Coaching Staff diversity?
I know this won't be a popular post, but so far the coaching staff hires have been with the exception of Fred Jackson all white. I just want the best coaching staff but I think part of that is diversity. There is two slots left to go and I fully expect at least one hire to be a minority. This has to be brought up in sport dominated by minority athletes but minority coaches have a very hard time breaking in.
January 19th, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^
Ironically there's some evidence that says black head coaches are promoted too quickly, I think in Charlie's case he held out for a BCS level job. I know nothing about the subject but I a guessing the dearth of candidates for jobs goes deeper to the Grad Asst. level. I wasn't trying to pretentious with the post, just seemed like something worth pondering. I guess I should've just made another post about Kris Frost committing to Auburn or how great Greg Mattison is.
January 19th, 2011 at 10:14 AM ^
No. I am not kidding you. It should never be more complicated than the person being good at what they do.
January 19th, 2011 at 11:52 AM ^
And true love should always win in the end.
January 19th, 2011 at 8:21 AM ^
January 19th, 2011 at 1:05 AM ^
Way to bring down the mood of the board. I was having so much fun reading all open threads tonight.
Like someone said it is not exclusionary hiring.
January 19th, 2011 at 1:07 AM ^
Derrell Revis named Michigan's DB's coach, will begin duties after his season ends...
/s
Seriously though, I don't care if they're black, white, blue (scratch that, I want them to be blue), or orange, as long as they win. The more people keep bringing race into everything, the more of a division it becomes.
January 19th, 2011 at 1:07 AM ^
national championship rings here, super bowl rings there
Michigan knows diversity
January 19th, 2011 at 1:09 AM ^
"Sir, no offense, but I don't think you're the right color to be coaching me."
*bling bling*
"Nevermind. Where do I sign?"
January 19th, 2011 at 1:08 AM ^
January 19th, 2011 at 1:08 AM ^
Where are the Hokemaniac T-shirts in the mgostore? Somebody is slacking...
January 19th, 2011 at 1:10 AM ^
I vote we keep the good times rolling by neg banging wesq( Polly piss pants) as a group and posting more happy cat pics!! haha
January 19th, 2011 at 1:21 AM ^
Says the guy with 11 points!
HA. BOOM MGoRoasted.
January 19th, 2011 at 1:24 AM ^
Ha Hey man, up to 13 now. I'm pretty sure they start you with 0 right? Rich Rod would agree that I'm making progress. haha
January 19th, 2011 at 8:24 AM ^
the process? Which is better?
January 19th, 2011 at 10:36 AM ^
Son, back in my day they didn't have your fancy mgopoints. We posted on haloscan, and we liked it!
January 19th, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^
Even if you're only 13, which is a distinct possibility, you're still a fucking moron.
January 19th, 2011 at 1:11 AM ^
Personally, I don't think there are enough Pacific Islanders on the staff. Imagine the type of recruits we could get if we had a couple.......
January 19th, 2011 at 1:13 AM ^
Dont even get me started about the Asian recruits we are missing out on...
January 19th, 2011 at 1:15 AM ^
Taking the right angles would never be a problem for our DBs again!
January 19th, 2011 at 1:46 AM ^
Its funny because its racist...
January 19th, 2011 at 1:15 AM ^
someone get on the phone with Niumatalolo stat!
January 19th, 2011 at 1:14 AM ^
Troy Polamalu can coach everything forever!
January 19th, 2011 at 1:14 AM ^
Any possibility Mattison has some Bolivian in his blood. Seems pretty diverse in my opinion...
January 19th, 2011 at 1:26 AM ^
I could have sworn that I heard somewhere that men should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Not sure where, but I'm pretty certain I've heard that... Whoever said that sure deserves a holiday in their honor, because that is a great idea! So yeah, how about we focus on Michigan hiring the best coaches possible, regardless of whether they are white, black, purple or orange and not the best coach that is white or black or purple or orange...
January 19th, 2011 at 1:32 AM ^
Content of character and the ability to coach M athletes to beat State and OSU consistently.
January 19th, 2011 at 8:59 AM ^
Ah. So what you're saying is, Dr. King would favor institutional racism.
January 19th, 2011 at 10:09 AM ^
No I don't think that's what he said. How does this :
So yeah, how about we focus on Michigan hiring the best coaches possible, regardless of whether they are white, black, purple or orange
equal institutional racism? Best ____ possible regardless of skin color is the definition of race blind and merit based.
January 19th, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^
I can't wait to hear your explanation of this one...
January 19th, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^
Do some reading on MLK, and let me know what his positions were on oh, I don't know, affirmative action. Let me know what you find out.
January 19th, 2011 at 12:32 PM ^
I've done plenty of reading on MLK and I understand what you're getting at (although it's not proper to ask what MLK's position on "affirmative action" was since the term didn't exist until after his death). It's well known that he didn't necessarily believe in "equality" as most people would conceive of that term. He believed, in basic terms, in a theory that was more or less that equality requires preferential treatment to compensate for past wrongs (e.g. "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro" to compete on a just and equal basis."). That's fine that he believed that and I understand the theory well. The problem, however, is that the vast majority of people don't understand his "content of character" words to mean that. So, yes, I agree that most people understand MLK's philosophy of equality incorrectly, but he was a very smart man who knew that extrapolating further in that speech to more fully explain his view that equality requires preferrential treatment was never going to work. That speech was intentially vague in that regard. It spoke to different people in different ways, depending on what they subjective knew and what they subjectively thought he meant. That decision turned out to certainly undercut his philosophy of "equality means preferrential treatment" but, as I said, he was a very smart man and it's literally not possible to believe that he wouldn't have known that would happen. I would suggest that was because he knew that the "equality means preferrential treatment" was a stop along the way toward "equality means equality" which would occur over time (which, of course, begs the question of how do you evaluate when that actually occurs). That's really the true beauty, and the lasting value, of those words in the "Dream" speech. It doesn't belong to just one segment of America; it belongs to all of America and aims toward a point in time when equal really means equal.
January 19th, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^
Your theory is that King intentionally crafted his speech so that it would be "subjectively interpreted" in ways contrary to his own political belieffs? I'm not sure exactly how one might measure equality, but it's pretty difficult to find any kind of metric that doesn't show a marked disparity between white and black people in America. Keeping things limited to the original topic, there certainly appears to be a disconnect between white and black football coaches, which, in the context of those other disparate metrics, speaks to the continued salience of racism. So even if your theory is correct, I don't think that the "equality means equality" threshold would have been crossed for MLK or any other interested observer.
Just because the majority of people misinterpret something doesn't mean the original intent changes. That's strange logic.
January 19th, 2011 at 4:10 PM ^
Your theory is that King intentionally crafted his speech so that it would be "subjectively interpreted" in ways contrary to his own political belieffs?
No, that's not what I meant. Sorry if it read that way. What I was meaning to say was that the intentional vagueness of his message (I'm sure we can agree on that, right?) was designed to achieve different goals. He could have been more overt with his philosophy, but then the speech would have resonated with a much smaller audience, but it would have represented his philosophy more clearly. Instead, he went with the more vague statement of his philosophy, which resonated with more people, and allowed people to draw their own conclusions about what he meant. That seems to be the far more wise approach, because the people that knew what he meant already knew what he meant. It's not that it would be subjectively interpreted in a manner contrary to his own political beliefs, but rather it had meaning on two different levels (i.e. equality with special preference in the short term with equality without special preference as the long term goal). You are certainly correct that the idea of affirmative action was part of his philosophy, but he didn't say that in the "Dream" speech (you'd have to go to his other speeches and writings to find that).
I'm not sure exactly how one might measure equality, but it's pretty difficult to find any kind of metric that doesn't show a marked disparity between white and black people in America.
True, BUT it is also pretty difficult to find any kind of metric that doesn't show marked improvement between white and black people in America, as well. I don't know where you live, but where I live that's certainly the case.
Just because the majority of people misinterpret something doesn't mean the original intent changes. That's strange logic.
No doubt. That DEFINITELY wasn't what I was saying. Just like interpreting the the language he chose in that speech to necessarily include affirmative action principles is a misinterpretation.
By the way, thank you for the good insight and discussion on this. You're definitely quite knowledgeable on this subject, as opposed to some who just bring their opinion and personal biases to the table in these types of discussions. The way I look at it, it's always fine to disagree, so long as it's done from a position of honesty and reason.
January 19th, 2011 at 2:07 AM ^
Just hire my avatar to be the waterboy and we'll have most of the colors covered.
January 19th, 2011 at 2:10 AM ^
No diversity. All W's. Win, win, win, win,win win, win, win. That's what matters. Stick with the guys that work.
January 19th, 2011 at 2:23 AM ^
Only 8 wins? Someone is setting pretty low standards. This IS Michigan!!!
January 19th, 2011 at 2:17 AM ^
Peyton Hillis just informed me that there needs to be a diversity check at the NFL rb spot as well, just hire the best coaches possible.
January 19th, 2011 at 2:18 AM ^
I love the Mattison hire, but I agree there should be more of an effort to include minority candidates in the coaching search. I'm not surprised most of you guys posting here don't see lack of diversity as a problem.
January 19th, 2011 at 2:20 AM ^
I think its a huge problem. Whites are WAY underrepresented among cfb players, as are latinos, mainland asians and middle easterners.
But what do you think we should do about it?
January 19th, 2011 at 8:19 AM ^
He didn't say blacks, he said minorities...you know, which includes latinos, mainland asians, and middle easterners. It's funny how the OP didn't say blacks (he only said minorities), but yet everyone cut him down as if he said blacks only.
For me...I really don't care what color they are, just hire the right coaches for the job!!!
GO BLUE!!!
January 19th, 2011 at 9:01 AM ^
In that case, whats the problem? Most of our staff is "minorities" - theyre white
Context is key - in this context minority = black.
January 19th, 2011 at 2:47 AM ^
Right now, Michigan needs to assemble a winning staff.
With the current state of our program, we don't really have the luxury of being able to make sure our staff closely mirrors the racial makeup of college football. Coach Hoke needed/needs to hire people that he knows will come in here and succeed, and doesn't necessarily have time to evaluate and interview people from a pool of targeted minority candidates. If he personally knows minority coaches that he believes are good enough for the staff, he will hire them.
Race should in no way, shape, or form be the deciding factor on whether to hire someone though. That just isn't right.
January 19th, 2011 at 2:50 AM ^
"Race should in no way, shape, or form be the deciding factor on whether to hire someone though. That just isn't right"
Everyone knows that the best way to fight perceived/actual racism is with racism.
January 19th, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^
OK.
You have three choices:
The giant pool of black ex-players has produced produced an incredibly small number of black head coaches because:
1) Blacks are fundamentally incapable of handling the duties of coaching. Whites make better coaches.
2) Blacks are, by and large, uninterested in coaching.
3) Institutional forces prevent blacks from being groomed for coaching jobs and being considered for said jobs while those who do rise to coordinator positions and position coaching are subject to a glass ceiling.
Those are really the only three possibilities and there's considerable evidence that the third one is the correct one. Like I said elsewhere in this post, we can see in the examples of Charlie Strong, who was explicitly informed that his being a black man (with a white wife) disqualified him from previous jobs, that there is often a glass ceiling for black coordinators. Meanwhile, we know that the Rooney Rule, which guarantees a minority interview (not job, just a fucking interview) has been an unmitigated success. Four of the past eight Super Bowl coaches have been black and half of the remaining coaches in play for this year's Super Bowl are black as well. There are plenty of blacks interested in coaching. Some are shitty coaches, some are great coaches. But the notion that the relative lack of black coaches at the college level is merely a matter of meritocracy is a white supremacist myth.
January 19th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that everything you've said here is in fact correct. What do you propose the solution be? Shall we start making every job everywhere exactly proportional to the racial mix of some population (because let's be honest, diversity only means race in most corners of this country)?
The University of Michigan Law School took a stroll down this road not too long ago, and you might recall what the Supreme Court thought about the idea.
January 19th, 2011 at 11:42 AM ^
Yes. I know what the right-leaning Supreme Court, as well as some of the former regents, had to say about that. I think it was the wrong decision.
But, anyhow, I think the Rooney Rule in the NFL is an excellent model, if I'm not sure about its applicability elsewhere. It doesn't guarantee quotas, which can be problematic, nor does it tolerate institutional racism; it acknowledges a problem. Its solution: at least one minority gets an interview for front office and head coaching positions. Not a job, just an interview. Sometimes it's a farce, for sure., and talented black coaches (or white coaches, lately) submit to a charade in which they pretend to be up for jobs, but even still it probably helps to provide them with interview experience and forces employers and the media to consider their credentials for the job. Like I wrote elsewhere, it's been an unmitigated success. It's to the point that we hardly think about a coach in the NFL being black and I, personally, no longer have a proclivity to hold my nose and root for Tony Dungy. The rule's only been in place since 2003 and since then, as I wrote elsewhere in this thread, black coaches have flourished.
January 19th, 2011 at 12:04 PM ^
Why would you muddy up the board with logic, when we all can just say that here on this perfectly level playing field of freedom and apple pie we call America, it don't matter whether you're black, white, brown or turquoise as long as you can teach the press technique. After all, the only thing MLK did that ever really mattered was to utter the "content of character" line in that one speech, which was clearly a rallying cry against affirmative action.
January 19th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
After all, the only thing MLK did that ever really mattered was to utter the "content of character" line in that one speech, which was clearly a rallying cry against affirmative action.
Clearly, you missed the "Happy MLK Day" post; he also once wrote in Ebony that he was against premarital sex. Someone thought that was really important for us to know.