GFC to take part in tokenism

[John_Knee]

jogills - 29/9/2017 08:55


1) It does mean that far too few black candidates are ever considered, or selected, which frustrates those potential candidates and robs football of potential talent.

2) This board and others are often given over to attacks on Scally for going in house, returning to Peter Taylor, Hess, Lovell and former players generally.

3) It is a strange feature of modern life that some of the most disaffected and angry are white men, who have been rather easily persuaded that they are victims. Man up chaps most of us haven't and don't suffer from discrimination unlike women, recent migrants, the disabled, non white people, gay people....

I've snipped a lot out but left enough to highlight the paragraph I am referring to...

1) If you accept that in a results business like football then the chairman will look to hire the best skilled person. If any given black person is considered talented then they will be given the chance. The probable reality is that there is probably a wide range of reasons why certain groups are considered under represented.

As I commented in another post, of those who study the higher coaching qualifications that a manager needs compared, what percentage are BAME? What percentage of candidates who apply for the job are BAME? A lack of BAME managers in the supply chain could be a factor as the few good (or maybe high profile is a better word??) black managers like Powell, Hassenbank don't seem to have an issue getting jobs relatively quickly (whereas terrible managers like John Barnes dropped off pretty quickly)...

Quite possible all BAME candidates are being considered, but there is a lack of candidates to choose from.

No one has answered the question, even when I have specifically asked individuals is how many BAME managers must there be before acceptable diversity levels are met?

2) Those managers are being hired because they are friends of Scally whom he knows he can works with and trusts. The other candidates are not being discriminated against due to gender, skin colour etc. Cronyism is hardly discrimination.

3) The issue is the narrative that white heterosexual men are being told that they have never been discriminated against in their life due to their skin, sexuality and gender and morally should step aside for someone who may or may not have suffered a form of discrimination in any given situation. When white men point out they too suffer discrimination in some forms, it is the way that those discriminations are waved away as unimportant and only worthy of consideration once everyone else are happy with their position in life (which they never will be).

What we are talking about here is intersectionality theory which at the point is judging a person's moral worth based upon characteristics they were born with and do nothing about...

 

[John_Knee]

Therealwaldo - 29/9/2017 09:07

Jogills 100% agree with all that. Well said. As you so eloquently say, those that are offended by this issue are those who have never suffered any form of discrimination.

Do you really believe that certain sections of society have never suffered any form discrimination?

 

[ThrapstonGills]

This is an absolute load of b*llocks.

I don't think anyone cares if the manager is black white orange or yellow.

What people want is a manger who can win your club games.

I'd be far more worried about employing a manager of questionable background (ie Steve Evans) than whether they are black or white.

Political correctness gone mad.

 

[ThreeSixes]

jogills - 29/9/2017 10:24

Move on from that and we have to imagine a situation where the minority candidate is the worst yet has to be interviewed.

But that's the Rooney rule!?

"The four clubs, who are currently looking for a new manager, have, or will, interview at least one candidate from a black, Asian or ethnic minority background".

 

[ThreeSixes]

RainhamGill - 29/9/2017 10:26

How would you know how qualified or suitable a candidate is until you interview them?

I don't work in recruitment so I don't know. I know that not everyone that applies for a job gets an interview though. Or maybe they do, has this changed recently?

 

[chris who]

The lack of BAME managers could well have more to do with unlike players they are singled out therefore are going to be a target .There is also a lack of BAME referee's I would guess it is for much the same reason .While i doubt direct racism is a real problem in football .Giving someone a hard time happens in all walks of life .But when you are part of a team it is often less of a problem .BAME Managers are unlikely to have to face that much direct race comment but calling managers this or that regardless of origin gets harder to take if more people are involved .This they can do without making any remark about colour .
Applying for a managers job these days you put yourself in the firing line .You largely have to take a lot of crap without being able to hit back. As does a referee week after week .That has to
be harder to take it if you suffer from any form of abuse in your normal life growing up etc .

 

[John_Knee]

RainhamGill - 29/9/2017 10:26

How would you know how qualified or suitable a candidate is until you interview them?

You'd work out the qualified from their CV and if they have the basic qualifications. So for a football manager then that would be what level of coaching qualifications they have studied and if they have worked previously as a manager (full or youth sides) or coached within a similar professional environment. In the cases of managers who have had a number of prior jobs then you would investigate their (relative) success at those clubs.

Someone who applies with no coaching experience but sends in screen prints of them winning the champions league with Dover will probably be classified as not qualified.

In terms of suitability, you might be able to establish that also from the CV - if you are looking for a manager who wants to play entertaining football as part of the remit then based upon reputation some managers like Pulis might be excluded. Do they have a reputation for being agreeable or argumentative?

Otherwise, suitability would strongly be determined in the interview which would establish if the philosophy of the club and manager mixed...

 

[SteveTreacle]

jogills - 29/9/2017 08:55

The second quote claims that the rule is racist. How so? That is a truly bizarre claim. How are white people discriminated against.

Of course it is racist. Were there a policy the other way round, it would be rightly deemed as racist. The PC brigade and race crusaders do love figures to prove a point, one of which is approx. 10% of the population is BAME; 33% of professional footballer are BAME; yet only 4% (or whatever it is) of mangers are. Therefore, the justification for favouring BAME managerial candidates is supported by stats. However, is there not a case for saying that there should be positive discrimination against BAME footballers to get the number of players reflective of society? Clearly were that to be considered, the equality bodies would be all over it and rightly so.

Let's give a realistic example of how the Rooney Rule could be discriminatory or racist in operation. Let's say, Chris Powell doesn't go for the Gills' job, but the following realistic candidates do and are deemed the best candidates by Scally who has a shortlist of 6:

Micky Adams, Shaun Derry, Steve Cotterril, Brian McDermott, Marin Allen and Chris Kinnear.

However, there were no decent BAME candidates; however, due to the Rooney rule, we need to interview one, so have to interview someone whose only experience is managing a local club at Ryman South level. So, Chris Kinnear, for example, has to drop off of the list because of this and doesn't get an interview.

This is a realistic example that could easily happen.

The bottom line is, if a candidates are good enough and want the job, they'll get a fair crack and ultimately get the job, if they're the best and most appropriate one for it.

 

[SteveTreacle]

jogills - 29/9/2017 08:55

.... that there is not a problem you need to first believe that the current arrangements are race blind, utterly fair and result in outcomes consistent with that fairness. They are not and they do not. This does not mean that everyone involved in selection and recruitment is racist, or that football is conniving to exclude black people. It does mean that far too few black candidates are ever considered, or selected, which frustrates those potential candidates and robs football of potential talent.

I think this is where we differ, Jo. As I said elsewhere, I have never seen any cogent evidence (or proof) that BAME managers are discriminated against. Stats alone prove little. I haven't heard or seen examples of highly skilled BAME managers being over-looked for inferior white managers. Let's see the examples of this.

Also, you (rightly) picked me up earlier on my statement about GFC never having race issues with playing or managerial staff (or something like that), and you're right, I too adamant on that point - what I should have said is that no evidence or proof of this has ever been substantiated. However, equally, you say " It does mean that far too few black candidates are ever considered" - where is the proof of this, i.e. that they weren't considered? For there to be a problem, it needs to be proved that they were not considered AND this was due to their race rather than experience/qualifications.

jogills - 29/9/2017 08:55

It is a strange feature of modern life that some of the most disaffected and angry are white men, who have been rather easily persuaded that they are victims. Man up chaps most of us haven't and don't suffer from discrimination unlike women, recent migrants, the disabled, non white people, gay people.... there I've annoyed you by even mentioning them. Get a grip we're tough enough and many enough to extend generosity to all those that aren't.

Maybe, there is some truth in this, but I'd suggest the same applied to the likes of Ince, Barnes and co., who sometimes need to look a little closer to whom than blaming prejudice for their failings as coaches and managers.

 

[Therealwaldo]

There seems to be huge naivety in how the process of discrimination actually works. People often say that owners look like their dogs, they don't go out to buy a dog that looks like them but they see something familiar that draws them towards a particular dog quite sub consciously. When you interview you immediately feel if you have empathy with particular candidates. You are sub consciously deciding who you would want to work with and who you wouldn't. Whatever the empirical measures you have in place to select , you tend to be drawn towards those that you feel you have most in common with. It's a common problem that you have to guard against in the interview process. To deny it happens is stupid. The under representation of BME in any walk of life isn't conclusive evidence of discrimination but it's a bloody big clue. All the Rooney rule seeks to do is to make sure that this isn't a factor at the first stage, that of creating a shortlist. No one says that after that point you shouldn't choose the best person for the job on the basis of the criteria that you have established.

 

[jokerman]

Like attracts as someone said above.
The fact that this is so is bound up with wealth, power, and status in both simple and complex ways. Discrimination is real and it is usually, but not always, wrong. Mechanical fixes like affirmative action are of limited value. How do we know when we've done enough and can stop? How do we weigh the social justice they deliver against the individual injustice they cause? People differ on the price they are prepared to pay for social justice -primarily, but not entirely- in terms of how secure they feel and whether they are being asked to foot the bill themselves. I once lost out on a career and life changing job to a woman who was by any metric but one less qualified than me -she was a lesbian- and after several days of wriggling they decided they dared not hire her. Learning opportunity along "how does it feel?" lines, I suppose, but I learned other lessons too. Multiply that experience out and you can see how tricky trying to engineer a happier, fairer place can be.

 

[John_Knee]

Therealwaldo - 29/9/2017 12:07

When you interview you immediately feel if you have empathy with particular candidates. You are sub consciously deciding who you would want to work with and who you wouldn't. Whatever the empirical measures you have in place to select , you tend to be drawn towards those that you feel you have most in common with.

It's a common problem that you have to guard against in the interview process. To deny it happens is stupid. The under representation of BME in any walk of life isn't conclusive evidence of discrimination but it's a bloody big clue. All the Rooney rule seeks to do is to make sure that this isn't a factor at the first stage, that of creating a shortlist. No one says that after that point you shouldn't choose the best person for the job on the basis of the criteria that you have established.

While you aren't wrong in terms of the theory you have brought up, I do think you are massively, massively overstating the aspect of race. There are hundreds of little biases that people may have but race is not a dominant one that trumps all the rest except for a few openly racist people,

In the current year where most people have regularly worked with people of various shades of colour then most people really don't see any differences as human beings. In interviews, other biases tend to come into play more - if the person shares a similar sense of humour, if you mention a hobby that other people in the company enjoy, if the person is able to put a string of sentences together, if the person comes from a similar working class background (or both went to Eton as evident in politics) etc.

"The under representation of BME in any walk of life isn't conclusive evidence of discrimination but it's a bloody big clue" - depending on the "walk of life" then BMEs may be over represented and if they are over represented in one area of life then it goes to follow that they will be under represented in another. The fact BMEs might be under represented in one area is not evidence of discrimination - you would need to look at how many BMEs apply for a start. It is as per STEM - if only 20% of applicants are women then how can you actually get a 50%-50% gender split?

The theory is nothing new but yet you make it seem as if only enlightened people as yourself are aware of it.

Incidentally, it seems as if 75% of American footballers are of African American descent - is there some sort of anti-white subconscious bias discrimination happening??

 

[ThreeSixes]

MedwayModernist - 29/9/2017 09:57

and then have the (frankly) brighter people here picking (the many many many) holes in your argument, rather than the other way around.

Wasn't how this thread turned out in the end, was it?

 

[Wayne.Kerr]

I think the 75% figure emphasises the state of affairs where so few go on to take coaching jobs etc.

 

[John_Knee]

According to US figures, in 2016 Black Americans accorded for 13.3% of the population....

Just to confirm that black americans making up around 68%** of American Footballers when black people make up circa 13% of the national population is perfectly acceptable and there is no anti-white bias in play? Ditto with basketball where 75% of players are black***...

Will you be able to confirm Wayne how many of those black players want to go into coaching?



** this figure is from http://heavy.com/sports/2014/09/what-percentage-of-nfl-players-are-black-white/
*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_NBA - see link to notation 2 for source file.

 

[jogills]

jogills - 29/9/2017 10:24

Move on from that and we have to imagine a situation where the minority candidate is the worst yet has to be interviewed.


But that's the Rooney rule!?

"The four clubs, who are currently looking for a new manager, have, or will, interview at least one candidate from a black, Asian or ethnic minority background".

No it isn't the Rooney rule. And yes you are still assuming that black candidates are probably none existent, or dud and that the dud ones will have to be given an interview. Nonsensically untrue and henceforth named the ThreeSixes rule.

John Knee you have gone off on a number of oblique tangents again but I will keep trying. No one has said that no white man has ever been discriminated against but when were you last discriminated against purely on the basis of your skin colour? There is every evidence that there are plenty of black candidates wishing to coach and manage; they keep telling us so. They keep telling us that they rarely even get shortlisted for interview too.

 

[Gills1958]

Well said jogills but you are wasting your time with JK. He doesn't mean any harm but simply doesn't"get it".

 

[ThreeSixes]

jogills - 29/9/2017 19:26




No it isn't the Rooney rule. And yes you are still assuming that black candidates are probably none existent, or dud and that the dud ones will have to be given an interview. Nonsensically untrue and henceforth named the ThreeSixes rule.
.

You still have haven't got the hang of quoting have you? Try and keep the "QUOTE" at the beginning and the end in the brackets.

I'm not assuming anything, certainly not that the BAME (not just black) candidates are duds. If however the BAME applicant was one of the stronger candidates, and would have got an interview anyway, then the Rooney rule is irrelevant. It only becomes relevant where there is a "suitable" BAME candidate that wouldn't have got an interview otherwise. A similarly qualified white manager wouldn't get an interview in the same circumstances, due to the colour of his skin. I don't it's right that someone has less opportunity than someone else due to their ethnicity, if you do we'll have to disagree (again) . It makes a change for you to be the racist though!

 

[jogills]

But you are assuming. How on earth can you say whether any of the candidates is strong, or weak. How can we know that the Ronney rule is irrelevant. We certainly cannot know that he, or she would have got an interview whatever their credentials. That's the whole point but of course if you start from the faith that there is no racism, implicit or explicit then you can just keep repeating the catechism.

I am not aware that I have ever called anyone racist on this board.

" You still have haven't got the hang of quoting have you? Try and keep the "QUOTE" at the beginning and the end in the brackets. "

Do you mean brackets, or speech marks. Whichever it's pretty weak stuff much like your whole output on this thread.

 

[SteveTreacle]

jogills - 29/9/2017 23:13
But you are assuming. How on earth can you say whether any of the candidates is strong, or weak. How can we know that the Ronney rule is irrelevant. We certainly cannot know that he, or she would have got an interview whatever their credentials. That's the whole point but of course if you start from the faith that there is no racism, implicit or explicit then you can just keep repeating the catechism.

Equally, how can you know that a black manager who hasn't got a job or been shortlisted has got the credentials? In any other walk of life, if you are making a serious claim - whether specific or generic - it has to be proven and supported by clear evidence. These claims from black managers haven't been substantiated by anything concrete - other than that they didn't get a job and throwing stats and figures out there.

It's funny that PC and race crusaders look at the black manager stats and automatically come to the assumption, there is something wrong, racist and it needs changing. However, if you look at the stat of over-representation of black players when compared to society (something like 33% compared to 8%) or as John Knee says (around 75% to 12% in the us), this over-representations would be put down to black players being better than their white equivalent. I don't doubt that, and would apply the same philosophy in reverse to managers. As I say, I think analysis of stats is not sufficient evidence in itself and it is just a way of the pc and race crusaders like Jason Roberts to push a weak case that they know the establishment and most of football are afraid to stand up and challenge because of the pc society we live in.