Best man for the job.

[Danthus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17161074

Professional Footballers' Association chief Gordon Taylor has called for the 'Rooney rule' to be introduced to English football.

Under the regulation in American football, NFL clubs must shortlist at least one minority candidate when appointing a manager.

Taylor has welcomed Terry Connor's appointment as Wolves manager, but wants English football to do more.

"We need to keep this moving forward," Taylor said.

"We hope that there will be an opportunity to have the Rooney rule introduced at Football League level initially."

i have never had much time for Taylor, what is wrong with best person * for the job?







* Person, to avoid claims of being sexist.

 

[Castiel]

Is there not a 'football' section anymore?

Anyway, to answer the question regardless of the colour of an appliant the 'best' man will get the job anyway.....and lose it after half a dozen defeats.....unless he is Arsene Wenger.

 

[Danthus]

Is there not a 'football' section anymore?

Anyway, to answer the question regardless of the colour of an appliant the 'best' man will get the job anyway.....and lose it after half a dozen defeats.....unless he is Arsene Wenger.

Whoops, got two tabs open.

 

[dirtydog]

If non whites are good enough, why do they need special laws to get these positions?

Hmm I think I just answered my own question.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Isn't the Rooney Rule just about interviewing a black person/minority candidate, rather than forcing them to hire quotas. They still need to be the best person, to get the job.

It seems like it is which makes it somewhat analoguous to guaranteed interviews for disabled people in terms of operation. It doesn't seem to say that you must employ a minority, merely that if they meet the criteria then they must be interviewed. It's something that I struggle to get all that worked up over - if they're the best person for the job then they should get it, if they're not then it doesn't really matter whether they're interviewed or not as they won't get the job all other things being equal.

 

[Danthus]

if you look at the ethic make up of players no one suggest that everyone doesn't get a fair crack of the whip.

If you look at managers, Ince failed in the Premier League not because of his skin colour but because Blackburn were a poor team. He was successful lower down and earned his way up the ladder.

 

[Danthus]

It seems like it is which makes it somewhat analoguous to guaranteed interviews for disabled people in terms of operation. It doesn't seem to say that you must employ a minority, merely that if they meet the criteria then they must be interviewed. It's something that I struggle to get all that worked up over - if they're the best person for the job then they should get it, if they're not then it doesn't really matter whether they're interviewed or not as they won't get the job all other things being equal.

How does shortlisting a person purely because of the colour of their skin help?

 

[dirtydog]

It seems like it is which makes it somewhat analoguous to guaranteed interviews for disabled people in terms of operation. It doesn't seem to say that you must employ a minority, merely that if they meet the criteria then they must be interviewed. It's something that I struggle to get all that worked up over - if they're the best person for the job then they should get it, if they're not then it doesn't really matter whether they're interviewed or not as they won't get the job all other things being equal.

Maybe we should all get worked up about it.

Maybe the way to defeat 'racism' is to be colour blind and to treat people equally based on their merits. Anything which goes against that should be resisted.

It doesn't do non whites any favours in the end. Any non white who gets hired under such rules will always have the impression hanging over him that he got the job because of his race, rather than his abilities. Even if that happens not to be true, the impression will still be there.

 

[semi-pro waster]

if you look at the ethic make up of players no one suggest that everyone doesn't get a fair crack of the whip.

If you look at managers, Ince failed in the Premier League not because of his skin colour but because Blackburn were a poor team. He was successful lower down and earned his way up the ladder.

There could be many reasons why there aren't a large number of minority managers but it's an awful lot easier to see if someone is talented at a sport than being talented at management.

How does shortlisting a person purely because of the colour of their skin help?

You mean how does saying that if you meet the criteria then you get interviewed help? It gives a person who meets the criteria a guaranteed interview which they wouldn't necessarily have otherwise, it's not going to get them the job if they completely stuff up the interview but it does mean that they don't fail to get the job before they've even had a chance to be interviewed.

It's not a quota as far as I can see but simply and only a requirement to interview people from minorities who meet the job criteria - that implies that theoretically at least they could be suitable for the job, if in the process of interviewing them it becomes clear that they aren't then they don't get the job. It doesn't put them ahead of anyone else except that they've got an interview and a chance which they may not otherwise have had.

Maybe we should all get worked up about it.

Maybe the way to defeat 'racism' is to be colour blind and to treat people equally based on their merits. Anything which goes against that should be resisted.

It doesn't do non whites any favours in the end. Any non white who gets hired under such rules will always have the impression hanging over him that he got the job because of his race, rather than his abilities. Even if that happens not to be true, the impression will still be there.

Maybe it will for some people but are those people worth worrying about? Or perhaps more pertinently would those people have thought any differently regardless of the interviewing process?

Sport is quite meritocratic in some ways - irrespective of how you got there if you can do the job then all tends to be forgiven. If you can't do the job then you're out on your ear anyway.

I can see the argument that we do nothing and allow everything to find its own level over time but there's the other argument that sometimes the seesaw has stopped in at one extreme or the other and it needs a little bit of additional weight to rebalance it.

 

[One More Solo]

I don't think it's the worst idea ever, as above teams can still hire who they like but there is clearly a huge discrepancy between the number of black players and the number of black coaches and managers.

 

[No1newts]

It seems like it is which makes it somewhat analoguous to guaranteed interviews for disabled people in terms of operation. It doesn't seem to say that you must employ a minority, merely that if they meet the criteria then they must be interviewed. It's something that I struggle to get all that worked up over - if they're the best person for the job then they should get it, if they're not then it doesn't really matter whether they're interviewed or not as they won't get the job all other things being equal.

It irritates the life out of me. Its discrimination against a majority and why should that be right when discrimination against a minority is wrong? It's nonesense and a disgrace.

To be honest they shouldn't even ask for peoples name, race, sex, religion, age or anything on an application. Just their qualifications and people then get interviews purely on merit.

 

[Danthus]

It irritates the life out of me. Its discrimination against a majority and why should that be right when discrimination against a minority is wrong? It's nonesense and a disgrace.

To be honest they shouldn't even ask for peoples name, race, sex, religion, age or anything on an application. Just their qualifications and people then get interviews purely on merit.

GOAL !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[semi-pro waster]

It irritates the life out of me. Its discrimination against a majority and why should that be right when discrimination against a minority is wrong? It's nonesense and a disgrace.

It's up to you but there's plenty of things that are probably more worthy of your ire than this which doesn't affect many people and wouldn't do anything (even if it is introduced) other than guarantee an interview to a minority candidate who had already met the relevant job criteria. If it was a quota then that might be a more significant issue but as it is there doesn't seem enough to be unduly concerned about.

To be honest they shouldn't even ask for peoples name, race, sex, religion, age or anything on an application. Just their qualifications and people then get interviews purely on merit.

Fine by me but that's not the way it is currently done and this suggestion is to address things as they are presently done. With regard to the asking for qualifications - what about those who are qualified by experience or those who attend schools which are split on religious grounds, is there not still a potential for discriminating against them?

 

[a1ex2001]

Football is a funny one, the management and coaching side of it doesn't seem to have kept up with the playing side given the number of ex-professionals who move into management/coaching I do find the very low number of minorities among them surprising.

I'm sure the reasoning is complex but I'm equally sure it's not explicit racism I don't think there are manay chairman out their thinking 'I won't employ a black manager' or managers thinking 'I won't employ a black coach' but there must be some sort of underlying social or economic explanation for what is a large anomoly.

 

[Gilly]

Positive discrimination is discrimination, and therefore inherently bad.

 

[Tunney]

Positive discrimination is discrimination, and therefore inherently bad.

It's not that simple. If clubs are discriminating against black managers then something needs to be done. Countering negative discrimination with positive discrimination in one method. It's not the ideal solution but it's proven to have worked.

 

[pingwing]

It's not that simple. If clubs are discriminating against black managers then something needs to be done. Countering negative discrimination with positive discrimination in one method. It's not the ideal solution but it's proven to have worked.

There is a problem that in football there does not appear to be any discrimination against black managers though and implementing a rule like this seems a little pointless.

If there are queues of qualified non-white managers being ignored for jobs in football management then there is a need for the ruling (which to some degree was the case in America), but in English league football I don't see there to be an institutional pressure to sign the non-black manager.

 

[Weebull]

Isn't the Rooney Rule just about interviewing a black person/minority candidate, rather than forcing them to hire quotas. They still need to be the best person, to get the job.

Yeah, but don't let that stop OcUK working itself into a froth.

I really don't see the big deal here. It's one person in eight for the interviews, I believe, and 21% of certified coaches over here are non-white. Statistically, clubs should be meeting that target anyway.

How does shortlisting a person purely because of the colour of their skin help?

Is that a trick question? It gives them a chance to apply for a role they might otherwise have been overlooked in.

 

[placeholder]

If skin colour isnt a deciding factor or even a relevant factor then being being black should no more gaurantee you an interview than prevent you from getting the job.

 

[No1newts]

If skin colour isnt a deciding factor or even a relevant factor then being being black should no more gaurantee you an interview than prevent you from getting the job.

Hit the nail on the head.

But god forbid you should say anything sensible, sensible is racist especially when it concerns someones skin colour. Discrimination is now perpertrated against the majority but shockingly it is allowed to go unpunished, hopefully for not too long.

Equality should mean everyone is equal, not some are more equal than others and are treated unequally to promote equality, its a clear contradiction and such absurdity defies belief in any world in which is reasonable... oh wait...