Again this is well and good in theory. Unfortunately, it's not true that having a good resume will get you the same opportunities. Research shows that simply having a black or ethnic-sounding name makes it much less likely that one will get a callback or interview for a position even when the candidate is exceptionally qualified for the position.

Originally Posted by: earthquake 

When I was in college in the 70's one of my professors was telling us not only do men get promotions more often than women, whites more than blacks, slender more than pudgy, men with a full head of hair more than bald. And those who are taller more so than those who are short.

One of my classmates and I were discussing the issue of height. He said it surprised him. I'm 5'9" which is average. I told him I had been keenly aware of the height issue all 4 years of college. I told him that I was consistently the shortest or one of the 2 or 3 shortest men in every single business class and closer to average in non business classes. He was 6'3" I think. He said at his large suburban high school he was one of the tallest 4-5 guys in the school but as he looked around the room he was only average. It was a surprise to him.
( Started at one college and transferred to another and my height or the lack thereof was the same at both colleges.)

I am short, more than a little pudgy and bald so I would never make it very far without owning my own business.

I don't mean to imply that I have it rougher than a short black woman who is overweight. Simply that society has known about the inadequacies in hiring and promotion for a long long time.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

I don't love this solution, especially don't even like the compensation (two 3rd rounders?... seems a bit desperate).

But I feel like the real problem is nepotism (itt more about who you know), and the owners lack of knowledge...

Yeah, I said owners lack of knowledge, yes it's their team and their money, so they should get to spend it the way they want, but sometimes their choices for GM or Head coach just seem extremely questionable before they're even hired.

Bruce Allen to the Redskins certainly comes to mind, I mean maybe if you want him as an office guy leading you to get a new stadium, which is supposively why he lasted so long, but there is no dang reason for him to be in charge of actual football items IMO.

Rex Ryan (entertaining as hell, respect the man defenses), but hiring him as head coach of the Bills was clearly a mistake. The Bills had a dominating 4-3 defense, Ryan doesn't do 4-3 and those players didn't fit well into a 3-4. And the Bills problem was offense, and Ryan doesn't do offense.

The again, from what I remember, it's almost a surprise when some of these guys get in... kirk LaFleur broke into the NFL because there was a surprise opening and a coach he used to work with kept mentioning him... and LaFleur brother broke into the NFL easier because of LaFleur.


But it is disappointing, that there are a good number of questionable GMs, but I think there might be (I'm not sure, but I think there might be) only one non-white male.

As for compensation, I think the compensation, should be cash... as in, hey if you hire a non-white guy for head coach or GM, we'll pay ____ amount to cover their salary, so taking a chance on them cost less to you. Not a football advantage.

Originally Posted by: beast 

I don't love this solution, especially don't even like the compensation (two 3rd rounders?... seems a bit desperate).

But I feel like the real problem is nepotism (itt more about who you know), and the owners lack of knowledge...

Yeah, I said owners lack of knowledge, yes it's their team and their money, so they should get to spend it the way they want, but sometimes their choices for GM or Head coach just seem extremely questionable before they're even hired.

Bruce Allen to the Redskins certainly comes to mind, I mean maybe if you want him as an office guy leading you to get a new stadium, which is supposively why he lasted so long, but there is no dang reason for him to be in charge of actual football items IMO.

Rex Ryan (entertaining as hell, respect the man defenses), but hiring him as head coach of the Bills was clearly a mistake. The Bills had a dominating 4-3 defense, Ryan doesn't do 4-3 and those players didn't fit well into a 3-4. And the Bills problem was offense, and Ryan doesn't do offense.

Originally Posted by: beast 

But I feel like the real problem is nepotism (itt more about who you know), and the owners lack of knowledge...

Originally Posted by: beast 

What ever skin color, the best qualified should be hired.
That how it SHOULD be, at least.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 

As a business owner, I wouldn't give a rats ass if you're male, female, straight, trans, white, black, native, etc ... my primary concerns are going to be, are you good culture fit? Are you coachable? Are you knowledgeable in your field? Off the top of my head, those would be the things I would focus on. That's easy though, right? Yeah, of course you would hire the person who would best fit what you're seeking. But, what happens when it comes time to promote one person and two equally qualified people apply? If your deciding factor is both are equally knowledgeable but one has a better attitude -- you better hope the better attitude is held by a minority otherwise you'll get a lawsuit.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Regarding race, I encourage people to watch the movie 13th.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Edit, this is what I'm talking about. I'm not saying she's suing for sexism and not saying she wouldn't be right. I fear the loud push for equality will then steer people away from hiring women and minorities due to lawsuits. This is kind of similar to those with disabilities saying the regulations are hurting them from getting a job because employers are afraid of a lawsuit if they are terminated. I hate (momentarily) feeling like the only action is inaction because that is not actionable enough.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool