Give me a F'ing break!

[freedjr]

Granted, ADs are going to hire who they want regardless of who they interview. The key to the law is getting more minorities EXPOSURE. Yes, they may be a token interview but if they do well, maybe their name will come up in future interviews, or coordinator positions. And I really think that getting more minorities in coordinator positions is the key to more head coaching positions.

I don't think it's a waste of time. And I also don't think it's necessarily reverse discrimination. White coaches will still get their job interviews. If a college has four white coaches their trying to target, they're still going to interview them all. They're just going to have to interview one more minority. How's that reverse discrimination? It's not taking away an interview spot for the other coaches!

And to all you who talk about it being a token interview, would you interview for your dream job even if you knew there was a 99% chance you wouldn't get it? I most definitely would (and I bet most of you would) just for that 1% chance or to at least get your name out there. In a perfect world, this rule wouldn't be necessary. But believe it or not, it's still a very color separated world. Yeah, it sucks. But hopefully, 20 years from now we'll be saying how the Rooney Rule worked, and race isn't a factor in college coaching. It seemed to have helped the NFL. Why not BCS college football?

[GoDucksIn09]

I wanted to throw two cents in and just consider a couple things. If people stop and look around at the coaaching postions across the country in college football be it assistants... coordinators.. head coaching.. and take that percentage of minorities represented compared to the number of minorities playing the game and then tell me its balanced. I am white and will not sit and ignore the facts. I remember this topic came up couple months ago on ESPN and an analyst who happened to be african american stated it isnt about the head coaching positions.. it is about the assistants and coordinators they have to do well in those positions before being granted a head coaching position. To change the landscape of predominance of white coaches need to start out with assistants and coordinators. I don think the rooney rule will change anything per se.. but i think this is a problem that stretches across the USA in college football. I don't think it has anything to do with not being qualified. For whatever reason they are not getting the chances. I do not really think it is because of race or least I hope not. The facts remain though it is skewed quite a bit down the line all across the country. Before overreacting to the rule look at the facts and statistics and the percentages I have mentioned then tell me it is not skewed.

[jhopduck]

Wheaton that was an excellent post!!
I have no academic view on this subject. Just a humble opinion.
I don't like the pressure of the government in any way telling who you should or have to hire. In fact I was appalled that they forced the resignation of the GM CEO. (I didn't support the bailout either though). As Wheaton mentioned, I don't think coaches are kept from getting a chance to be considered for coaching jobs, just the reality is at this point there are probably(no statistical suport to provide) more white persons that choose a path in that particular career. Really goverment involvement in sports just bothers me all together. The Clemons probe, MLB steroids probe, all that money they take from me every pay check, spend on that crap, yet our schools can't stay open five days a week, or keep needed staff around. This is bad, and for Oregon to "pioneer" this new rule really is not a great thing IMO. Please continue to respectfully debate this topic.

[dudefromor]

no matter what color your skin is every coach needs to climb the ladder. is there any documented proof that there are that many minority coaches out there seeking to climb the ladder to a HC position? are they first looking at coordinator jobs? or are they just going to try to be a HC just because of the color or their skin? there needs to be some kind of proof, not these "statistics", i mean like some kinid of pettition that 100 or 200 (or however have tried in say a year time span or something like that) minority coaches sign stating that they have not been given the same opportunities to climb the ladder.

personally i dont care who coaches the ducks....so long as we bring in top flight recruits and are competing for BCS games every year.

[TualatinDuck]

I have to respecfully disagree with some of you.

Race will only be an issue aslong as we allow it. The more we try to "celebrate" our differences, the more we are pointing them out. This is a serious buzz phrase in the corporate world. Celebrate diversity! Why? So we can point out that with a yellow highlighter that someone is different than me? Common sense will dictate that, no need to point it out with a neon sign posted on the side of a big red truck. What happened to the Golden Rule of treat others how you want to be treated? I honestly think MLK would be beside himself with the hypocracy of the actions from some of the African American community.

In reality though, for real change to happen at any level, the pendulam must swing. Its just a matter of how far it swings before balance is achieved. What we are seeing now with legislation is the swing to the opposite side before balance is achieved. Think of it like the stock market, sometimes it must take a dip before it can climb to new highs. It never goes down to previous levels and stays there, its always historically climbing.

[wheaton4prez]

Yes, they may be a token interview but if they do well, maybe their name will come up in future interviews, or coordinator positions. And I really think that getting more minorities in coordinator positions is the key to more head coaching positions.

But why is getting more minorities in coord positions a government goal in the first place? Why not lumber mill manager positions or CEOs of candy manufacturing plants?

Why don't we add laws that require at least one interview from someone from the south since the south provides more players? Why not give an extra push for those computer science majors that cant seem to get a football job?

White coaches will still get their job interviews. If a college has four white coaches their trying to target, they're still going to interview them all. They're just going to have to interview one more minority. How's that reverse discrimination? It's not taking away an interview spot for the other coaches!

This is a big assumption. If true, what makes you think that minorities aren't "getting their interview"? Maybe it's already the case that whites and minorities "get their interview" equally based on merit.

In reality though, for real change to happen at any level, the pendulam must swing. Its just a matter of how far it swings before balance is achieved. What we are seeing now with legislation is the swing to the opposite side before balance is achieved. Think of it like the stock market, sometimes it must take a dip before it can climb to new highs. It never goes down to previous levels and stays there, its always historically climbing.

The problem with this argument is that while somebody is trying to achieve what they think is fair (that 70% of coaches must be black?), other people are disadvantaged based on their race by the "balancing laws."

The Civil Rights Act prohibits government from enacting laws or hiring that discriminates based on race, gender, age or religion. This proposed rule does just that. Discriminates some applicants based on race and gives them a special advantage not given to another race.

[liberalduck]

I have seen quite a few posts from people suggesting that the reason why more minorities aren't in head coaching positions is due to disinterest in the jobs.

Does anyone truly believe that minorities are not interested in head coaching jobs? Give me a break! Some even suggested studies should to be conducted about it.

Perhaps we should complete a multi-million dollar, twenty year study to determine if these individuals are correct. I mean, there is no need to do anything rash like make a new law. If Rosa Parks would have just waited for the "African Americans probably like to give up their seats to white people on the bus" study to be completed, then everyone could have avoided that unnecessary and costly bus boycott. Sheesh!

[woundedknees]

A study would be a waste of time and money.

Obviously, guys like Kenny Norton Jr. are well qualified to coach college football. There are many others out there with the interest, talent and drive to handle the job.

Do we need another law?

I seriously doubt it. There are more than enough rules and regulations pertaining to hiring practices in this country to accomplish the task.

By the same token, there is no eveidence suggesting that keeping Chip Kelly, for instance, as the head coach was anything in the line of discrimination. It was done to preserve the existing system that enabled Oregon to become the offensive powerhouse it is.

I was a highly skilled craftsman at one time, having served a multi-year apprenticeship to perfect my trade. Was it discriminatory that I was promoted from within the company to run the department I specialized in, thus preserving the standards and practices that made it a profitable organization, without doing an outside talent search?

I think not. I was considered the best man to continue the training programs that had successfully made that manufacturing facility one of the best in the world.

[wheaton4prez]

I have seen quite a few posts from people suggesting that the reason why more minorities aren't in head coaching positions is due to disinterest in the jobs.

The burden of proof is on your position. Others are saying that we don't know why there aren't as many minority coaches. Lack of equal interest is only one possibility. Nobody has demonstrated that racial discrimination has played any role whatsoever. Yet, you want to enact laws that racially discriminate people, violating the Civil Rights Act.

Does anyone truly believe that minorities are not interested in head coaching jobs? Give me a break! Some even suggested studies should to be conducted about it.

Providing evidence is not unreasonable to ask someone making an argument to do.

Perhaps we should complete a multi-million dollar, twenty year study to determine if these individuals are correct. I mean, there is no need to do anything rash like make a new law. If Rosa Parks would have just waited for the "African Americans probably like to give up their seats to white people on the bus" study to be completed, then everyone could have avoided that unnecessary and costly bus boycott. Sheesh!

Making a law in violation of the CRA that disadvantages people, without evidence that it is needed, would be rash. I have explained why. Can you please explain why you think that the ratio of black coaches compared to players is caused by racial discrimination? If you can't, I don't think you have much of a case.

Rosa Parks does not compare to coaching. In fact, what you want to do is the opposite of anti-discrimination, you want to make a law that reserves the best seat on the bus for minorities only.

[TualatinDuck]

Just for Wheaton and to stir his pot a bit.

Affirmative Action!

[dd10snoop28]

I'm black and I oppose this.

[liberalduck]

I have seen quite a few posts from people suggesting that the reason why more minorities aren't in head coaching positions is due to disinterest in the jobs.

The burden of proof is on your position. Others are saying that we don't know why there aren't as many minority coaches. Lack of equal interest is only one possibility. Nobody has demonstrated that racial discrimination has played any role whatsoever. Yet, you want to enact laws that racially discriminate people, violating the Civil Rights Act.

Does anyone truly believe that minorities are not interested in head coaching jobs? Give me a break! Some even suggested studies should to be conducted about it.

Providing evidence is not unreasonable to ask someone making an argument to do.

Perhaps we should complete a multi-million dollar, twenty year study to determine if these individuals are correct. I mean, there is no need to do anything rash like make a new law. If Rosa Parks would have just waited for the "African Americans probably like to give up their seats to white people on the bus" study to be completed, then everyone could have avoided that unnecessary and costly bus boycott. Sheesh!

Making a law in violation of the CRA that disadvantages people, without evidence that it is needed, would be rash. I have explained why. Can you please explain why you think that the ratio of black coaches compared to players is caused by racial discrimination? If you can't, I don't think you have much of a case.

Rosa Parks does not compare to coaching. In fact, what you want to do is the opposite of anti-discrimination, you want to make a law that reserves the best seat on the bus for minorities only.

First of all, thanks for telling me what I want to do (sarcasm). Not once did I say that only minorities should have the best head coach positions without earning it (which is what your last statement implies). I simply believe:

There are plenty of minorities who would like to be head football coaches at the college level. I think it is absurd to think otherwise. Why wouldn't they? The pay is great. The respect is great. The fame is great. Are you trying to tell me that caucasians are the only humans that are drawn to these things. If we were in the 1930's talking baseball, the question would have been, "How do we know that African Americans want to play in the Major Leagues?" Perhaps the white owners in 1945(?) should have waited to let Jackie Robinson play in the Majors until after a study was conducted to determine that a sufficient number of black players were interested in playing before they allowed black players in the door. Of course black players wanted to play in the Major Leagues. The pay was better, the fame was greater and the respect was broader. Do you really believe that it is any different in regard to head football coaches now?

Do you truly believe it is plausible that minorities just aren't interested in head coaching positions? If so, why do you think they aren't interested?

[ncduck]

This is getting pretty charged. I think everyone's opinions have been pretty clear. It's one of those things where you won't convince each other. Let's remember what brings us here together. Cheering for our Ducks! It's pretty clear people need to agree to disagree and let it go.

If this law passes and is ultimately put into practice then after Chip becomes the next AD after MB is 102 and retires, maybe the landscape will be different and this law will not be a factor.

Until then, Chip is the man and that's good enough for me.

[wheaton4prez]

First of all, thanks for telling me what I want to do (sarcasm). Not once did I say that only minorities should have the best head coach positions without earning it (which is what your last statement implies).

I didn't imply that at all. I was referring to the Rooney Rule (what you want to do) and applying it's logic to the Rosa Parks situation. Obviously, having a legal requirement that programs must interview you is a better position than not having that requirement.

There are plenty of minorities who would like to be head football coaches at the college level. I think it is absurd to think otherwise.

Wanting to do something on a whim and being interested enough to follow the steps needed to get there are two different things. Also, the proportion of minorities in coaching positions is pretty close to the proportion in over-all population (not just players). Which would make sense given that coaching doesn't require the physical abilities that players need.

In other words, there are more minority players because they tend to be faster and stronger. Coaches reflect the over-all population because they have equal capability to coach.

Let's apply your logic to players. Don't you think that white people want to have the fame, pay and respect that big time players have? Should we require that programs use scholarships on whites at the same proportion as the over-all population? Wouldn't that be more fair and balanced according to the logic of the Rooney Rule?

Why wouldn't they? The pay is great. The respect is great. The fame is great.

What does that have to do with anything? There are lots of careers and positions that provide those things. That doesn't demonstrate that all people want to achieve them through that career path equally or that discrimination is the reason they aren't.

Hockey coaches have great pay, respect and fame. Why don't minorities want to coach hockey? Donald Trump has a lot of that. Why aren't we all in real estate?

[nogerO]

I'm black and I oppose this.

Thank you for your honest opinion. That was actually my original point, to point out that making laws just for the sake of looking or seeming to be politically correct are just window dressing.