It's the age old argument of seeking equity v. equality. If you want to hire a coach because he is the best guy regardless of his skin color, that is equality. If you want to hire a black coach for the sake of increasing the number of black coaches in the league that is seeking equity. Two very different things.
Yes, that is an age-old argument, but it’s not the one in which Beason is engaging. He’s saying that - the workforce being what it is and the organization’s goals being what they are - the chances of success are somewhat better with a black coach. All else has to be more or less equal, obviously. The Giants would be wise to hire Pat Shurmur over Denzel Washington. But if the decision is basically a coin flip anyway (and let’s be honest, picking a coach is hardly a science), Beason is saying the Giants will be smart to pick Wilks over a similarly-qualified while candidate. Not purely meritocratic, nor especially noble. Just smart.
Is he right? No idea. I don’t even see a good way to test the theory. The samples are too small, and the uncontrolled variables too diverse... no pun intended.
Please re-read it, and I think you will see for yourself that it doesn’t respond to Christian’s point about diversity at all.
Your post is somewhat more responsive to Beason’s view, but only if you disregard the difference between the experiences of being black or white in America for the past 300+ years. You are better than that.
Just so we're all on the same page here -- your stance is 1) relatability is not a beneficial quality in leadership 2) race is not a relatable factor?
You're diving into an empty logic pool here. You're trying to find something discriminatory that's not there.
Accepting that race is a factor in the human condition isn't racist.
Not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if you are hiring a candidate even 1% less qualified based on the "relatability" due to race that you are doing a disservice to the new hire (patronizingly hiring said candidate to further some perceived social agenda that needs correcting) and the players (by not trusting pro athletes to simply do their job to the best of their abilities).
BigBlueBlogger puts it more eloquently than I could.
All I want is to just hire the best football coach and staff. Why does this coaching search have to have race and diversity injected into the equation? Let's just hire the best guy.
RE: TLG: Beason’s point was neither of those two. Â
Sure, there is an uncomfortable asymmetry in the idea that a white player who performs better for a white coach is a redneck, racist @$$hole, while a black player who elevates his game for a black coach is just manifesting solidarity, affinity, etc. In a perfect world, no such distinctions would exist. They would both be racist @$$holes.
By the way, Beason’s point was somewhat specific to New York. Â
He referred not only to the players, but also at length to the city - which is interesting, because I think the Giant fan base is much whiter than the city as a whole. On the other hand, the team brass, post Reese/Ross, is even whiter.
Just so we're all on the same page here -- your stance is 1) relatability is not a beneficial quality in leadership 2) race is not a relatable factor?
You're diving into an empty logic pool here. You're trying to find something discriminatory that's not there.
Accepting that race is a factor in the human condition isn't racist.
Not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if you are hiring a candidate even 1% less qualified based on the "relatability" due to race that you are doing a disservice to the new hire (patronizingly hiring said candidate to further some perceived social agenda that needs correcting) and the players (by not trusting pro athletes to simply do their job to the best of their abilities).
BigBlueBlogger puts it more eloquently than I could.
All I want is to just hire the best football coach and staff. Why does this coaching search have to have race and diversity injected into the equation? Let's just hire the best guy.
And what you're not getting is being relatable and being able to relate to the group being led can be a quality that contributes to the guy being the best guy.
It has nothing to do with correcting an injustice. That's not a part of anyone's calculation in this argument aside from you I've read.
Just so we're all on the same page here -- your stance is 1) relatability is not a beneficial quality in leadership 2) race is not a relatable factor?
You're diving into an empty logic pool here. You're trying to find something discriminatory that's not there.
Accepting that race is a factor in the human condition isn't racist.
Not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if you are hiring a candidate even 1% less qualified based on the "relatability" due to race that you are doing a disservice to the new hire (patronizingly hiring said candidate to further some perceived social agenda that needs correcting) and the players (by not trusting pro athletes to simply do their job to the best of their abilities).
BigBlueBlogger puts it more eloquently than I could.
All I want is to just hire the best football coach and staff. Why does this coaching search have to have race and diversity injected into the equation? Let's just hire the best guy.
And what you're not getting is being relatable and being able to relate to the group being led can be a quality that contributes to the guy being the best guy.
It has nothing to do with correcting an injustice. That's not a part of anyone's calculation in this argument aside from you I've read.
We will have to agree to disagree. I understand your point but until that concept is applied evenly in all situations across all industries it seems very insincere to play that card. That's all. Your premise seems to be that its beneficial to homogenize a workforce when it favors minorities. For a prime example picture the scenario when am equally well qualified black coach interviews for the NY Rangers job but is told that he isnt going to be hired because an eastern european white guy can relate more to the players. Also, what do you think that social science you referenced is based on if not remedying prior social injustice?
TLG: That question has already been answered multiple times above. Â
Also, what do you think that social science you referenced is based on if not remedying prior social injustice?
See eclipz928’s posts on this subject. The dependent variables are things like profitability, customer perception, productivity and worker satisfaction. Remedying injustice is doubtless a factor in these positive outcomes, but it’s not the thing being measured.
I can’t assess the validity of those studies, or the degree to which they justify hiring preferences. I’m just saying they exist, and that they aren’t what you insist they are.
that could give no fucks about the tone of our next HC's skin. If Wilks vets out as the choice, let's get behind him. That said, some of what Beason said makes logical sense. We can wish away (or for) some things. Doesn't mean we'll get the result we want. Bottom line, if Wilks is the guy ... LET'S GO! If he brings a bit of old-school style, excellent. Love it.
(Is Wilks the guy who says he'd HC from the booth? I don't LOVE that. But, if it's his style and it works, all right.)
reverse racism, is f'n racism. RACE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. There are successful, unsuccessful, rich and poor, smart and stupid and jerkoffs of EACH and every friggen race on the planet and probably the universe and anyone saying otherwise is a RACE BAITING DOLT.
Last year I attended a panel of in house who attorneys who discussed what traits they look for when hiring outside counsel. One of the panelists, with no shame at all, said that she expressly looks to hire attorneys who are minorities or females - in other words, anyone except white males. When I think of "diversity" initiatives, THAT'S what I - someone who has busted his ass his entire life - think of, and I know that at bottom, many of these initiatives are simply officially-sanctioned ways to discriminate against me based on nothing more than the color of my skin and my gender. It's simply the other side of the same racist coin that we fought against for so long. It's not right then, and it's not right now.
It may not be quite the same with the Giants head coaching search, because we're talking about a league that is at least 75% black, and there really could be a tangible benefit in having a black coach who could relate better to the vast majority of his players - and a large part of whose job, after all, is to motivate and get the most out of his players. Not that I'm advocating for Wilks on this basis, but I think it's something that is reasonable to consider as one of many factors. But more generally, when you're dealing with race-neutral ideas like drafting contracts or engaging in litigation, the idea that you can rightfully discriminate against white people (men in particular) in hiring is ludicrous and insulting.
Last year I attended a panel of in house who attorneys who discussed what traits they look for when hiring outside counsel. One of the panelists, with no shame at all, said that she expressly looks to hire attorneys who are minorities or females - in other words, anyone except white males. When I think of "diversity" initiatives, THAT'S what I - someone who has busted his ass his entire life - think of, and I know that at bottom, many of these initiatives are simply officially-sanctioned ways to discriminate against me based on nothing more than the color of my skin and my gender. It's simply the other side of the same racist coin that we fought against for so long. It's not right then, and it's not right now.
It may not be quite the same with the Giants head coaching search, because we're talking about a league that is at least 75% black, and there really could be a tangible benefit in having a black coach who could relate better to the vast majority of his players - and a large part of whose job, after all, is to motivate and get the most out of his players. Not that I'm advocating for Wilks on this basis, but I think it's something that is reasonable to consider as one of many factors. But more generally, when you're dealing with race-neutral ideas like drafting contracts or engaging in litigation, the idea that you can rightfully discriminate against white people (men in particular) in hiring is ludicrous and insulting.
But then, of course, the counter to my statement to Wilks:
Am I thereby saying that a black man can never coach an NHL team and that his race should be used against him? No...but it highlights the problem of explicitly bringing race into the equation to begin with.
Is he right? No idea. I don’t even see a good way to test the theory. The samples are too small, and the uncontrolled variables too diverse... no pun intended.
Your post is somewhat more responsive to Beason’s view, but only if you disregard the difference between the experiences of being black or white in America for the past 300+ years. You are better than that.
You're diving into an empty logic pool here. You're trying to find something discriminatory that's not there.
Accepting that race is a factor in the human condition isn't racist.
You're diving into an empty logic pool here. You're trying to find something discriminatory that's not there.
Accepting that race is a factor in the human condition isn't racist.
Not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if you are hiring a candidate even 1% less qualified based on the "relatability" due to race that you are doing a disservice to the new hire (patronizingly hiring said candidate to further some perceived social agenda that needs correcting) and the players (by not trusting pro athletes to simply do their job to the best of their abilities).
BigBlueBlogger puts it more eloquently than I could.
All I want is to just hire the best football coach and staff. Why does this coaching search have to have race and diversity injected into the equation? Let's just hire the best guy.
Bad example - the Giants hiring Coach Boone would be awesome.
Quote:
Just so we're all on the same page here -- your stance is 1) relatability is not a beneficial quality in leadership 2) race is not a relatable factor?
You're diving into an empty logic pool here. You're trying to find something discriminatory that's not there.
Accepting that race is a factor in the human condition isn't racist.
Not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if you are hiring a candidate even 1% less qualified based on the "relatability" due to race that you are doing a disservice to the new hire (patronizingly hiring said candidate to further some perceived social agenda that needs correcting) and the players (by not trusting pro athletes to simply do their job to the best of their abilities).
BigBlueBlogger puts it more eloquently than I could.
All I want is to just hire the best football coach and staff. Why does this coaching search have to have race and diversity injected into the equation? Let's just hire the best guy.
And what you're not getting is being relatable and being able to relate to the group being led can be a quality that contributes to the guy being the best guy.
It has nothing to do with correcting an injustice. That's not a part of anyone's calculation in this argument aside from you I've read.
Quote:
In comment 13779242 christian said:
Quote:
Just so we're all on the same page here -- your stance is 1) relatability is not a beneficial quality in leadership 2) race is not a relatable factor?
You're diving into an empty logic pool here. You're trying to find something discriminatory that's not there.
Accepting that race is a factor in the human condition isn't racist.
Not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if you are hiring a candidate even 1% less qualified based on the "relatability" due to race that you are doing a disservice to the new hire (patronizingly hiring said candidate to further some perceived social agenda that needs correcting) and the players (by not trusting pro athletes to simply do their job to the best of their abilities).
BigBlueBlogger puts it more eloquently than I could.
All I want is to just hire the best football coach and staff. Why does this coaching search have to have race and diversity injected into the equation? Let's just hire the best guy.
And what you're not getting is being relatable and being able to relate to the group being led can be a quality that contributes to the guy being the best guy.
It has nothing to do with correcting an injustice. That's not a part of anyone's calculation in this argument aside from you I've read.
We will have to agree to disagree. I understand your point but until that concept is applied evenly in all situations across all industries it seems very insincere to play that card. That's all. Your premise seems to be that its beneficial to homogenize a workforce when it favors minorities. For a prime example picture the scenario when am equally well qualified black coach interviews for the NY Rangers job but is told that he isnt going to be hired because an eastern european white guy can relate more to the players. Also, what do you think that social science you referenced is based on if not remedying prior social injustice?
I can’t assess the validity of those studies, or the degree to which they justify hiring preferences. I’m just saying they exist, and that they aren’t what you insist they are.
(Is Wilks the guy who says he'd HC from the booth? I don't LOVE that. But, if it's his style and it works, all right.)
Link - ( New Window )
Get over your own personal identity issues ffs.
Move on.
Beason laid out reasons why players can relate to Wilks. In what way is that racist or derogatory to other races?
People who don't even understand the word racism, probably shouldn't post about it, especially using CAPS and sounding like a fucking moron.
Under the circumstances, I'd call that friendly advice - based on a frank expression of your opinion - not a personal attack
It may not be quite the same with the Giants head coaching search, because we're talking about a league that is at least 75% black, and there really could be a tangible benefit in having a black coach who could relate better to the vast majority of his players - and a large part of whose job, after all, is to motivate and get the most out of his players. Not that I'm advocating for Wilks on this basis, but I think it's something that is reasonable to consider as one of many factors. But more generally, when you're dealing with race-neutral ideas like drafting contracts or engaging in litigation, the idea that you can rightfully discriminate against white people (men in particular) in hiring is ludicrous and insulting.
It may not be quite the same with the Giants head coaching search, because we're talking about a league that is at least 75% black, and there really could be a tangible benefit in having a black coach who could relate better to the vast majority of his players - and a large part of whose job, after all, is to motivate and get the most out of his players. Not that I'm advocating for Wilks on this basis, but I think it's something that is reasonable to consider as one of many factors. But more generally, when you're dealing with race-neutral ideas like drafting contracts or engaging in litigation, the idea that you can rightfully discriminate against white people (men in particular) in hiring is ludicrous and insulting.
But then, of course, the counter to my statement to Wilks:
Am I thereby saying that a black man can never coach an NHL team and that his race should be used against him? No...but it highlights the problem of explicitly bringing race into the equation to begin with.