Rooney Rule

I can see where this rule may be needed. Even if the people appointing wouldn’t consider themselves racist, they may still choose not to interview a BAME candidate for a variety of conscious or subconscious biases.

Say they’ve got 2 identical CVs handed in, exact same experience, qualifications, everything, but they only have space to add 1 more interviewee to their group. One has the name ‘Stephen’ at the top and one has ‘Mohammed’. The person interviewing may decide to go with Stephen as they think it will be the safest option. They may worry about Mohammed’s fluency in English or if he might have a strong accent that could be embarrassing for them if they struggle to understand him at an interview. They may worry he is religious and that his possible praying or fasting schedule could interfere with his job/that social outings may be awkward as the rest of the staff like a drink or two. They may not have any worries about him whatsoever but know that Alan who they already employ is a bit of a racist and it may become awkward if they work together. They know that they should discipline Alan but he’s a good worker otherwise who they don’t want to lose and they could just avoid the situation and not rock the boat.

All of those thoughts could make them choose Stephen to interview based on his perceived nationality, religion and skin colour. However, if they interview Mohammed they may find out that he speaks perfect English, he seems like he would get on with anyone and based on his telling of his previous work experience, his religion (if he has one) has clearly never been a problem. You can tell that he will eat Alan for breakfast and realise that it might actually be nice for Alan to be taken down a peg or two. Now that you’ve met Mohammed you realise he would be perfect for the job but you probably wouldn’t have interviewed him without this rule.

 

Open question to everyone criticising this, if there wasn't a problem then how come the Rooney rule saw a significantly increase in BAME coaches in America? And why do you think everything (or anything) is different here despite all the evidence of under-represention to the contrary?

 

Equally by giving Mohammed the opportunity instead of Stephen for fear of discrimination or a ‘rule’ you may miss out on the best candidate that ever lived.

 

Completely different because the black coaches were waiting for the opportunity in numbers whereas they are not in football.
The ratio of BAME taking coaching badges is virtually none existent, that is the real issue that needs addressing.
But of course it’s Chicken and Egg, some will argue players won’t train cos there’s no point others will say you need this rule to encourage.

 

I think your last point sums it up perfectly, it's about culture change and people believing there is the opportunity. Just like when they used positive discrimination to open up the foreign office intake from a closed shop for ex public school pupils to ensure a better representation of the population. Before that state school and non-Oxbridge kids wouldn't have bothered applying.

Just to add, as noted elsewhere, this is only guaranteeing an interview for those with the appropriate qualifications, not those without and it is not giving them the job - just the opportunity to be considered.

 

Couple of stats for you on subject which are interesting:
BAME representation by %*
British Population 14%
Professional Footballer 25%
Coaching positions 3%(19out of 552)
Qualified coaches 6%

So 50% of qualified coaches are employed.
*Figures may not be 100% accurate now but will be close

 

But that doesn't answer my point, if anything it reinforces it

 

I wasn’t disagreeing with you(or agreeing). Just found the stats interesting.
Equally in the same report it suggested a large issue was actually that clubs actively identify players to ‘ sponser’ to put through their badges but generally select white players.
Quote:
Misplaced cultural perceptions with regard to the aspirations, attitudes, behaviours and intellectual capacities of BME coaches to successfully coach in the professional game

 

Wife interviewed at work recently and was told by her director to set the asian girl on rather than the white lad who she felt was better for the job. She daren't say anything as its very pc at her place. This is where we’re at in many walks of life not just football, we even get diversity surveys from some of our clients at my work (quarrying) as they won’t award contracts to firms without an ethnically diverse workforce. I’m all for giving folk an opportunity but these kind of things are just wrong.

 

Isnt that going to be the case though?

Where does it say the best person for the job shouldnt get the job.

What is the confusion?

 

Yes but if they are interviewing, say, 5 people then Mohammed wasn’t going to be interviewed no matter what because of the reasons listed above but Stephen still had a 1 in 4 chance of being chosen for an interview with that company. Mohammed had zero prior to the rule.

 

This scenario doesn't really work in football though because the chances are that the employer will already know who "Stephen" and "Mohammed" are.