4 ms·

The Rooney Rule isn't a preference. It's a way to ensure that classes of applicants who have been systematically excluded from consideration are being considere

by _pius 11y ago

The Rooney Rule isn't a preference. It's a way to ensure that classes of applicants who have been systematically excluded from consideration are being considered at some reasonable rate. It does nothing to make a hiring process any less merit-based; quite the opposite, in fact.

byoung2 11y ago
a rule to require considering at least one minority candidate for open positions How does that work exactly? If you have the perfect candidate after interviewing 10 white males, you have to find a token black guy to interview? FYI I am a black male
- _pius 11y ago
  The Rooney Rule works when the hiring team complies with it in good faith. Running the "real" process without any minority candidates and then throwing a patsy in at the end isn't good faith.
Nadya 11y ago
>systematically excluded from consideration are being considered at some reasonable rate As mentioned, this is illegal per EEO, take it up with the courts. Otherwise they weren't being systematically ignored for consideration.
- strangecasts 11y ago
  You're assuming that the people who are overlooked are somehow instantly able to tell why they've been passed up, and even then have the time and resources to go to court.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    Proving that you were discriminated against is notoriously difficult. An exception to that is when the offending party is essentially admitting guilt in their effort to reform. 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".
    - strangecasts 11y ago
      This doesn't really explain > otherwise they weren't being systematically ignored for consideration.
      - Nadya 11y ago
        You either have a complaint for systematically being ignored or you don't. There isn't a middle ground. It's black and white: you were or you weren't. There are methods of getting these things investigated and handled [0]. In some cases, it is very easy to tell when you are being discriminated against [1]. 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 http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/howtofile.cfm [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by-men-denied-jobs.html http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by...
        strangecasts 11y ago
        The systematically of _pius' post is almost certainly used in the sense of "resulting from structural discrimination", which is a much larger and insidious beast because there's absolutely ingrained biases and entrenched policies that end up selecting away minorities in ways that can't be effectively shown in court.
- _pius 11y ago
  As mentioned, this is illegal per EEO, take it up with the courts. 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.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >No. The NFL has been using the Rooney Rule for quite some time. 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.
    - _pius 11y ago
      But I'd be racist for pointing that out, wouldn't I? Hey, you said it, not me.
      - Nadya 11y ago
        So no further correction on my apparent misunderstanding of EEO and the malevolent racism that is the Rooney Rule? 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.

by _pius 11y ago

byoung2 11y ago

a rule to require considering at least one minority candidate for open positions How does that work exactly? If you have the perfect candidate after interviewing 10 white males, you have to find a token black guy to interview? FYI I am a black male

_pius 11y ago
The Rooney Rule works when the hiring team complies with it in good faith. Running the "real" process without any minority candidates and then throwing a patsy in at the end isn't good faith.

Nadya 11y ago

>systematically excluded from consideration are being considered at some reasonable rate As mentioned, this is illegal per EEO, take it up with the courts. Otherwise they weren't being systematically ignored for consideration.

strangecasts 11y ago
You're assuming that the people who are overlooked are somehow instantly able to tell why they've been passed up, and even then have the time and resources to go to court.
- Nadya 11y ago
  Proving that you were discriminated against is notoriously difficult. An exception to that is when the offending party is essentially admitting guilt in their effort to reform. 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".
  - strangecasts 11y ago
    This doesn't really explain > otherwise they weren't being systematically ignored for consideration.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      You either have a complaint for systematically being ignored or you don't. There isn't a middle ground. It's black and white: you were or you weren't. There are methods of getting these things investigated and handled [0]. In some cases, it is very easy to tell when you are being discriminated against [1]. 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 http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/howtofile.cfm [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by-men-denied-jobs.html http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by...
      - strangecasts 11y ago
        The systematically of _pius' post is almost certainly used in the sense of "resulting from structural discrimination", which is a much larger and insidious beast because there's absolutely ingrained biases and entrenched policies that end up selecting away minorities in ways that can't be effectively shown in court.
_pius 11y ago
As mentioned, this is illegal per EEO, take it up with the courts. 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.
- Nadya 11y ago
  >No. The NFL has been using the Rooney Rule for quite some time. 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.
  - _pius 11y ago
    But I'd be racist for pointing that out, wouldn't I? Hey, you said it, not me.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      So no further correction on my apparent misunderstanding of EEO and the malevolent racism that is the Rooney Rule? 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.