http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92951,00.html
What the fuck?
I don’t know much about the issue, but this sure as hell ain’t fixing anything.
Is this not racism? I mean I am a minority myself, but come on, the NFL shouldn’t have to be an Affirmative Action League… ITS FOOTBALL. I mean for fucks sake whats next? The referees are going to have make sure a minority sees the replay and agrees?
For a long long time, there was a kind of de facto racism that prevailed in the NFL on a variety of staffing positions. Minority head coaches were pretty much unheard of, and even certain positions (quarterback comes to mind) were overwhelmingly white. It was a fair question as to why, in a sport overwhelmingly dominated by minority players, there was such an absence of minority players in the coaching ranks or in the “skill” positions like quarterback. It was as though there was a barrier beyond which no minorities need apply.
The steps the league is taking are, I would guess, a reaction to that. Perhaps an overreaction (since minority head coaches do actually exist now). But the league feels that it needs to look like it’s addressing the issue.
The NFL is a private association. It’s free to fine its teams for failing to sing a stanza from Carmina Burana every time a first down is made, if it pleases.
I question the wisodm of this policy. But I don’t question their freedom to make and implement it.
They could use the snippet that’s played during the intro to each hour of Sean Hannity’s talk-radio show.
I disagree. There would appear to be a potentially serious claim claim for racial discrimination in employment under federal and state civil rights laws.
Whose claim and on what grounds? The fine was for failing to interview a minority, not failing to hire one. The Lions aren’t victims of racial discrimination, nor is their new coach. Who would be bringing this hypothetical claim?
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA4SJHKKID.html
Next time the Lions want to disobey one of the All-Powerful Commissioner’s rules, I suggest they don’t agree to follow the damned thing first.
The Denny Green regime at the Minnesota Vikings had descrimination go the other way IMHO, with qualified white coaches and players shown the door while unqualified black coaches were promoted, and strange roster descisions were made. Some black coaches were scapegoated by Denny towards the end of his regime, but it just seemed to be the acts of a desperate man. He ended up really screwing the organization over. Had he not, he could have been one of the coaches qualified to interview for the position.
The de facto racism still echoes till this day in the small number of black coaches that are qualified and experienced enough to coach an NFL team. Many are moving up through the ranks, so this will soon be a non-issue. But I see why the NFL would like to nudge it along, or in the least, not be seen as complacient. The players have a lot of power, and there are more blacks (IIRC, around 65%) in the players union than whites. It only makes sense that they try to push the issue to make the coaches reflect their population.
Yeah, but wouldn’t those claims be brought against the clubs themselves, not the NFL? I can understand the NFL not wanting the negative PR of its member clubs being sued for discrimination, but I don’t think the league itself would be in any legal jeopardy.
What would the owners have agreed to that in the first place?
And the most ridiculous thing is that they can interview the “token” black candidate and then hire whomever they want to. Nowhere is it written that a minority head coach must be hired, just interviewed.
The league is fooling itself if they think that this policy is gonna make any damn bit of difference.
In addition, minty, to address your statement:
As the people who are hiring are the ones in the position to make judgments about qualifications, why do we have the right to second guess their decisions? In a sense, they’re hiring a CEO for their field operations. In such an important position, shouldn’t they be allowed to hire someone who is, in their opinion, the best candidate, since they have the most to lose?
Under what possible theory would the NFL be liable for the hiring practices of the Detroit Lions?
First of all, the NFL is the individual clubs. It is simply an association whose members are the clubs.
Second, the basis for a discrimination lawsuit is quite simple. 42 U.S.C. 2002
Airman, racial discrimination in private hiring has been illegal under federal for four decades. I could bore you to death with tales of the Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment, and the Interstate Commerce clause, but that battle is long over, amigo.
Dammit. Let’s try that again.
First of all, the NFL is the individual clubs. It is simply an association whose members are the clubs. If the association implements a discriminatory employment practice that is mandatory for all of its members, there’s a good argument that the association is itself responsible for individual members that follow that mandatory policy. But who cares? So you sue the Oakland Raiders instead of the NFL. Any NFL franchise can pony up the damages without too much trouble.
Second, the basis for a discrimination lawsuit is quite simple. 42 U.S.C. § 2002e-2(a):
If a white coach doesn’t get an interview because the team’s policy required it to interview a minority instead, that team has clearly violated the above provision.
Airman, racial discrimination in private hiring has been illegal under federal for four decades. I could bore you to death with tales of the Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment, and the Interstate Commerce clause, but that battle is long over, amigo.
This does not change the fact that the NFL would not be the named defendant in a discrimination lawsuit. Damages resulting from such a lawsuit would not come from the coffers of the NFL itself, nor would it come from any other club other than the Detroit Lions.
The state bar association is just an association whose members are practicing lawyers in a given state. That doesn’t mean that the state bar association is liable for the torts of its members.**
What does the maintenance and operation of Indian hospital and health facilities have to do with the Lions’ hiring practices?
(Methinks you mean 42 USC 2000e et seq).
Guess I should’ve checked to see if there were any new posts on preview, eh?
Maybe, but that’s not the case here. It isn’t like the NFL is (or ever was) telling its clubs “don’t interview black people.”
That’s not the question.
Care to elaborate?
You claimed, in response to Bricker’s calling the wisdom of the NFL policy “questionable,” that you disagreed because there appeared to be a potentially serious claim for racial discrimination. Given the context of the response, it certainly sounds like you were saying that the NFL was acting wisely because otherwise it could find itself (rather than just the Detroit Lions) on the wrong end of a civil rights lawsuit.
That would seem to me to be clearly fallacious. The Detroit Lions alone, and not the NFL or its other constitutent football clubs, would have to answer for any discriminatory hiring practices undertaken by the Lions organization.
So then you suggest that if the NFL had itself imposed a discriminatory scheme on all the member clubs, it might be found liable for those practices. Which is fine, but that isn’t anything close to resembling the facts at hand. No one has ever suggested that discrimination in hiring by member clubs, if any, was the product of a rule imposed by the league.
I think it reasonably clear that the NFL imposes its own antidiscrimination rules on its member clubs for strictly PR reasons, and not because they fear legal jeopardy themselves. If the NFL had no policy whatsoever on club-level minority hiring, the end result would be no different: individual clubs would still be liable for their own discrimination, and the league as a whole would not (other than hiring for NFL employees proper, e.g., the commissioner’s secretary).