No. The NFL has been using the Rooney Rule for quite some time.

Otherwise they weren't being systematically ignored for consideration.

You keep using EEO in your argument. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Doesn't invalidate my point. Also funny that it is largely only applied to the primarily white coaches and not the primarily black players. But I'd be racist for pointing that out, wouldn't I?

>Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, protects applicants and employees from discrimination in hiring

I don't even need to quote EEO past that to prove my point. If you are being systematically ignored for consideration based on the above criteria of race or sex, they are in violation of Title VII. Otherwise - you aren't being discriminated against.

Hey, you said it, not me.

I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if you can show how discriminating against hiring people based on their race or sex isn't discriminating against hiring people based on their race or sex - or how the Rooney Rule, which encourages discriminating in favor of hiring people based on their race or sex in this context, is not racist or sexist.

I have no qualms with being racist in the context of wanting to see other minority groups and whites (who, in this context, are a minority group) in a field primarily dominated by blacks. For the same reason other people have no qualm with being racist and wanting more minority groups in primarily white fields. I just want them to be aware that they are being racist.

None needed. I refuted you with the very first thing I said; the Rooney Rule isn't a hiring preference. Yet you've blithely continued to assert this and other falsehoods all across the thread.

In fact, you said: "To quickly sum up my thoughts on why it is essentially a quota in practice: If you do not hire more marginalized groups, you'll be accused of not honoring the Rooney Rule."

Well, that's just something you made up ... and it turns out to be completely false. There's actual data about how organizations have fared in implementing the policy. No need to rely on opinions from random White Pride concern trolls sea-lioning discussions on Hacker News.

Moreover, it's absurd to imply that an organization can't improve its process without exposing itself to liability. The Rooney Rule is a simple, effective way to ameliorate the selection bias that exists in many hiring processes: no more, no less. That's a far cry from your claim that implementing the Rooney Rule is some admission of liability. You literally don't know what you're talking about ... or are pretending not to.

There's no point in engaging with someone who's being willfully obtuse and that goes double for anonymous, pseudo-intellectual, race-baiting trolls.

>None needed. I refuted you with the very first thing I said; the Rooney Rule isn't a hiring preference.

It's purpose is implied to be - without explicitly stating it. But why believe me? Listen to Robert Gulliver instead.

>In the wake of no minority hirings to fill eight head coaching and seven general management vacancies following the conclusion of the 2012 NFL regular season, NFL Executive Vice president of Human Resources Robert Gulliver stated, "While there has been full compliance with the interview requirements of the Rooney Rule and we wish the new head coaches and general managers much success, the hiring results this year have been unexpected and reflect a disappointing lack of diversity."

Can you explain what is disappointing about full compliance of the rule? It sounds a lot like the implied quotas I mentioned before weren't met because not enough of the minority interviews were being hired after their Rooney-Required interview.

I'm also not the only person to see it for what it is: racist [1].

Many potential minority interviewees also turn down the interview because they know it is "just to comply with the Rooney Rule" and they have 0-chance of getting the job, as the team has already determined their next coach (who happens to be white: so they require a minority interview)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule

[1] http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/06/apparent-roo...

Implementation of the Rooney Rule is an admission to guilt of failing to comply with EEO. It's meant, explicitly, to combat against racial discrimination.

That's the nature behind the Rooney Rule. It asks the hiring managers/interviewers to reflect upon their interviewee's and recognize that they may have an inherent bias against hiring a marginalized group, reflect upon their selections, and do their best not to hire based on race (and in this implementation: sex).

In practice it's more like adding a quota or you may be accused of not following the rule. But I digress and don't want to argue into too far into that territory, as it becomes speculation of human motives.

To quickly sum up my thoughts on why it is essentially a quota in practice: If you do not hire more marginalized groups, you'll be accused of not honoring the Rooney Rule.

In order to comply with the unofficial Rooney Rule and make your manager happy, "You're increasing diversity! Good job!", you simply make sure to hire 1-2 marginalized people out of every 10 you hire.

But of course the "in good faith" argument applies and you can go back and forward bickering over whether they were hired in as a quota or "in good faith".

> otherwise they weren't being systematically ignored for consideration.

If it cannot be proved - and investigations prove otherwise - that discrimination did not take place, the feeling of being discriminated against does not mean discrimination took place. Otherwise someone could pull the race/gender card each and every time they weren't hired, regardless if the reason was they were underqualified/not the right fit/blah blah blah.

[0] http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/howtofile.cfm

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by...