The Rooney Rule

[Liquid]

A piece of legislation which guarantees that minority candidates are offered interviews for senior positions in the National Football League. Named after Dan Rooney, a long term member of the Pittsburgh Steelers.

In England, the (soccer) football league system has 92 fully professional clubs in 4 hierarchical divisions of 20, 24, 24 and 24. Currently, there are only two black managers in the 92; Keith Curle of Carlise United and Chris Powell of Huddersfield Town.

Some quarters argue that there is a bias or racism in English football, with only white managers securing top positions. Last season there were 4 black managers in the 92; Chris Kiwomya, Chris Powell, Paul Ince and Chris Hughton (Keith Curle was not hired by Carlisle until two months into this season). Now there are just 2. There is a motion at present to implement something similar to the Rooney Rule to give more opportunities to black coaches and managers.

The supporters of an English Rooney Rule include the PFA (footballers' union), Kick Racism Out Of Football charity and individual personalities such as Garth Crooks and Rio Ferdinand.

Opponents include Blackpool chairman Karl Oyston, who says appointments should be made on merit and not quotas, Trevor Brooking of the FA. Keith Curle, a manager whom such a rule would supposedly help, is not an outright opponent of such a move but has said that it simply won't work.

---

Thoughts on the Rooney Rule and similar proposals? I know very little about the NFL and I can only look at this as a future rule in English sports.

While initiatives to help anybody get into coaching is admirable, I find this in particular a bit patronising. Karl Oyston, a man whom many in football do not like for one reason or another, said appointments must be made on merit. I agree with him completely. Supporters of such a ruling say that football has nothing to lose if minority candidates are at least interviewed for positions, not forcefully appointed.

I can't help but think football would actually lose some of its objectivity if a Rooney Rule of sorts was introduced. Besides, how do we know that black managers aren't already being interviewed for posts? Just because few are appointed, doesn't necessarily mean they are overlooked in the consideration process. One could argue the same for hair colour; how many blondes, redheads or brunettes are there?

Interestingly, following on from that, the English proposal has only been talked about exclusively with regards to black people. No mention of any other minorities or foreigners. In many ways, English football has a significant influx of managers and players anyway. If anything, more should be done to promote home-grown talent regardless of colour.

 

[Peasantslayer]

With regards to English football I think the number of black managers is low because the number of black footballers in the past was lower, black people make up about 2/3% of the English population and black managers make up 2.17% of football league managers so I think that all this talk about clubs being racist when it comes to choosing their managers is a load of rubbish to be honest.

 

[TenEightyOne]

With regards to English football I think the number of black managers is low because the number of black footballers in the past was lower, black people make up about 2/3% of the English population and black managers make up 2.17% of football league managers so I think that all this talk about clubs being racist when it comes to choosing their managers is a load of rubbish to be honest.

A correlation in the figures isn't the causation for your argument though; it's very easy to believe that racism could be part of a decision taken in a traditionally white, working class environment... the very home of the UKIP vote.

What makes me uncomfortable about the wording of the FA's consideration of the Rooney Rule is the emphasis on "black". The black population of the UK is about 3.75% (extrapolating the Black British figure herein with the Mixed British using the Asian/Black proportion), the Asian population is around 7.5%. If we're looking at the population figures to drive our ideal ratios then we're looking in the wrong place.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Speaking from an American perspective that the Rooney Rule has on the NFL, it has become nothing more than a rubberstamp on a head coaching hire in the league and isn't taken too seriously. If you seriously think about it, there are 32 teams in the National Football League, and only 4 black coaches. They are, according to Answers.com:

Marvin Lewis of the Cincinnati Bengals (entering his 12th season with the team)
Mike Tomlin of the Pittsburg Steelers (entering his 8th season with the team)
Lovie Smith of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (1st season with the team, previously with the Chicago Bears)
Jim Caldwell of the Detroit Lions (1st season with the team previously with the Indianapolis Colts)

The league average of black head coaches in the NFL is 12.5% saturation. Does that mean that race is a factor in deciding these jobs? No. While there are 32 head coaching jobs in the NFL, most black coaches that work the sidelines today are position coaches and coordinators. While the league doesn't keep a record of race relations in those departments, the 12.5% saturation of blacks in coaching would be a lot higher have those two factors were taken into account.

In truth, the Rooney Rule doesn't really help as much as one realizes when you truly investigate race in the NFL. At best, it certainly makes the owner think twice about a certain hire, but as things currently stand, it is nothing more than a rubber stamp to hire the guy that you really want for your team.

 

[Carbonox]

More affirmative action, yay!

 

[Joel]

Rules like this don't really change anything. As mentioned it's a rubber stamp before you hire who you wanted in the first place.

I do have to chuckle when people deny that sports have a race problem though.

 

[AnthonyD1993]

Coaching should be based on merits alone. Race or gender shouldn't matter. If a white guy is a better coach available, hire him. If an African American is the better coach, hire him. Like it has been stated, all the Rooney rule does is make you look a candidate you don't want and teams hire the person they were going to hire anyway.

Since Caldwell was mentioned, I'll bring this point up. Ken Whisenhunt (a white man, now head coach of the Tennessee Titans) and Jim Caldwell were both the front runners for the job of the Detroit Lions head coach. Whisenhunt took the Arizona Cardinals to the Super Bowl, and Caldwell did the same with the Indianapolis Colts. Either hire would have been good since both coaches have had success in previous gigs (and ironically, both failed miserably when their teams were terrible). Caldwell was chosen after Whisenhunt accepted the job of the Tennessee Titans. Currently, the Titans are 2-4 whereas the Lions are 4-2 at this point in the NFL season.

 

[Keef]

All forms of affirmative action are bullcrap reverse discrimination.

Maybe black guys just don't give a crap about managing football teams?

Kinda of reminds me about people who complain that women aren't employed in more engineering or technical positions. Have they ever thought about the fact that maybe women just don't give a **** about engineering or technical things? Males and females are different, ya know, and much of the difference doesn't have anything to do with society.

 

[Joel]

All forms of affirmative action are bullcrap reverse discrimination.

Maybe black guys just don't give a crap about managing football teams?

Kinda of reminds me about people who complain that women aren't employed in more engineering or technical positions. Have they ever thought about the fact that maybe women just don't give a **** about engineering or technical things? Males and females are different, ya know, and much of the difference doesn't have anything to do with society.

Don't know that sex and race are really the same thing. I can buy an argument that physiological differences between men and women mean less women are loggers and less men are teachers, but I'm not sure that really holds up with race.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I can buy an argument that physiological differences between men and women mean less women are loggers and less men are teachers...

Eh?

The "physiological differences" argument is a flawed one; there are plenty of women in better/stronger physical condition than many men. There are many men in worse/weaker physical condition than "average" women.

Boys who work the woods with their Dad, play tough sports at school, work out to improve their game, take a weekend job in the yard etc. etc. are much more likely to end up physically capable of working as a logger. But guess what; girls have the same capabilities.

If society keeps girls doing gentle-pink-and-fluffy things then of course we produce a "weaker" sex, and by an amount that far outweighs any natural difference. Of course, if we trained all men and women to their peak potential condition then we'd find that the men would (on average) be bigger and stronger. Only on average though.

In short, the myth that women can't physically cope in men's jobs is self-perpetuating. And silly.

As far as teaching goes; I think the reason that you see a majority of men in Secondary Schools and a majority of women in Primary (in my Primary I was a minority of 1/10 and in Secondary a majority of 5/4) is multi-tasking. I genuinely believe that female brains are more likely to be able to multitask for extended periods than the male brain. Anyone who's led a class of 30 5-year-olds will know the value of being able to concentrate on 30 disasters at once.

 

[Joel]

Eh?

Eh.

I understand gender roles and the problems inherent to them. Good rant on gender roles and I don't really dispute anything you've said. I chose logging and teaching as the extreme examples of traditionally "male" vs "female" jobs. You even said yourself that you think physiology plays a part in why women are more likely to be teachers. The wording "I can buy an argument" means I'm not really of that opinion but I think there's somewhat reasonable arguments that there are differences between men and women that go beyond societal factors. I don't think there's a reasonable argument that race works that way.

This thread is about race, and the point of my post was that it doesn't really follow to use hypothetical differences between men and women as justification for the idea that there's inherent differences in football managing skill between races.

 

[Liquid]

Teaching is a funny one because the old tradition of the disciplinarian schoolmaster or the educated person imparting wisdom with cloak and mortarboard was always a male profession but now it is seen, in cliche terms, as a woman's job.

 

[Exorcet]

Don't know that sex and race are really the same thing. I can buy an argument that physiological differences between men and women mean less women are loggers and less men are teachers, but I'm not sure that really holds up with race.

It's more than biology I'd say. Racism in the past still has an impact today. You might be less likely to find a black family that has held a position passed down from generation to generation as long as a white family would. Three hundred years ago, many blacks were slaves while whites would have a lot freer to pursue wealth, status, etc. This would go on to shape interests, skills, etc for people as groups.

This is part of the reason why minorities tend to be less educated less well off. I don't think it justifies reverse racism for a second though. While modern society has been shaped by wrongs of the past, no one alive today has any responsibility for those past wrongs. Taking a black person over a white one to fill a quota is the same as whipping a black person for not submitting to someone who happens to be white.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Eh. I understand gender roles and the problems inherent to them. Good rant on gender roles and I don't really dispute anything you've said. I chose logging and teaching as the extreme examples of traditionally "male" vs "female" jobs. You even said yourself that you think physiology plays a part in why women are more likely to be teachers. The wording "I can buy an argument" means I'm not really of that opinion but I think there's somewhat reasonable arguments that there are differences between men and women that go beyond societal factors. I don't think there's a reasonable argument that race works that way.

This thread is about race, and the point of my post was that it doesn't really follow to use hypothetical differences between men and women as justification for the idea that there's inherent differences in football managing skill between races.

Not a rant really, they go on for pages... but I did think you were more firmly astride that point than you apparently are.

Taking it back to race; for any situation one can specify the ideal specimen of humanity for the job. You'll find that certain attributes (tolerance to extreme lighting/temperature, tolerance to high-stamina work, tolerance to quick-load work) will be strongly represented in certain racial groups - and not necessarily those most simply identified by skin colour.

Does the extent to which that occurs mean we should predispose ourselves to consideration of those suitabilities? Should we only select from Icelanders for a science role collecting samples from frozen volcanoes? Chances are there'll be a good few Icelandic graduates who apply, of course. Incidentally; I don't think you can consider the 'physiological' differences of gender to be as noticeable; they're certainly more abstract and possibly hormonal.

So, physically, what attributes does a footballisting manager need? None, specifically. All the attributes are those required to become a professional footballer. Mentally, what attributes does she/he need? That's academic in selection; in something as nebulous as "the perfect tactics" any prospective candidate is going to bid on the strength of their record-to-date.

Earlier in the thread I said that I thought any emphasis on matching managerial ethnic ratios to population ratios should include Asian managers (who should outnumber black managers 2:1 in that case). While I still think that's mathematically true I now think we should be looking at the numbers of pro-level footballers we produce.

That's where the ratios should match and that's where we should look at the opportunities... young people from ethnic minorities. Even as I type it I suspect we all know it's a problem to some extent.

I don't know the final numbers but let's say we produce black:white players at 1:10, that's the ratio I'd expect to see reflected in management 10 years later. That output ratio is where we should make the match with the population figures; the management level is 20 years after the foundations are built.

 

[Keef]

The "physiological differences" argument is a flawed one; there are plenty of women in better/stronger physical condition than many men. There are many men in worse/weaker physical condition than "average" women.

But it's not typical. It is a sound assumption, though there are exceptions.

 

[Imari]

I genuinely believe that female brains are more likely to be able to multitask for extended periods than the male brain. Anyone who's led a class of 30 5-year-olds will know the value of being able to concentrate on 30 disasters at once.

I always wonder how much of this is true and how much is reinforced by stereotypes.

For example, girls aren't expected to be good at sports and tend not to really have a chance to learn, leading them to not be good at sports.

Boys aren't expected to be able to multitask and tend not to really have a chance to learn, leading them to not be good at multitasking.

As far as I'm aware, there's not any real evidence that women are superior multitaskers than men. What does exist is full of ifs, buts, and maybes. It's not anywhere near the level of say, men being on average athletically superior to women, where there's observable evidence that this is the case and a plausible evolutionary advantage for that being true.

 

[TenEightyOne]

As far as I'm aware, there's not any real evidence that women are superior multitaskers than men.

It's hard to measure but I think most Primary teachers would say that 4/5 year-olds demonstrate a split in multi-tasking ability along those (rough) gender lines. Boys in play tend to be singular and focussed directing towards single step-by-step outcomes whereas girls tend to be able to balance multiple outcomes and manage multiple ongoing methods for their attainment. My experience with students younger than that is very limited but I find it difficult to imagine that they're radically different.

I don't believe that this is based in learned communication styles as boys in groups tend to be hugely ability-multiplied as opposed to groups of girls (who gain comparatively little in groups compared to their solo performance).

 

[GTPorsche]

Even with the Rooney Rule, NFL coaching staffs are hired based on merit and not on filling quotas. Just means that if there is a candidate available that isn't white, they have to be considered/interviewed. It doesn't guarantee that they are hired.

 

[Liquid]

Just means that if there is a candidate available that isn't white, they have to be considered/interviewed.

But is this fair?

Just because only 5 white candidates were considered for a post, doesn't necessarily mean that "We don't hire x ethnicity."

 

[Imari]

It's hard to measure but I think most Primary teachers would say that 4/5 year-olds demonstrate a split in multi-tasking ability along those (rough) gender lines. Boys in play tend to be singular and focussed directing towards single step-by-step outcomes whereas girls tend to be able to balance multiple outcomes and manage multiple ongoing methods for their attainment. My experience with students younger than that is very limited but I find it difficult to imagine that they're radically different.

I don't believe that this is based in learned communication styles as boys in groups tend to be hugely ability-multiplied as opposed to groups of girls (who gain comparatively little in groups compared to their solo performance).

You sure this isn't confirmation bias sneaking in? You remember what happens to confirm your theory and forget what doesn't?

It doesn't happen intentionally, but it's pretty easy for that to warp what you're "seeing" without even noticing.

Or possibly when you've been paying attention to this you've legitimately had groups where the girls were better multitaskers than the boys, simply through random chance.


Pulled straight from the Wiki sources:

http://cosmosmagazine.com/news/men-not-women-are-better-multitaskers/
http://www.spring.org.uk/2013/04/are-men-or-women-better-at-multitasking.php

I don't have access to the actual papers that those articles are referencing, but I assume that the description of them is at least fairly correct; that there's not a significant difference in multitasking between genders.

But is this fair?

Just because only 5 white candidates were considered for a post, doesn't necessarily mean that "We don't hire x ethnicity."

I agree.

There may have been no suitably qualified black/asian/middle eastern/whatever candidates. To make someone add a candidate to the list purely because of their race is a waste of time. If they were good enough they'd be on the list already.

The rational thing is to make sure that people of all races are not being unfairly turned away from entry positions, because in twenty years that's what will determine whether there's a reasonable distribution of races available for high level positions.

Trying to cherry pick now is pointless, the pool of candidates that are viable head coaches was decided years ago, and if they happen to be mostly white blokes then that's what you've got.

 

[GTPorsche]

But is this fair?

Just because only 5 white candidates were considered for a post, doesn't necessarily mean that "We don't hire x ethnicity."

Depends on the situation. If there are no minority candidates, then the rule makes no difference. The rule also doesn't apply if the minority candidate comes from within the organization, as they would have been contract based promotions.

Teams have been fined for not following the rule when there were minority candidates available and overlooked without being interviewed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You sure this isn't confirmation bias sneaking in? You remember what happens to confirm your theory and forget what doesn't?

It doesn't happen intentionally, but it's pretty easy for that to warp what you're "seeing" without even noticing.

Or possibly when you've been paying attention to this you've legitimately had groups where the girls were better multitaskers than the boys, simply through random chance.

Yes, absolutely sure, over the years I've had around 1900 regular students of between 4 and 10 in a full-class setting, week-in-and-week-out. You're attuned to every thing that every student does because it drives your planning. And it isn't a theory, it's something I've directly observed for myself.

Depends on the situation. If there are no minority candidates, then the rule makes no difference. The rule also doesn't apply if the minority candidate comes from within the organization, as they would have been contract based promotions.

Teams have been fined for not following the rule when there were minority candidates available and overlooked without being interviewed.

That goes back to what I said earlier; we need to really address why there aren't candidates. I think the answer goes way back to the opportunities given to ethnic minority youth in sports and education. If we have 3/10 black people but only give 1/10 a decent opportunity then there's the problem... to simply watch football manager ratios is to take one's eye off the ball*.

* Game of two halves, jumpers for goalposts etc. etc.

 

[GTPorsche]

And that would be the biggest problem. They just aren't given the opportunity to be in the position to get coaching jobs when they are available.

 

[ryzno]

I'm curious to know, the ratio of minority applicant's to interviews. And overall applications for management by minorities.

 

[Liquid]

They just aren't given the opportunity to be in the position to get coaching jobs when they are available.

Without knowing the ins and outs of either sport, soccer or gridiron, how do we know the position to get such a job doesn't exist? As far as I am aware, there is absolutely nothing stopping any player or indeed anybody from going on a soccer coaching course; from a grassroots rudimentary course right up to the UEFA Pro licence. It just takes hard work and (I assume) money.

There are plenty of non-white and indeed non-British players in English football, so the only reason for them to not go on a coaching course and get the required badges is the desire to be a coach, unless on the seedier side of the sport there is an active campaign to stop non-British whites getting coaching badges. @Keef may have had a point when he said that only whites, domestic or foreign, might actually want to be managers/head coaches. Or perhaps it's merely a statistical inevitability that whites will outnumber non-whites in coaching positions due to the majority of white people in the game.

 

[GTPorsche]

There's probably factors that include experience and knowledge of managing the game that, without prior experience, is going to discourage any team from signing that person as a coach/manager. There are 5 minority head coaches currently in the NFL. The 4 that were mentioned in a previous post, and Ron Rivera.

I do think there's something to the factor of more white guys being in the sport. The NBA, which is a higher percentage of black men compared to any other race, has more black coaches, so maybe there is a correlation.

 

[Liquid]

The NBA, which is a higher percentage of black men compared to any other race, has more black coaches, so maybe there is a correlation.

I know the Rooney Rule only applies to the NFL but are NBA teams obliged to interview at least one white person, or is there at all a movement to get more whites involved because they're the minority?

It might seem stupid, but it's a genuine question.

 

[GTPorsche]

I know the Rooney Rule only applies to the NFL but are NBA teams obliged to interview at least one white person, or is there at all a movement to get more whites involved because they're the minority?

It might seem stupid, but it's a genuine question.

There's no definitive ruling on it, but it isn't an issue in the NBA like it is in the NFL, or the Premier League.

 

[Imari]

Yes, absolutely sure, over the years I've had around 1900 regular students of between 4 and 10 in a full-class setting, week-in-and-week-out. You're attuned to every thing that every student does because it drives your planning. And it isn't a theory, it's something I've directly observed for myself.

Pure numbers do not defeat confirmation bias. You know this and I know this. If you want to convince me that what you're observing is a true effect, you're going to have to do better than appeal to authority.

I'm well aware of how teaching works, I've been a teacher myself for three years, albeit smaller classes than yours. And while I've found that yes, you can attempt to draw broad generalisations, but generalising based on gender was rarely helpful. If I tried to plan based on simply looking at the roll book, I'd be wrong as often as I was right. I ended up finding that the best plan is just winging it for the first class or two and then adapting to the actual personalities in the class, rather than trying to shuffle kids into gender categories that rarely applied.


To make this relevant, I think the same goes on for race for a lot of people. They've made up their mind that blacks are sporty, asians are good at math, or whatever, and then they remember all the things that make them go "see, I was right!" And tend to write off all the times that there was a sporty asian or whatever as a random outlier.

It's an unseen bias that a lot of people aren't even aware they have, and they don't see it as bias because they think that they're observing objective information to back it up, when actually they're just cherry picking.

I have no evidence that this is what you're doing, but what you're saying is at odds with my experience and the little reading that I've done, and your vehement denial that confirmation bias could be a factor is an even bigger warning flag. Confirmation bias is always a potential factor, and if you're not willing to accept that then your observations cannot be treated as useful.

I should also be clear that what you have said is a theory in the scientific sense of the word. It might be more correct to label it as a hypothesis, but I'm erring on the side of acceptance. However, a theory needs to be backed up with objectively observable evidence, which is why I question how your observations of gender divide are so different to mine (which could also be flawed) and those in the studies that I linked (which are probably less likely to be flawed than either of ours, given that these are people expressly studying the phenomenon, not teachers trying to observe and quantify human behaviour while correcting Sally's spelling and trying to get Jimmy to stop poking crayons in Timmy's ear).

 

[TenEightyOne]

Pure numbers do not defeat confirmation bias. You know this and I know this. If you want to convince me that what you're observing is a true effect, you're going to have to do better than appeal to authority.

I'm well aware of how teaching works, I've been a teacher myself for three years, albeit smaller classes than yours. And while I've found that yes, you can attempt to draw broad generalisations, but generalising based on gender was rarely helpful. If I tried to plan based on simply looking at the roll book, I'd be wrong as often as I was right. I ended up finding that the best plan is just winging it for the first class or two and then adapting to the actual personalities in the class, rather than trying to shuffle kids into gender categories that rarely applied.

I state again that it has been my genuine observation. When discussing tasks with a person of 5 one was more likely to find that a female can list tasks/outcomes and describe a framework for their attainment than one was with a male - and by quite some margin. This is particularly true of social "tasks", particularly ones that require negotiation. That's only part of the task of course; the person then has to negotiate the framework that they conceived. Research shows that females switch between these tasks more easily than men - in most situations. In certain limited spatial situations Chinese research suggests that men multitask better. Overall multitasking is mentally inefficient but in general research shows that more women multitask than men.

Because of its inefficiency it's seen by educators and psychologists as a negative cognitive function (Koch, Ivanov) meaning that pro-active de-genderisation of teaching techniques has dismissed its effect. To me that's in error, we have to accept that different people are going to approach things different ways. Being aware of potential predisposition is a positive rather than a negative although I take on board what you imply about self-fulfilling-prophecies.