of their interviews knowing that they're being used and have no chance of actually getting the job. That could make them even more disillusioned than they currently are, and put them off the idea of management all together.

 

Boardrooms wasting their time isn't a problem for me.

 

As I posted earlier, I do agree with the rest of your post. I don't think football is ready for the Rooney Rule yet as there simply isn't the pool of ready-made talent out there that made it successful in the NFL. I'm not opposed to introducing it in the future though

[scous3r]

Do you really believe that would happen? Anyone who flicked through any copy of the Daily Mail from any time over the last 20 years would be under the impression that this is where these policies lead, but the reality is that the country is still run by white males.

I don't think we need to panic about the plight of the majority

 

think you missed the point, it's not the majority but other 'minorities'.

 

Where does it stop?

 

It could only stop when either all minorities are compulsory (discrimination against the majority) or when everyone gets a fair crack of the whip by basing the interview on merit alone

 

again, whether you like it or not it is discrimination

[Tyler Durden]

Does anyone know how many black or minority managers there actually are?

[Nunavut Patrick]

Boardrooms wasting their time isn't a problem for me.

 

As I posted earlier, I do agree with the rest of your post. I don't think football is ready for the Rooney Rule yet as there simply isn't the pool of ready-made talent out there that made it successful in the NFL. I'm not opposed to introducing it in the future though

 

Exactly.

 

They should go to France-- Ligue 1 seems to have more black players than any most European leagues. Yet I don't think there's black coaches or even black refs there. I'm sure Laurent Blanc will sort them.

[Guest TK-421]

Can you really imagine the majority of chairman thinking 'he got an excellent CV and his experience is second to none but FUCK that, the man is black.

 

I don't know about a majority but it's not difficult to imagine. Not hard at all. All I'm interested in is the numbers and they don't add up.

[dirk grout]

I don't know about a majority but it's not difficult to imagine. Not hard at all. All I'm interested in is the numbers and they don't add up.

 

2% of people in the uk are black.

[Guest TK-421]

Rrrright. And there are other ethnic minorities. And they don't get interviewed to be managers of the top clubs in our football leagues. Or is that not in dispute? This is all for a good laugh, right? I've read that the powers that be are very receptive to this rule, or at least discussing it. Which is good.