Will the Recent "DEI" Executive Order Affect the NFL? (1 Viewer)

[guidomerkinsrules]

not today Satan - not even on the ee

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

Well, I tried to keep it on SSF.

Fire away on your thoughts. As a general statement, I do not care for affirmative action because consequences are that it too often stigmatizes fully qualified Black candidates and can discriminate against whites. However, I fully recognize the extraordinary results of centuries of slavery and a century of Jim Crow on Black Americans. And though I agree with some of what the order is trying to achieve, I think it clearly overbroad, outrageously worded, and cheap politics.

Regarding admissions into the most selective universities, Oxford and Cambridge get it right. They consider grades, test scores, and the all-important interview to determine which students can benefit the most from the type of tutorial education they offer. They do not consider family contributions, legacy status, sports, or any extra-curricular activity unless they pertain to the subject to be studied. They do consider socioeconomic background, but do so knowing that young people from modest backgrounds may have amazing potential that has not been fully realized and that may not be completely captured by test scores and can benefit more from an education there than those from more privileged backgrounds.

Regarding the NFL, there is no need--certainly not any longer--for the Rooney Rule. I believe most NFL owners want to hire the best people to run their teams. Incidentally, the head-coach candidate I am most intrigued by is Anthony Weaver.

 

[Buickman]

I think a lot of these Executive Orders are headed straight to court.

 

[GeauxWhoDats]

Absolutely the recent DEI Executive order will affect the NFL. They should begin the search for a new Commissioner immediately.

 

[Devildog]

What does Dale Earnhardt Incorporated have to do with any of this?

 

[0rion]

What does Dale Earnhardt Incorporated have to do with any of this?

This was exactly what I was going to say. Great minds think alike and now we've proven the opposite is also true.

 

[SystemShock]

With trepidation, I raise this issue. Like nearly all of you, I have an opinion on the recently signed executive order that seeks to end race-based and other preferences. This is not the forum to discuss the merits of that executive order. Section 2 of the order directs all federal agencies to combat "illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities." Section 4 of the order is titled "Encouraging the Private Sector to End Illegal DEI Discrimination and Preferences." That section requires the Attorney General, after consultation with federal agencies and within 120 days of the order, to submit a report containing recommendations "to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI." Paragraph (b)(iii) states: "As part of this plan, each agency shall identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars."

The NFL has policies to increase the number of minority or diverse head coaches and front-office executives. Specifically, there must be at least two personal interviews of Black or other minority candidates before a team can hire a new coach. And the league awards drafts picks to teams that lose minority employees for a high-ranking position with another team. (Note that I am offering a rough summary of the NFL's policies, which are commonly referred to as the "Rooney Rule.")

President Trump has a history with the NFL that dates back to his years as a USFL team owner and its unsuccessful antitrust lawsuit against the NFL. The executive order discussed above is several pages long. Feel free to read it. But given the scope of the order, I suspect this will be the last year we will see any application of the Rooney Rule.

The reason for this post is my belief that this executive order will impact the operations of the NFL. So that this thread can remain on SSF, I would ask that your comments be directed on whether the order applies to the Rooney Rule and not on the merits of the executive order or the Rooney Rule.

What's illegal about the Rooney Rule?

This really doesn't belong here.

Main Community Board - Moderated

Moderated common discussion board where all members are welcome to debate, This board is for intelligent debate. Passionate debate is ok, however, there are behavioral rules. Uncivil behavior and personal attacks are not tolerated.

madaboutpolitics.com

 

[SWJJ]

This will have absolutely zero affect on the NFL

Whether the executive order is legal or not, doesn’t even matter

In this day and age, owners are very aware of the optics. They will continue to interview at least one minority for their head coaching position, even if they have zero interest in actually hiring them.

The Rooney rule has been handled by teams in the NFL in a manner that clearly shows they don’t actually care about diversity and inclusion. They just care about the appearance of diversity and inclusion.

 

[Dallas_Saint73]

With trepidation, I raise this issue. Like nearly all of you, I have an opinion on the recently signed executive order that seeks to end race-based and other preferences. This is not the forum to discuss the merits of that executive order. Section 2 of the order directs all federal agencies to combat "illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities." Section 4 of the order is titled "Encouraging the Private Sector to End Illegal DEI Discrimination and Preferences." That section requires the Attorney General, after consultation with federal agencies and within 120 days of the order, to submit a report containing recommendations "to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI." Paragraph (b)(iii) states: "As part of this plan, each agency shall identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars."

The NFL has policies to increase the number of minority or diverse head coaches and front-office executives. Specifically, there must be at least two personal interviews of Black or other minority candidates before a team can hire a new coach. And the league awards drafts picks to teams that lose minority employees for a high-ranking position with another team. (Note that I am offering a rough summary of the NFL's policies, which are commonly referred to as the "Rooney Rule.")

President Trump has a history with the NFL that dates back to his years as a USFL team owner and its unsuccessful antitrust lawsuit against the NFL. The executive order discussed above is several pages long. Feel free to read it. But given the scope of the order, I suspect this will be the last year we will see any application of the Rooney Rule.

The reason for this post is my belief that this executive order will impact the operations of the NFL. So that this thread can remain on SSF, I would ask that your comments be directed on whether the order applies to the Rooney Rule and not on the merits of the executive order or the Rooney Rule.

Fed agencies only. NFL is a private entity, not a government one.

 

[Grumpy Old Manatee]

3Par, regarding your first statement, can you cite a provision in the order that shows the order is limited to entities that receive money from the federal government? For instance, it expressly lists local bar associations.

And nobody died and made me a moderator. But if we start debating the merits of the order, this thread is not going to last one on the SSF.

Grumpy, please do, though a simple declarative sentence will suffice.

I will consider. Declarative enough? (OK, the second sentence is interrogatory, but I digress).

 

[CapitalCitySaint]

I am curious, when you fill out the questionnaires when applying for jobs, who can see the DEI questions and how the data is actually used. I know they make claims that it's only for reporting purposes for DEI but I have my doubts. As someone who is actively looking for a new job, it's really aggravating to me that in addition to the standard race, ethnicity, sex (M, F), veteran & disability questions, some job applications ask about pronouns, if you're transgender & sexual orientation. It's getting ridiculous and I also feel it's being used nefariously instead of for actual diversity practices.

An application should ask about your background, qualifications and if you can perform the job functions. Once hired, happy to answer any questions about any disabilities or special accommodations. Never will discuss my sexual orientation with anyone at work. I'm a straight white female so there's nothing really controversial about me but if I was something else, I would be even less inclined to disclose to coworkers.

I suppose the questions are tied into some sort of federal diversity reporting requirement which will go away but many companies will likely still maintain diversity hiring practices.

ETA: I feel that the bigger scam is nepotism hires. Most jobs have no business ever being posted and wasting people's time because 9 times out of 10, they already know which buddy or child of a buddy they will be hiring & the whole interview process is a sham for the rest of the applicants.

 

[mattgdg]

What does Dale Earnhardt Incorporated have to do with any of this?

DEI had to go away so Junior could get the #8 back.

I never realized this was a national issue.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I am curious, when you fill out the questionnaires when applying for jobs, who can see the DEI questions and how the data is actually used. I know they make claims that it's only for reporting purposes for DEI but I have my doubts. As someone who is actively looking for a new job, it's really aggravating to me that in addition to the standard race, ethnicity, sex (M, F), veteran & disability questions, some job applications ask about pronouns, if you're transgender & sexual orientation. It's getting ridiculous and I also feel it's being used nefariously instead of for actual diversity practices.

An application should ask about your background, qualifications and if you can perform the job functions. Once hired, happy to answer any questions about any disabilities or special accommodations. Never will discuss my sexual orientation with anyone at work. I'm a straight white female so there's nothing really controversial about me but if I was something else, I would be even less inclined to disclose to coworkers.

I suppose the questions are tied into some sort of federal diversity reporting requirement which will go away but many companies will likely still maintain diversity hiring practices.

ETA: I feel that the bigger scam is nepotism hires. Most jobs have no business ever being posted and wasting people's time because 9 times out of 10, they already know which buddy or child of a buddy they will be hiring & the whole interview process is a sham for the rest of the applicants.

adding general blather
sure an application's questions should be as streamlined as is useful
however it is almost always a much bigger benefit to have more diversity than more monoculture (basically true for all biology)
so the hiring practice shouldn't 'just' focus on the individual candidate in front of the interviewee - it should consider the health of the whole organism as well

 

[SystemShock]

however it is almost always a much bigger benefit to have more diversity than more monoculture

Who told you this?