I decided to exercise my editorial privileges and remove a comment left by Ivan Cole in yesterday’s post, Is the Rooney Rule Ripe for Dismissal? It was more than worthy to be its own article, and here it is. He begins:
All the preceding arguments are interesting and valid, but I believe there is an important part missing here.
Some of the “arguments” Ivan refers to are presumably those made in the article, but were also in a comment by Elpalito, referring back to his original comments to the Baltimore Beatdown article. Here they are, edited for length:
The [Rooney] rule was put in place because very good minority applicants weren’t even getting a sniff at an interview. In a sport dominated by players of color, it is odd that you can count the minority head coaches on one hand.
You [Baltimore Beatdown writer Wola Odeniran] are absolutely right though, the best person SHOULD be the one hired. But how do you know who the best person is when you refuse to interview a specific subset of experienced individuals? The Rooney Rule only requires an interview…an opportunity, a chance to show an owner that you can do the job… because whether you want to accept it or not, the truth is that plenty of the old, elitist owners aren’t so inclined to hire someone of color.
Good owners don’t need this rule. There are, however, surprisingly few good owners in the NFL.
This expansion into hiring more women? Like you, I care more about the best person being hired. But if no women are ever granted an interview…how would you know?
…[J]ob interviews are tough. If a minority candidate can’t get any interviews, how can he even practice? A person’s opportunity to interview shouldn’t only come up when the Steelers have an opening. Getting an interview is not a guarantee of a job offer — it is only the guarantee of a chance.