NFL to present new resolutions to Rooney Rule, which includes draft-related incentives (1 Viewer)

[RazorOye]

Any situation where one race is being pushed over another, having rewards for doing so, is racist, regardless of which race it is. There has to be a better way. I’ve even given some ideas earlier in this thread.

I agree that there must be a better way.

I'm trying to figure out why it is 'racist' instead of 'racial'

What definition are you using to say it's racist? "Any situation where one race is being pushed over another"?

I'm not exaggerating - nor trying to be difficult - when I say that in two decades of doing race-related work have I come across that definition. Racial? Sure. But I don't know how it's "racist" and I don't follow how that definition you have is "racist" because it's not saying that black coaches or white coaches are inferior.

 

[RazorOye]

I don't want to get in the middle of this crossfire. However, though the common definition of racism is belief that a particular race is inherently superior, a broader definition of the word is discrimination based on race. I would not use the word racism or racist to describe what the NFL seems to be proposing or affirmative action, but broadly speaking, it can be argued that a policy that discriminates or favors based on race is racist. Agreed that the word racism usually connotes the belief that one racial group is superior to another, and here I would stay away from the word racist. But I understand how technically the word might be used, though I understand that its usage can be provocative.

and I think we have enough words to use without calling this 'racism'

people tend to get really offended and say "the word racism gets thrown around too easily" and I definitely agree. And I think this is an obvious example.

But I don't see how "racism" is "preferential treatment of one race" unless there's inherent belief around superiority. Colloquially, maybe. But if we are talking about actual policy, as in this case, colloquy isn't going to be enough.

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

I agree that there are huge advantages and disadvantages in American society--in education, in housing, in medical care--based on who has money and who does not, and that as a practical matter, those disadvantages impact minorities much more than non-minorities. But just because class-driven causes particularly affect a particular race, I would not say that those class-driven causes constitute racial discrimination. There are plenty economically disadvantaged whites in large parts of this country who receive a poor education, and have poor health care and substandard housing.

 

[St.Fury]

I agree that there must be a better way.

I'm trying to figure out why it is 'racist' instead of 'racial'

What definition are you using to say it's racist? "Any situation where one race is being pushed over another"?

I'm not exaggerating - nor trying to be difficult - when I say that in two decades of doing race-related work have I come across that definition. Racial? Sure. But I don't know how it's "racist" and I don't follow how that definition you have is "racist" because it's not saying that black coaches or white coaches are inferior.

This definition uses the word “or” not “and”. Therefore everything before the word “or”, which I have high legend, can stand on its own.

 

[RazorOye]

This definition uses the word “or” not “and”. Therefore everything before the word “or”, which I have high legend, can stand on its own.

yea, I'm familiar, and the question remains:

Where are they showing "discrimination or prejudice against people of other races". It seems to be the opposite. They are exhibiting discrimination or prejudice to benefit (i.e. not 'against') other races.

Like I said, I might not have spent the most time looking at definitions of 'racism' of anyone here. But reading and writing about this stuff is literally part of my job and I just haven't seen it. And I don't see it in your definition.

 

[parlorcitysaint]

you do misunderstand

I am saying we make *all sorts* of discriminatory decisions, in all walks of life, for all sorts of things.

I quoted what you said, which was:



I am arguing that "given the proper situation(s), discrimination is acceptable.

You said it was not, "in no circumstances... acceptable"

But now you are saying it is.

In some cases, being black is a greater disadvantage than a physical disability. Redlining and housing discrimination, for example, was really only applied to black families, not physically disabled whites.

It depends on what we are talking about. It, in itself, is not a disability (though someone earlier who argued that black people have lower IQs because DNA) but it can be a bigger impediment, in some areas, than a disability.

I am equating nothing.

I'm arguing the same as I always have - there's a lot of subjectivity/gray. You said "subjectivity" is "suspect." But subjectivity is now okay for things like disability and financial need/poverty and special needs/education? So why not other areas of life where discrimination has been negative. Like gender or ethnicity, for example?

I'm glad to see that your position isn't as inflexible as you initially said.

You acknowledge there *is* subjectivity and discrimination. And *in some cases* it's okay.

Programs for the benefit of underprivileged or physically or mentally challenged people DO NOT qualify as "discrimination" in my mind. Applying those benefits while assessing race IS.

 

[RazorOye]

There are plenty economically disadvantaged whites in large parts of this country who receive a poor education, and have poor health care and substandard housing.

yes, but laws codified against whites didn't and don't exist. I mean, the exact opposite was the case in the country before it was even the United States. I know there are whites who receive poor education. Have poor health. Have substandard housing. Much of my family fits exactly that description lol.

My position is not in denial of that.

In fact, some of my recent work talks about the discrimination of rural whites when it comes to technological infrastructure, access to healthcare, and lower educational achievement. They've been "left behind" too - and it's getting worse. And COVID is, in a lot of ways, magnifying this and will probably continue to as time goes on.

Trust me, I'm well aware.

 

[RazorOye]

Programs for the benefit of underprivileged or physically or mentally challenged people DO NOT qualify as "discrimination" in my mind. Applying those benefits while assessing race IS.

it is discrimination though, it's looking at X and Y and saying "X is at a disadvantage compared to Y, so we need to help X out more." That's literally discrimination. Discrimination doesn't necessarily have a bad meaning.

To use the same source as above:

"recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."

 

[xardoz]

Another example of a failed program.
So it fails, what do they do? Throw more resources at it.

NFL is a microcosm of our society.

 

[RazorOye]

I'll try another approach, because maybe I am not making myself clear. I'll use two examples, the first is a scenario from education that I would say is an illustration of racist vs. racial. The second are questions related to sports.

First, let's say there is a standardized test and black students are performing poorly (a true scenario). Let's say the state lowers the 'passing mark' for a black kid (also a true scenario).

If the motivation is "Black kids are dumber because they are black and therefore need a boost" that is racist.

If, however, the motivation is "Black kids have more disadvantages, educationally, than white kids so we are going to account for that by lowering a mark" that's racial. Not racist.

For the record, I am against both. But trying to illustrate a difference of what I mean when I use one term and not the other.

Just like here, I am against the proposal. I think it is racial. Not racist.

Now, a question. Are all of these programs below "racist" - NASCAR, MLB, NBA, and NHL?

NASCAR is spending money to increase driver diversity and have created Drive for Diversity program - is this racist?

Major League Baseball is increasing funding for black youth to participate in youth baseball leagues, because participation by black youth in baseball has dropped and there are fewer black major leaguers.

So, they created the RBI Program: Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities. Is this racist?

In the NBA, our Toronto Raptors have invested more money in scouting African players, nearly all of whom are black, at the expense of reaching out into other global communities and the NBA is creating an African basketball league, reaching into continent and countries that are almost entirely black. Is this racist?

The NHL has created HIFE: Hockey is for Everyone to diversity its appeal and grow its player/talent base. They named Willie O'Ree head of this initiative, the NHL's first black player. Is this racist?

 

[St.Fury]

yea, I'm familiar, and the question remains:

Where are they showing "discrimination or prejudice against people of other races". It seems to be the opposite. They are exhibiting discrimination or prejudice to benefit (i.e. not 'against') other races.

Like I said, I might not have spent the most time looking at definitions of 'racism' of anyone here. But reading and writing about this stuff is literally part of my job and I just haven't seen it. And I don't see it in your definition.

Yeah...I’ve got to disagree there. The proposed method, while benefiting one group, inherently hurts another. Rewarding one group is not an issue when it doesn’t hurt another group. But in this case, the rewards would come at the expense of other groups, and entirely based on the race of a new head coach. So, yes, I do believe it fits that definition. Again, I’ll state that I believe there’s a better way.

 

[RazorOye]

Yeah...I’ve got to disagree there. The proposed method, while benefiting one group, inherently hurts another. Rewarding one group is not an issue when it doesn’t hurt another group. But in this case, the rewards would come at the expense of other groups, and entirely based on the race of a new head coach. So, yes, I do believe it fits that definition. Again, I’ll state that I believe there’s a better way.

I've already agreed that there's a better way.

But you are saying that it's racist not because it helps a disadvantaged group but because it "inherently hurts another"? How does that fit your definition? It doesn't. The NFL is not showing prejudice against white coaches. Racial. Not racist. You're having to shift the entire perspective of your argument to fit your own definition, which was already reasonably selective.

I don't see where the NFL is holding a white candidate's ethnicity against him. Where is the oppression of the white coach codified? I think it's a silly policy because it doesn't fit the policy, but you're arguing an indirect result that doesn't even bear much, if any, fruit.

Plus, you say it's one group. It's visible minority - not just black. Also, do we know that the proposal doesn't give the same benefit for hiring a female coach? Is it still racist, then? How can it be 'racist' if it applies if a white woman was hired?

Again, I'll state that I believe the word 'racism' gets tossed around too casually. And this is one clear example, imo.

But I added questions above to try and understand your definition of 'racism' better because maybe I'm just not following through some lapse in communication or understanding.

 

[RazorOye]

NFL is a microcosm of our society.

sports always has been

one of the best things about it

and while I might seem like I am contradicting myself based on what I've been writing and posting, I think sports has gotten closer to 'meritocracy' than a helluva lotta other things in our society

 

[St.Fury]

I've already agreed that there's a better way.

But you are saying that it's racist not because it helps a disadvantaged group but because it "inherently hurts another"? How does that fit your definition? It doesn't. The NFL is not showing prejudice against white coaches. Racial. Not racist. You're having to shift the entire perspective of your argument to fit your own definition, which was already reasonably selective.

I don't see where the NFL is holding a white candidate's ethnicity against him. Where is the oppression of the white coach codified? I think it's a silly policy because it doesn't fit the policy, but you're arguing an indirect result that doesn't even bear much, if any, fruit.

Plus, you say it's one group. It's visible minority - not just black. Also, do we know that the proposal doesn't give the same benefit for hiring a female coach? Is it still racist, then? How can it be 'racist' if it applies if a white woman was hired?

Again, I'll state that I believe the word 'racism' gets tossed around too casually. And this is one clear example, imo.

But I added questions above to try and understand your definition of 'racism' better because maybe I'm just not following through some lapse in communication or understanding.

Again, that is the core of why we disagree. Rewarding clubs by improving draft position inherently hurts teams that do no fit a criteria. What is the criteria? Hiring people of color. In my view, that is racist because teams that have white coaches are discriminated against...because if they have a white coach, they can't fit the criteria.Theres no way they can be rewarded but they can definitely be harmed by being forced to drop down a draft spot that they "earned".

I know I'm not going to convince you otherwise so I'll move on. At least I've given an alternative solution.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Again, that is the core of why we disagree. Rewarding clubs by improving draft position inherently hurts teams that do no fit a criteria. What is the criteria? Hiring people of color. In my view, that is racist

That's fine that you think this policy is racist, but it's not supported by the dictionary or really anything factual.

You feel that it's racist. That's fine. Objectively, it isn't. But how you feel is important too.

And yeah, really nobody on this thread has said they like the policy.