Racism in Football

[red g]

I don't know if that's true. It would probably mean that Paul Ince will be interviewed for every job.

and God forbid Garth Crooks decided to give it a go.

[dww]

That's not the way to readdress the balance imo. All that will do is increase tensions. The best applicants should get an interview, regardless of skin colour. I find what they're suggesting to be hypocritical really.

Regarding point 4, I think it's short sighted. If there are less black coaches in the game than white coaches, that doesn't neccessarily mean there's evidence of inequality. There are all sorts of reasons as to why that might be the case. And it works both ways. If there was suddenly a surge in black coaches, that wouldn't mean that inequality had been addressed. Ultimately, I don't think these figures alone will give an accurate picture.

I think people are far too worried about what might be termed 'positive discrimination'. All this regulation is enforcing is that people are on interview lists - that doesn't guarantee a job but does make people investigate candidates away from the pool that is currently over represented. How do you pre-screen candidates for interview - many people in HR industries admit it is a pretty random process which to me suggests that it is easily open to subconscious prejudices.

I don't think monitoring has to be as simplistic as you imply. However, I do think that lower than expected numbers should be justified. There may well be reasonable explanations for discrepancies (posh white boys from public schools are under represented in the PL as they all play cricket and Rugby for example ).

[cream]

I agree with you.

One other thing number 6, there is nothing in here covering "role reversal" for instance being called a "****ing white cunt" The new rules and regulations should be to protect all

Surely, that is covered by pointy 5 ?

[kris90210]

I think people are far too worried about what might be termed 'positive discrimination'. All this regulation is enforcing is that people are on interview lists - that doesn't guarantee a job but does make people investigate candidates away from the pool that is currently over represented. How do you pre-screen candidates for interview - many people in HR industries admit it is a pretty random process which to me suggests that it is easily open to subconscious prejudices.

Regardless, there will always be a cap on the number of people who are interviewed. Someone who is potentially better suited for the job could be declined for interview just because there has to be room for some token black guy, and to me that is utterly wrong. What's next? There has to be an Asian interviewed? There has to be a woman interviewed? I don't agree with positive discrimination at all. Any form of discrimination is a bad thing in my book.

I don't think monitoring has to be as simplistic as you imply. However, I do think that lower than expected numbers should be justified. There may well be reasonable explanations for discrepancies (posh white boys from public schools are under represented in the PL as they all play cricket and Rugby for example ).

Hopefully it won't be. I was just going from the point on the list.

[Assassin]

Surely, that is covered by pointy 5 ?

Pointy 5 covers pelanties for racial abuse

Pointy 6 should be all inclusive of sexual persuasion, race, creed, skin pigment, gender, disabilities, etc..... Currently it is not

[dww]

I think in some sense everyone agrees that positive discrimination is a sub-optimal solution but we live in an imperfect world. The nature of the list of people is a genuine issue but I suspect one that decent wording and some good will can solve. I don't really see that it is beyond the wit of man to increase the list of interviewees by one on occasion if necessary for the greater good.

I think you have to look at it in terms of the fact that we have imperfect ideas of how good people are. If there is a systematic flaw in that process that works against someone then the sensible thing is to try a systematic correction. Ideally in the end a new state of the world/system should emerge and we can get rid of the previously necessary corrective measures.

[kris90210]

I think in some sense everyone agrees that positive discrimination is a sub-optimal solution but we live in an imperfect world. The nature of the list of people is a genuine issue but I suspect one that decent wording and some good will can solve. I don't really see that it is beyond the wit of man to increase the list of interviewees by one on occasion if necessary for the greater good.

I think you have to look at it in terms of the fact that we have imperfect ideas of how good people are. If there is a systematic flaw in that process that works against someone then the sensible thing is to try a systematic correction. Ideally in the end a new state of the world/system should emerge and we can get rid of the previously necessary corrective measures.

That doesn't sit comfortably with me. It's tokenism, and doesn't address the issue of equality. I think it demeans it. I can't imagine there are many black coaches out there who would be comfortable with the knowledge that the only reason they got an interview was because they are black. And if you start increasing the list by 1, where does it stop? As I said, should there be an Asian interviewed as well? How about a woman? It sets a rather dangerous precident.

Make it simple. The most suitable candidates get interviews - regardless of skin colour. If it's found that this is not happening then that should be dealt with, but this isn't the way.

[dww]

That doesn't sit comfortably with me. It's tokenism, and doesn't address the issue of equality. I think it demeans it. I can't imagine there are many black coaches out there who would be comfortable with the knowledge that the only reason they got an interview was because they are black. And if you start increasing the list by 1, where does it stop? As I said, should there be an Asian interviewed as well? How about a woman? It sets a rather dangerous precident.

Make it simple. The most suitable candidates get interviews - regardless of skin colour. If it's found that this is not happening then that should be dealt with, but this isn't the way.

I'm not sure it is tokenism if the interview is taken seriously. The problem seems to me to be with the rigid idea of needing to have N candidates - if you get M > N sufficiently qualified candidates why eliminate one for no reason? Surely a justifiable minimum criteria for qualification which would exempt you from needing to include pure token candidates would be fine? Whilst it could in theory set a dangerous precedent evidence from similar schemes seems to suggest that it actually works quite well in practice.

I think the problem is that defining 'the most suitable' is often hard and always subject to individual biases. How do you go about finding out if this is happening or not? Especially if the prejudice is not necessarily overt?

[kris90210]

I'm not sure it is tokenism if the interview is taken seriously. The problem seems to me to be with the rigid idea of needing to have N candidates - if you get M > N sufficiently qualified candidates why eliminate one for no reason? Surely a justifiable minimum criteria for qualification which would exempt you from needing to include pure token candidates would be fine? Whilst it could in theory set a dangerous precedent evidence from similar schemes seems to suggest that it actually works quite well in practice.

I think the problem is that defining 'the most suitable' is often hard and always subject to individual biases. How do you go about finding out if this is happening or not? Especially if the prejudice is not necessarily overt?

The point is, where does it stop? What if you could have L > M good candidates. Ultimately, whatever the figure is the interview panel is going to have to add +x to account for all the minority groups that we're positively discriminating in favour of. Unless of course there happens to be an outstanding black (or other minority group) candidate who gets an interview because that person genuinely stands out - which is EXACTLY as it should be.

What if there is a lack of minority group candidates that match the minimum justifiable criteria? It seems to me, you have to overlook that and shoehorn them in just to give the impression that equality is being achieved. It's a bull**** illusion imo.

Defining 'the most suitable' should be left in the hands of those people who actually have to deal with the consequences of working with the person who is employed. Call me an optimist, but I like to think that most people are not inherently racist in this country, and would not discriminate against a black person if they were an outstanding candidate for a job. Obviously, there are occasions when this doesn't happen, and that's terrible. But this is not how to fix that.

Like I said, make it simple. The best candidates are interviewed, regardless of skin colour. That, by definition, is equality. And that's what we should be striving for here.

[BillobShaisley]

I tend to fnd most of the people worried about positive descrimination are the ones worried about having to compete fairly against poeple they've traditionaly been given an unfair advantage over.

Many things have resonance, or spiral, in that an early descepancy then influences every stage of the future. So first that black players are only good athletes and couldn't coach, then that they might be ok as a coach but dont have the skills to be managers etc etc etc. It becomes a self fullfilling prophecy.

It is only when a huge effort is put into to overcome the inertia or momentum that things can then quite quickly start to find their natural balance. It's interesting that you assume all these potential balck interviewees are only tokens. They couldn't possibly be a representative number of actual viable candidates for the post, could there?

[BillobShaisley]

That doesn't sit comfortably with me. It's tokenism, and doesn't address the issue of equality. I think it demeans it. I can't imagine there are many black coaches out there who would be comfortable with the knowledge that the only reason they got an interview was because they are black. And if you start increasing the list by 1, where does it stop? As I said, should there be an Asian interviewed as well? How about a woman? It sets a rather dangerous precident.

Make it simple. The most suitable candidates get interviews - regardless of skin colour. If it's found that this is not happening then that should be dealt with, but this isn't the way.

Any suggestions about what the way is? Or about what we do while we wait for a better way to be identified?

[BillobShaisley]

The point is, where does it stop? What if you could have L > M good candidates. Ultimately, whatever the figure is the interview panel is going to have to add +x to account for all the minority groups that we're positively discriminating in favour of. Unless of course there happens to be an outstanding black (or other minority group) candidate who gets an interview because that person genuinely stands out - which is EXACTLY as it should be.

What if there is a lack of minority group candidates that match the minimum justifiable criteria? It seems to me, you have to overlook that and shoehorn them in just to give the impression that equality is being achieved. It's a bull**** illusion imo.

Defining 'the most suitable' should be left in the hands of those people who actually have to deal with the consequences of working with the person who is employed. Call me an optimist, but I like to think that most people are not inherently racist in this country, and would not discriminate against a black person if they were an outstanding candidate for a job. Obviously, there are occasions when this doesn't happen, and that's terrible. But this is not how to fix that.

Like I said, make it simple. The best candidates are interviewed, regardless of skin colour. That, by definition, is equality. And that's what we should be striving for here.

How do you explain Roy Hodgson?

[BillobShaisley]

How outstanding should you have to be to get an interview for a job managing Hereford or Ipswich? If you have all your badges, how do you prove your worth unless you get a role and how do you get a role withou an interview?

[dww]

The point is, where does it stop? What if you could have L > M good candidates. Ultimately, whatever the figure is the interview panel is going to have to add +x to account for all the minority groups that we're positively discriminating in favour of. Unless of course there happens to be an outstanding black (or other minority group) candidate who gets an interview because that person genuinely stands out - which is EXACTLY as it should be.

What if there is a lack of minority group candidates that match the minimum justifiable criteria? It seems to me, you have to overlook that and shoehorn them in just to give the impression that equality is being achieved. It's a bull**** illusion imo.

Defining 'the most suitable' should be left in the hands of those people who actually have to deal with the consequences of working with the person who is employed. Call me an optimist, but I like to think that most people are not inherently racist in this country, and would not discriminate against a black person if they were an outstanding candidate for a job. Obviously, there are occasions when this doesn't happen, and that's terrible. But this is not how to fix that.

Like I said, make it simple. The best candidates are interviewed, regardless of skin colour. That, by definition, is equality. And that's what we should be striving for here.

I don't think anyone seriously disagrees with the last statement as the goal. It is more a disagreement about the means to an end.

I think in general as a middle class white man I enjoy a lot of institutionalised advantages. I tend to see positive discrimination as a levelling of the playing field rather than an unreasonable advantage being handed to other people.

There are a lot of practical issues about the case and I guess the idea that such changes might be seen as demeaning is something that must be considered. I'd have to say that I'm not in the group of people really capable of having a valid opinion on the later issue and how people would weigh it against the potentially improved opportunities.

[Alex]

If there was an incentive for a black manager to get interviews, there would be more incentive to become a manager in the first place. Does it not seem odd that in the whole football league there is 1 or 2 black managers. That's hardly representative of society is it?